1941-11-10

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	How many permits have been issued by the Minister of National Revenue for the importation into Canada of goods from Japan, the Japanese empire or Manchuria since the passing of order in council P.C. 7473?
2.	What was the nature of each commodity, the importation of which was provided for under such permit, and what was the total monetary value of the importation under each such permit?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


REFUNDS OR REMISSION OF CUSTOMS DUTY
Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	How many refunds or remissions of customs duty and taxes have been granted pursuant to order in council 86/7474?
2.	What is the total amount of such refunds or remissions?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Refunds 1; remissions 27.
2.	Refunds, $101.35. It is impossible to state the amount to be remitted until the articles
imported for temporary use are duly exported, inasmuch as the articles are in Canada for varying periods of time and the duty and taxes on a proportionate basis are collected monthly.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ADDRESSES OVER UNITED STATES SHORT WAVE STATIONS
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many addresses were contracted or arranged for by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over United States short wave radio stations during the year 1941, to the end of October?
2.	What amounts of money were paid by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for such short wave addresses to countries other than the United States during this period?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Six broadcasts in the series "Canada parle a la France" were broadcast over short wave station WRUL, Boston, during 1941 up to the end of October. Each broadcast contained addresses by three individuals.
2.	The cost of the necessary wire lines to the American border required to feed these programmes to short wave station WRUL has been $90. No fee was paid for the talks.


EXPORT OF STEEL SCRAP FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many permits for the export of steel scrap from the province of British Columbia were issued during the past five months, and for what tonnage in each case?
2.	To whom were these permits issued?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1. Sixteen permits were issued.
Date	Tonnage
July 28	 5,000
August 1	 1,500
August 1	 2,000
August 6	 5,000
August 14	 150
August 18	 250
August 27	 250
August 27	 6,000
September 3	 1,000
September 6	 100
September 16	 500
October 9	 200
October 16	 300
October 16	 1,500
October 31	 300
October 31	 6,000
2. It is contrary to government practice to table any information which would reveal the private business of individual concerns.
41%
Questions


SALVAGE CAMPAIGN-STEEL FROM SCRAP METALS
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	How many organizers have been appointed for the salvage campaign?
2.	What salary or allowance is being paid to each organizer?
3.	Is the Department of Munitions and Supply in need of the steel produced from the scrap metals so collected?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Six.
2.	Salary: 12,880 per annum.
3.	The chairman of the war-time industries control board and the steel controller, Department of Munitions and Supply, advise that scrap iron and steel in all forms is urgently required.


WAR-TIME MORATORIUM
Mr. CHURCH:: Will consideration he given to a national moratorium on all mortgages on lland, including homes and other buildings, under the War Measures Act, for the period of the wa r and two years thereafter on, (a) property owned or leased by civilians, (h) property owned or leased by members of His Majesty's forces?


Mr. ILSLEY:: This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not usual for the government to make statements on matters of policy in giving replies to questions.
PENSIONERS OF GREAT WAR NOW SERVING IN HIS majesty's FORCES


Mr. FAIR:: Does a pensioner from the last war who is now serving in his majesty's forces receive his full pension, as well as pay and allowances according to his rank?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Serving members of his majesty's forces receive any pension, payable under the provisions of the Pension Act, on account of a disability related to service in the last war.


TRADE WITH GERMANY, 1933-39
Robert Fair: What was Canada's balance of trade with Germany in the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Excess Imports
Calendar	for consumption (i)
Year	or Total Exports (e)
1933	
(e)	$ 705,7671934	
(i)	4,017,2891935	
(i)	6,084,1931936	
(i)	4,403,3881937	
(i)	183.9321938	
(e)	8,399,4461939	
(i)	1,053,542



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	In what city is the headquarters of the organization known as the "War-time Merchant Shipping Board"?
2.	What are the names of the directors and who is the chairman?
3.	How many offices have been set up by this organization and where is each located?
4.	What are the names of the staff and personnel connected with the War-time Merchant Shipping Board in, (a) Montreal; (b) Vancouver?
5.	What were the occupations of the directors and staff previous to their appointment or attachment to the said board?
6.	What has been the total expense to date of this board?


HOUSING PROJECTS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Howr many staff houses have been completed by War-time Housing Limited?
2.	How many people are housed in the staff houses?
3.	How many are employed on the staff of War-time Housing Limited and what, has been the cost of its administration to date?
4.	How many houses is it building in Wright-ville and what war industries are they to serve?
5.	What control has the Department of Finance over types of construction used?
6.	How much money will be required to complete war-time housing projects which will have been started by December 31, 1941?
7.	What is the total value of contracts awarded to Pigott Construction Company to date?



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-CROWN PROPERTIES


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For a return showing:-1. The total number of employees of the government of Canada, including employees of hoards and commissions, appointed by federal authority, as of the following dates, viz:-September 1, 1939; September 1, 1940; September 1, 1941; November 1, 1941.

Labour Conditions,
2.	The total amount of salaries, wages and allowances paid to such employees in each of the fallowing months, viz.:-August, 1939, August, 1940; August, 1941; October, 1941.
3.	The total number of employees who have been appointed since September 1, 1939 (a) for work not directly associated with the war; (b) for work directly associated with the war.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns after the finall sittings of the committee of the whole it stand adjourned until January 21, 1942, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, one or two questions were asked last week to which I promised to make reply at an early date. One was a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who in the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) drew my attention to a newspaper report of the internment of a native of Kitchener, named Harvey Murphy, as a communist. He asked whether in view of the fact that Russia is now our ally it is the intention of the government to continue with the arrest and internment of persons in this country because of membership in the communist party. I may say in reply to my hon. friend that the communist party was declared to be an illegal organization not because of any relationship to Russia, but because of its subversive attitude towards Canada's war effort. The entry of Russia into the war is therefore in itself irrelevant.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: A question was asked on Thursday last by the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. O'Brien) in reference to the movement of Canadian lumbermen to work in the Maine woods. My hon. friend asked why permits had been issued to these young men to cross the border, and what action would be taken to stop this drain on Canadian man-poiver. I informed my hon. friend the leader of the opposition on Friday that I would give later on a more detailed statement than it was possible to give at that time. The facts, I am informed, are as follows:
Some 4,400 lumbermen, living for the most part in villages along the Maine-Quebec border, have been permitted by the United States immigration authorities to enter the United States temporarily and under bond to work in the Maine woods during the next few months. In view of the bonded guarantees that the individuals concerned will return to Canada before March 1, 1942, the United States authorities have waived the usual passport and visa requirement for this seasonal border movement. No question therefore arose of issuing Canadian passports to the individuals concerned.
The lumbering operations in which these men are employed are essential for the manufacture of high quality alpha pulp required by the defence industries of the United Kingdom and the United States. A good proportion of the Canadian lumbermen whose temporary entry into the United States was permitted, subject to the above conditions, are cutting pulpwood which is floated back to Canada down the St. John river, for manufacture into alpha pulp for export to the United Kingdom. A substantial part of the United States output of this product is also under contract to the United Kingdom.
The men taking this winter employment in Maine are of course all subject, within their respective age groups, to the proclamations issued under the national war service regulations.
In reply to the second question, I might add that consideration is being given at the moment to the whole problem of border control, of which this particular movement is but one aspect.
419S
Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish again to ask the Prime Minister if he will at to-day's session allow a discussion of Department of Labour matters, provided that the Minister of Labour is later on present in the house. The strike vote at Kirkland Lake to which I referred on Friday was taken on Saturday; and I am informed that if negotiations looking to a settlement are not opened the men will strike on Wednesday or Thursday of this week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour has unfortunately been obliged to attend the funeral of one of the leading members of his department who passed away on Saturday and for that reason is not in the house at the moment. With respect to affording an opportunity for discussion when the minister comes in, I believe the house will wish me to hold to the arrangement as made and understood last week, namely that we take up a discussion of the subject-matter of the different reports that have been presented by the ministers in the order in which the reports themselves were presented. I would hope that the statement of the Minister of Labour will be reached either to-day or, at the latest, tomorrow.	*



PROCEDURE IN DISCUSSION OF MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL IC. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): On Friday afternoon the question arose of procedure in dealing with the statements of ministers on the war effort. I wish to call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that it is impossible to confine the discussion to one department alone. The activities of the departments are so intermingled that in response to a question bearing upon the affairs of one department the minister might well say, "That matter belongs to another department and will have to be answered by the minister of that department." So that you have to deal, in committee of the whole, with more than one department at a time.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that it is, I believe, understood that the chairman should afford to hon. members all reasonable latitude in the matter of discussion. But my hon. friend will realize that it is desirable to hold as far as we can to some order.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certain questions were
raised by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) and the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Harris) with respect to the special committee on war expenditures. I might give the house a brief statement as to how that matter stands and as to the powers of hon. members of the house to have a very full discussion with regard to these expenditures.
On June 10 last, the special committee on war expenditures was authorized by order of the house to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the house.
The committee met on July 7 and resolved itself into three subcommittees to inquire into various subjects, set out on page 549 of the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, November 3. These subcommittees sat for approximately seven weeks during July and August and held altogether eighty-three sittings and examined eighty-nine witnesses.
The reports of the subcommittees were carefully considered by the main committee, which agreed upon seven reports. These were all presented to the house on November 3.
In the fourth report the committee stated that in view of the importance and scope of the inquiry referred to the committee, it was recommended that the inquiry be continued and that for the said purpose, a committee be appointed at the next session.
With regard to the inquiry made by the hon. member for Yorkton, it should be pointed out that the government has no control over the committee which was appointed by the house and responsible to the house.
Furthermore, there is no need of extending the powers of the committee to enable it to investigate contracts let by the Department of Munitions and Supply. The committee has already the fullest possible powers in that regard. Indeed, there are no restrictions of any kind upon the powers of the committee to examine into any war expenditures. The whole field of inquiry into all war expenditures is open to the committee. It is, however, obvious that the committee cannot complete its examination into all subjects of inquiry at the same time.
An examination of the subjects of inquiry assigned to the various subcommittees will indicate that the committee has been concerning itself in the main with subjects relating to activities which have their origin in the several

Foreign Exchange
branches of the Department of National Defence. It might be noted that in respect of contracts let by the Department of Munitions and Supply, the latter department lets such contracts after it has received a contract demand from one of the Departments of National Defence. The committee has already made a considerable study of the operations of the Department of Munitions and Supply, but there is no doubt that a full inquiry into the subject of war contracts will be made by the committee when a new committee is established next session. The committee will be free to make the fullest possible examination into the subject of war contracts.
With regard to the questions of the hon. member for Danforth, it might be pointed out that subject to the arrangement that has been made between the leaders on both sides of the house, there is nothing in the way of procedure to restrict the right of any member to discuss the reports that were presented last Monday. It is suggested, however, that these reports are voluminous and contain a great many recommendations. It would seem desirable that there should be an opportunity of careful study of the recommendations by the departments concerned.
When the next session takes place it is the intention of the government, if the house agrees, to establish a committee to deal with the subject of war expenditures and on the motion made for the establishment of such a committee, there will be the fullest possible opportunity afforded to every member of the house who is interested in the subject of discussing the reports, the recommendations contained therein and indeed, the subject of economy in war expenditures in every possible phase. It would seem preferable that the debate on these reports should take place on such a motion.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: In view
of the publication of a letter from the Prime Minister in the Canada Gazette of October 25, 1941, informing the International Labour office at Montreal that they may transfer funds from their Canadian account to the United States without being subject to foreign exchange control regulations, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance if this covers Committee of Industrial Organization remittances between Canada and the United States? If so, are organizations of this type entitled to preferred treatment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind enough to send me a copy of the question but I did not receive it until I came into the house. He has referred to a letter published in the Canada Gazette, which was in the nature of a communication to the International Labour office at Montreal. That office, my hon. friend will realize, is an intergovernmental body, and such rights and privileges as it enjoys were accorded it on that ground. I cannot say offhand what the rules of the foreign exchange control board are with respect to remittances, and particularly those to which my hon. friend has referred, but I will give him an answer later on, unless my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) is in a position to make a statement at once.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It would be a good thing indeed if we could have some information with regard to the position of the foreign exchange control board as to the question raised by my colleague, namely, remittances from Canada to foreign organizations other than governmental bodies-I will not limit it to one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will find out about that. PENSIONS



QUESTION AS TO DECLARING NOVA SCOTIA A THEATRE OF WAR UNDER AMENDMENT ACT OF 1941

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. B. ISNOR (Halifax):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I sent a copy to his office. It is based on an observation which was made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services with regard to submarine attacks off Nova Scotia. In view of the danger of enemy attacks, has the government considered declaring the province of Nova Scotia a "theatre of war" as defined in Bill No. 17, "An act to amend the Pension Act"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer, in so far as anything decided up to the moment is concerned, is no. I may say to the hon. gentleman that the government has been giving the most careful consideration to everything pertaining to defence in the maritime provinces.
The War-Mr. Neill



THE WAR

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of the whole, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1941-Canada's war effort
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to bring before the committee a couple of matters, but before doing so I should like to go on record as registering my protest, which is all I can do at the present moment, against further restrictions on the rights of individual members by the announcement made last week that private members would not be allowed to follow the ordinary course in committee of the whole by moving motions or amendments, and so on. All of us, except the most recent members, are aware that in the course of the session we go into committee hundreds of times, and the procedure always is to discuss one specific item. We discuss a resolution on which some bill is to be founded, or we discuss the bill itself, and when we are in committee it is the option of anyone to move an amendment, to move to insert a new section, or anything of that kind.
I feel strongly tempted to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether there is anything before the committee now, and I rather think that if I did your answer would be no. It is well known that when the Speaker is in the chair, or when the chairman of committees is presiding, there must be something before the house or the committee, as the case may be. If there is nothing before the chair the presiding officer immediately turns to the leader of the government to ascertain the next order of business to which the house or the committee shall proceed, and when the order paper is exhausted the house must adjourn. That, however, has not been done on this occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend a moment? I think it was understood at the time, in fact it was specifically stated, that the course which the house was pursuing could be taken only by unanimous consent, and consent at the time was given by all present in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The whole thing is on the basis of consent.


Alan Webster Neill: The whole thing may have been intended to be on the basis of unanimous consent, but actually it was not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not intended but was.
IMr. Mackenzie King.}


Alan Webster Neill: I have before me Hansard in which the Prime Minister is reported. After certain remarks he said:
To that end I move, Mr. Speaker, that you do now leave the chair.
The procedure, when it is done by unanimous consent, is invariably for the member of the government making the motion to say, "By unanimous consent", and the Speaker then says, "By unanimous consent it is moved," etc. That was not done here, and I submit that there was no unanimous consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but if he will look over the earlier part of Hansard he will find that when the matter was discussed it was stated then that whatever was done would have to be done by unanimous consent, and I remember the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) making the observation that it would have to be by unanimous consent. The house concurred therein at the time. It was understood, before the Speaker even put the motion, that it would be passed only by unanimous consent.


Alan Webster Neill: I remember the leader of the opposition saying that it would have to be done by unanimous consent, but my submission is that it was not so done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did my hon. friend object?


Alan Webster Neill: Absolutely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not hear
him and he is not so recorded.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not object at that time because unanimous consent was not asked, and I must admit I was perhaps innocent in the matter; but I never dreamed for a moment that the ordinary procedure in committee would not be followed. I submit that we were to some extent led into a situation that has never happened before. However, I do not want to delay the committee or to argue about it. We are in a rather ridiculous position apart from being more or less unconstitutional. When we were young and went into the pantry we w'ere told by our mothers, "you may look but you must not touch." The position here is, "You may talk but you must not act." We shall be known as the parliament that did nothing and could do nothing.
The leader of the opposition the other day seemed to have the same idea, that everything was not according to Hoyle, when he said that members would be reduced to the position of a debating society. I differ with him in that regard; I think we are below the status of a debating society. In the debating

The War-Mr. Neill
society of our young days we used to meet to debate some very abstruse question, such as whether the pen was mightier than the sword. It might not have had any great effect on our day and generation but we did decide in favour either of the pen or of the sword. When the Ladies' Aid meet to discuss whether they shall lay down linoleum in the vicarage or in the manse, they come to some conclusion; they decide either to lay it down or not to lay it down. At any rate, they do something; they come to a definite decision. Never before have we been in such a situation as this and I cannot help asking myself why. Is the government afraid? What is it afraid of? Hon. gentlemen opposite have a huge and loyal majority behind them and if anyone moved a vote of want of confidence I am sure he would have the greatest difficulty in getting a member to second it. There is no question of defeating the government or of going to the country. What is the trouble? Is the Prime Minister afraid of private members? We are the representatives of the people of Canada. Already we have had cut off-and we all agreed to it in all loyalty-the opportunity of moving resolutions in this house during this session. We were told that it was necessary to save time. We agreed to that. Now we are to be allowed time but we must not have any action; we are not to take any action at all.
Now, dealing with the two matters I wanted to bring up, the first is the gasoline situation.' It is an illustration of the curious policies the government seem to adopt not only in this matter but in others; they begin by trusting the people too much and end by trusting them too little. The result is a middle-of-the-road wishy-washy policy that results in small achievement and a great deal of irritation. But in saying this I exempt the Minister of Finance. Anyone who listened to his very able speech the other night setting forth his policies must have realized that we were listening to a man of great ability. I congratulate him on having the brains to conceive such a policy and the courage to present it, a far-sighted, bold policy with great potentialities, I only hope that when it gets into the hands of the officials it will not be smothered in the red tape in which bureaucratic people always seem to love to envelop anything
As I say, the government started by trusting the people too much; they thought that if they told the people that gasoline restriction was necessary they would all voluntarily submit. But that turned out a complete failure. Then they went to the opposite extreme; they saw that compulsion was needed but they
got scared, thought the people would not accept the government's statement that it was necessary, and might be dissatisfied and express their dissatisfaction by their votes. So the matter was held off for months and much precious time was lost. The result of it all was a very small saving made by a very few instead of a large saving made by a great many people, and in addition there was a great deal of dissatisfaction and ill-will. The minister said the other day he thought they had done very well because in a certain month the restriction had produced, not a reduction in consumption, but a non-increase. That is, whereas the previous month's consumption had exceeded that of the corresponding month a year ago, this month it remained the same as the corresponding month last year. He thought that was substantial progress. Well, if the war situation needs gasoline-saving I think it is hardly satisfactory to record that we did not do any worse than a year ago. It reminds me of the man and woman who by dire necessity were compelled greatly to reduce their expenditure, and after much discussion and argument and a few tears they decided that the woman had to go without a sewing machine, whereupon the man went out and bought an expensive set of golf clubs, and the net result rvas that the common purse was no better off.
We have lost much precious time by following a circuitous route and have not got anywhere yet. They made a general appeal to the public and it proved to be as futile as any suggestion would be that we should pay our taxes without compulsion. Anyone with a knowledge of human nature would have expected just this. About ten per cent of the people-I do not give that as an exact figure, because I do not know, but a certain proportion, say ten per cent-can always be trusted to do the loyal, the right and the decent thing. Another ten per cent are so utterly and intensely selfish that they will do nothing that they are not compelled to do. It does not matter to them that they see their neighbours making the necessary sacrifice. In between there is the great mass, call them eighty per cent, who are anxious to do the right thing; they only need to be told, but they have a sense of fairness and proportion which causes them to say: "I am willing to do it, but it has to be done all round. I am not going to do it and see Tom Jones, who is better able to make the sacrifice, evading it." So the government saw that compulsion was necessary, but they were afraid the people would dislike it; therefore they adopted a middle-of-the-road policy, prohibited buying on Sundays and in the evenings. That smelt
The War

Mr. Neill

very strongly of discrimination, because we all know the rich man does not generally travel on Sundays. Sunday is the poor man's only opportunity of driving out with his family. It resulted in a few careless people being caught away from home without gasoline, but they soon learned to stock up on Saturday. Meantime it meant in some cases using more gasoline, because if a man got stuck ten miles from home he could not have gasoline sent out to him; he had to get a towing car sent out to bring him home, which meant a double trip and the use of more gasoline than if he had been allowed, perhaps on payment of an extra fee, to get an emergency supply.
There was no give and take whatever. I took it up with officials of the board in my district where men were working in a war production plant or a plant producing a product needed in the war. Naturally they wanted to go home Saturday nights, because there was not enough accommodation at the plant. They had to go about fifteen miles by water, did not get home until late Saturday night, and had to leave Sunday afternoon, consequently they could not get any gasoline at all. I suggested they might be allowed to get gasoline after hours on Saturday and Sunday, but I was told it could not be done, and the suggestions made to meet the situation were absolutely ridiculous. There was no provision to deal reasonably with an emergency.
Then the government, finding that policy was not successful, tried rationing the gasoline stations. As the minister himself said, this was at best a crude method. The obligation to restrict the sale of gasoline fell on the retailer. What would hon. members expect him to do? To say to the rich customer who wanted five gallons: "No, I will give you only two?" Then he would come back the next day and get more. Or was he to say to the rich man: "I will not give you any; I am going to keep it for this poor man who has to drive miles to work?" Where I live men, club together to drive ten miles to work; they cannot get accommodation where they work and they fill a car. One hon. member said he went to a gas station and was told the quota for the day was exhausted. But where I live they did not take that attitude. They said: "We are not going to make bad friends all round; we are going to sell gasoline to everyone who comes while we have it, and if towards the end of the month, say the 25th or 27th, there is none left, we will simply put up notices, "No More Gas." But what about a traveller or the head of a business, who is stuck fifty miles from the nearest town? What is he to do? He would have to send for a towing truck; would that save gasoline? Or

what about these men going to work; were they to remain idle three or four days at the end of the month? I have known of times when these "no gas" notices were up three or four days at the end of the month.
I took this up also, and was told I should appeal to their loyalty. I suggested that was an insult. People have no objection to gasoline restrictions; I have not heard one man object to the restriction, but everyone I spoke to objected to the foolish way in which it was done. That was the point. Provided the method was effective and universal everyone would have been satisfied. Some official told me that we must remember that a very considerable cost will be involved in printing these ration books. There is no doubt this would cost a good deal, but I remember January a year ago when a great deal of money was spent to bring four hundred people here for a three-hour session of parliament, after which we were sent home and an election was brought on, at enormous expense, though at that time it was not immediately essential. So that I do not think the question of expense should be considered so important.
This thing has been dragging on for fifteen months. It will be eighteen months before we are through with it. Until now we have had very little success, but at long last we are going to adopt the principle of compulsion, or should I use that dreadful and fateful word, "conscription", in the matter of gasoline. At last we are going to do something, and the government will find that the people will accept it if the scheme is effective and if it applies to all. The government can trust the people if they tell the absolute facts. Let me quote this sentence, without for the moment giving its source:
The people are not afraid of strong, effective, action-they want action. Listen to discussion in any public place in Canada to-day about the gasoline restrictions. People shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, if it is necessary, I suppose rve must have it." Then, in a burst of exasperation, they usually add, " But if rationing is necessary, in heaven's name why don't we have it without all this pussy-footing?" One minister of the crown says that the situation is "very, very serious." And on the street one hears, "All right, if it's as serious as that why don't they ration us: What are we waiting for?"
That does not come from the journal of the chamber of commerce, or anything like that; it is from the publication of a very prominent labour organization in Canada. That is the way they look at it.
I hope the rules governing this rationing, when they are made, will be just, and without too much red tape; and I hope provision will be made for prompt action in any real emergency. There is no such provision now.

The War-Mr. Neill
To-day if you need an emergency ration you have to communicate with Ottawa, which in my case is three thousand miles away. A woman waiting to go to a maternity hospital, or a man with a broken hip, has not time to communicate with Ottawa, particularly in view of the fact that if the emergency arises on a Saturday afternoon, no answer could be obtained until Monday or Tuesday. I hope there will be some local provision made to meet emergencies of this kind, perhaps through the chief of police or the local magistrate. These are responsible people, who would not abuse their power.
I also hope that local conditions will be taken into consideration when the actual rationing is put into effect; and above all I hope the government will remember that in British Columbia distances are much greater than in the thickly settled regions of the east, and make provision accordingly. And let the arrangements be made for some definite period, not just for a day, a week, or a month. At certain intervals I have occasion to take a trip of some two hundred miles. If I am limited to only a couple of gallons per day I cannot take that trip, but if I am rationed over some length of time I can arrange to save my gasoline when I know this trip has to be made.
There is one other point I should like to mention to the minister. I do not expect an answer at the moment, but perhaps he would be good enough to look into the matter and advise me later. Has he explored the possibility of using charcoal? I understand this has been tried in Australia, and I believe the cost of converting a car to use charcoal is not very considerable. The only trouble seems to be in making provision for stations to provide charcoal at suitable intervals. There is one other matter I should like to bring to his attention also. Australia has made a very full investigation of the possibility of producing alcohol from the refuse of sugar, molasses, wheat, and I think potatoes. They have found that they can produce an alcohol which can be mixed with ordinary gasoline in the ratio of twelve and a half gallons to twenty; and while the resulting mixture is a little more expensive than ordinary gasoline- and gasoline is very expensive in Australia anyway-they are going ahead with the proposition on a very considerable scale. We might be able to do something of the sort here.
There is another matter I wish to discuss, and I hope I will not be called to order. The hon. member for Parkdale was allowed to discuss it last Friday, and if he can discuss it surely I can discuss it also.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Before the hon. member
leaves the subject of rationing, may I ask this question; would not the arguments which he has advanced so splendidly, and with which I entirely agree, apply with equal force to the present method of securing recruits?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Going to ration
them, too?


Alan Webster Neill: I was going to deal with that point later, but in a general way I should say my answer is distinctly yes. I endorse everything the hon. member said, except that I would not limit it to compulsory service for men alone for overseas service; I would extend it to both men and women and for all war service. I would have it apply to everybody, and to every form of war work. Probably it would take quite a few men out of the army, men who would be far better in some civilian capacity, while it would put in the army other people better qualified for that kind of service.
I am not going to argue the need of conscription. The government have admitted it; the minister spoke of that need the other day. Innumerable resolutions have been sent to the government by the Canadian Legion, associated boards of trade, public meetings, and so on. I should like to read one such resolution which was passed in my own district, when the proclamation in connection with speeding up recruiting was read. Upon my soul, I honestly thought that proclamation was going to say the government had decided to come out for conscription, but when it was read it contained only a stereotyped appeal for recruits. Then and there that meeting passed the resolution I am about to read, and it was not the only gathering of the kind that unanimously adopted a resolution of this sort, though I believe at one meeting there was one dissenting voice. This is the resolution:
That this meeting of . . . citizens, having heard read the proclamation of the Hon. Mr. Ralston, Minister of Defence, do entirely endorse and support the appeal made for increased recruiting, but we are of the opinion that the needs of Canada and of the British empire today call for conscription of men and of money, and for control of industry.
Almost everyone who has been over to England and who has seen the conditions existing there comes back and talks along the same line. There was a very good article in the newspaper only the other day by Mr. Grattan O'Leary, the well-known journalist, who is a very able man. The Minister of National Defence knows it is necessary.
What I said about gasoline also applies in this case. There is a small percentage of our people who will go and do their duty if it is only hinted that their services are needed.
The War-Mr. Neill

There is another small percentage who will go only if they are forced to go. Then there is the huge majority who are anxious and willing to go but who will not go unless it is made universal, and I agree with them. Why should they go and make Canada safe for some foreigners who are taking their jobs while they are away? If paying taxes were made optional I would not pay a cent. I pay taxes now because I know it is universal, and everyone is treated in the same way. Increase taxes if necessary; I will not object. Have forced loans if necessary, as was proposed in Australia; they will apply to all. After all, what does conscription mean? It means that we must all do our best, according to our ability, for the common good. That is loyalty; that is democracy; that is necessity and above all it is plain common sense. It is not patriotism; it is common sense, because if Germany wins what are our bonds or properties worth? If Germany wins we will not talk about liberties, because the liberties will be non-existent. Universal service will take many men out of jobs that could be handled by women; and government control, if it took active, vigorous steps, could release many more men.
Go round this town-it is a comparatively small one-and count the number of milk routes. Count how many milk men go into any one apartment house. There may be fifteen or more, when one would do the work equally well-and a great deal cheaper. Look at the delivery trucks operated by gasoline and driven by men-sometimes two men- which have to go a quarter of a mile to deliver a pound of butter to some careless housewife who did not think of getting butter until an hour before meal time.
All these things could be applied to release an enormous number of men for service, universal service-I do not say overseas service, necessarily, because many men are needed in industry. There is universal service in England, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, but not in Canada. Why not? The anti-British element in the United States, the Lindberghs, are taking advantage of the situation, and are pointing out that while they are being conscripted Canadians are not.
At present we have in Canada a large standing army in training-standing looking at each other. If the service were universal they would be satisfied to go where they are most needed. A moment ago I quoted from a labour paper, and I shall quote from it again.

The writer was speaking about gasoline, and asked what we were waiting for. Then he wrote this further sentence, which will be appreciated by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce):
With conscription it is the same; the people are prepared to go twice as far and three times as fast as their government has up to now demanded.
This is published by organized labour. I quote again:
The question of conscription involves the larger and much more vital one of using all our resources to the best advantage.
"All our resources"-men, machinery and so on. Then again:
.We want to survive as a people. We are fighting this war to be able to settle our own affairs in our own way, we and our children after us. We are willing to pay the price- any price. Why are our leaders afraid to ask the price that we, the people, are willing to pay? Let us have conscription by all means: all-out conscription for an all-out effort. . . . We want conscription of men for war; and we want them to have the tools to work with. We want conscription of those tools along with the men. We do not see why the tools should be exempted when our boys are taken.
As I say, this is not alone the opinion of some soldiers' body; or of big industrial concerns; it is the opinion also of the working people of Canada who are in organized labour. They so express themselves. If this rule-it was not a rule, but rather an ultimatum-by which we talk, but may not move anything in this committee, had not been enforced, I would have moved a resolution to test the feeling of the house. But as it is being enforced, the hon. member for Parkdale and myself will have to be content- very poorly content-by simply expressing our views in the matter. I suppose we will have to leave it to a larger parliament, a larger expression of the people. It is regrettable however that in a matter of so much importance we should not be allowed to take action. It is idle to suggest that it is not a prominent and vital question today in Canada. Go to any street corner, or to any place where a body of people is meeting, and we find that the question is discussed. They are ready for an all-out effort, and an all-out effort can be obtained only by universal conscription of us all-as this article said, of us all-working for the common good.

The War-Mr. Pouliot
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Terais-eouata):	Mr. Chairman, it seems that as a
basis for the discussion of this important problem we should consider the three Canadian acts of parliament concerning conscription.
First there is the Militia Act, chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. Section 64 of that act reads:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
This is the Cartier act, which was amended by Sir Wilfrid Laurier after the Transvaal war by adding the words "for the defence thereof" in the third line.
Since then the only amendment to the act, although the present act does not specifically mention the Militia Act, is chapter 21 of the Statutes of Canada for 1932-33, the title of which reads as follows:
An act to make provision with respect to forces of his majesty from other parts of the British commonwealth or from a colony when visiting the Dominion of Canada; and with respect to the exercise of command and discipline when forces of his majesty from different parts of the commonwealth are serving together; and with respect to the attachment of members of one such force to another such force, and with respect to deserters from such forces.
This act was passed when Mr. Bennett was in power, and was given royal assent on April 12, 1933.
The second conscription act, known as the Military Service Act, 1917, was passed by the Borden government. The purpose of that act is approximately the same as that of the preceding one, with the exception of an inversion of phraseology respecting the aim or purpose of the act.
Then, the third conscription act is the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, assented to on June 21, 1940. Section 2 of that act is as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section 3 hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
Then, section 3 states:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
The marginal note for section 3 reads: "Limitation in respect of service overseas."
When the resolution preceding the bill from which this act followed was submitted to the house I remember well that the leader of the opposition then said it constituted one of his suggestions which had been adopted; therefore at the time he was satisfied with the legislation, and believed that it was a step forward.
I am not quoting him verbatim, but I believe that is the effect of what he said.
It would seem therefore that there are three conscription acts on the statute books of Canada. The first two, namely, the Cartier act, as amended by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the Borden act, are altogether different from the one passed last year for the defence of Canada. That is evidently the reason why the mobilization act was passed. The aim and purpose of that act is the defence of Canada, and everyone agrees with that principle.
There is another feature which must be considered, namely the exemptions which appear in each of the acts. Section 9 of the Militia Act enumerates the following exemptions:
9. The following persons only shall be exempt from liability from service in the militia:-
Members of the King's Privy Council for Canada;
Judges of all courts of justice;
Members of the executive councils of provinces;
Deputy ministers of the federal and provincial governments;
Clergy and ministers of all religious denominations;
Telegraph clerks in actual employment;
Officers and clerks regularly employed in the collection of the revenue;
Wardens and officers of all public prisons and lunatic asylums;
Members of the naval militia;
Members of the police force and fire brigade permanently employed in incorporated cities, towns and villages;
Professors in colleges and universities, and teachers in religious orders;
Persons disabled by bodily or mental infirmity;
The only son of a widow, being her only support;
Pilots and apprentice pilots during the season of navigation;
Persons who, from the doctrines of their religion, are averse to bearing arms or rendering personal military service, under such conditions as are prescribed.
That last exemption I find absurd.
But there is something else, which I find in section 24, subsection 2, which reads:
If there are inscribed on the militia roll more than one son belonging to the same family residing in the same house, only one of such sons shall be drawn, unless the number of names so inscribed is insufficient to complete the required proportion of service men.

The War*-Mr. Pouliot
There is a further provision in section 25 regarding the regulations. Subsection 2 of section 25 provides:
Any man balloted and notified for service, may, at any time, be exempt until again required in his turn to serve, by furnishing an acceptable substitute, on or before the day fixed for his appearance.
We heard some time ago about the selective draft; selection by ballot. But here an opportunity is given to a man to provide a substitute for himself in the army. This is unjust, because it gives a privilege to the rich man over the poor man. It is unfair, and it is probably the reason why some well-to-do people are advocating the selective draft. It gives an advantage to the rich over the poor.
Now I turn to the Borden act, the conscription act of 1917. This is based on the British military service act of 1916, chapters 5 and 6, George V. The phraseology of the two acts is precisely the same as respects exemptions. Section 11 of the Canadian act of 1917 is as follows:
At any time before a date to be fixed in the proclamation mentioned in section four an application may be made by or in respect of any man in the class or subclass called out by such proclamation to a local tribunal established in the province in which such man ordinarily resides for a certificate of exemption on any of the following grounds:
(a)	That	it	is	expedient	in	the	nationalinterest that the man should instead of being employed in military service be engaged in other	work in which he is habitually	engaged;(b)	That	it	is	expedient	in	the	national
interest that the man should instead of being employed in military service be engaged in other work in which he wishes to be engaged and for which he has special qualifications;
.	(c)	That	it	is	expedient	in	the	national
interest that, instead of being employed in military service, he should continue to be educated or trained for any work for which he is then being educated or trained;
(d)	That serious hardship would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position;
(e)	111 health or infirmity;
(f)	That be conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is prohibited from so doing by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect on the sixth day of July, 1917,. of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada at such date, and to which he in good faith belongs; and if any of the grounds of such application be established, a certificate of exemption shall be granted to such man.
That is the Borden law, and I object to paragraph (f) just cited for the same reason that I objected to the last exemption provided by section 9 of the Militia Act. I do not believe that Doukhobors, Mennonites and 
conscientious objectors should enjoy exemption from military service. This may be the feeling also of quite a number of members, although I do not speak for them; I am speaking for myself alone.
The main difference between the mobilization act of 1940 and the two previous acts which I have cited is that there is no provision in the mobilization act of 1940 for exemption, but a free hand is given to the governor in council to pass regulations enumerating possible exemptions. Parliament did not legislate upon these exemptions, which by virtue of the act itself were to be framed by the governor in council. What are the exemptions provided by virtue of the regulations that were passed by order in council some time after this house was adjourned and when there were very few members of parliament in this city? Section 6 of the National War Services Regulations, 1940 (Recruits) provides:
The following persons shall be excepted from being called out:-
(a)	Judges of superior, district or county courts of justice;
(b)	Members of the clergy or religious orders;
(c)	Regular clergymen or ministers of religious denominations;
(d)	Members of the naval, military or air forces of Canada on active service and cadets entered at the Royal Military College of Canada;
(e)	Permanently employed members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and of provincial police forces;
(f)	In the discretion of the board, permanently employed members of police forces and fire brigades, wardens and officers of penitentiaries, prisons and lunatic asylums, or mental hospitals.
Those are the only exemptions. The exemptions provided for by the Borden act are not mentioned in these regulations. They were completely set aside.
There is another exemption, although it is not mentioned in section 6 of the regulations, and that is that when a man is suffering from ill-health or is unfit for service he may be put in a class where he will not have to serve or will serve only in this country.
There are four classes of exemptions provided in the regulations against which I strongly protest. Three of them are not mentioned exactly as exemptions but are spoken of as adjournments. The first exemption is not even mentioned as an adjournment. But the phraseology of the regulations gives a certain advantage to a certain class of British citizens who have not to comply with the regulations as every Canadian-born or Canadian-domiciled citizen must do. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said rightly, speaking in March and again in September, 1939, that a British citizen

The JFcir-Mr. Poulwt
enjoyed the same rights in England as in Canada. I have a French translation of his remarks here, but I will give in English the substance of his remarks. He said that we have the same national status as England; a British subject in Canada is also a British subject in London and anywhere else in the British commonwealth, and a British subject in England is also a British subject in Canada. I fully agree. That is true.
There is something else. It is that the regulations apply to all British subjects who reside ordinarily in Canada, and the regulations are so drafted that the interpretation will be that they apply only to Canadians who have their domicile here and not to those who come here for the duration of the war. It means that all young English babies, blonde and beautiful, of military age, twenty years old and over, who come to Canada are not supposed in virtue of these regulations to get into military service. Apparently it means that it would be bad manners to enlist them as conscripts, as draftees; and they may come here-I do not speak of guest children, I refer to those of military age-they may come to this haven of security, Canada, those who are British citizens and to whom these regulations should apply, and they can get any jobs because they are not ordinarily residents of Canada; they are here only "for the duration." They can take the jobs that the young boys who are domiciled in Canada have to leave when the time of enlistment comes. A young man who is born in Canada and who does useful work here has to get into the army, while a young Englishman who is fortunate enough to find passage on a clipper or boat and come here has no trouble at all. It is well known what happened in Montreal in a store not long ago, when an aged mother who had two sons in the army, one of whom is now missing, was served by a young "bloke": she asked him where he had come from, and he said, "I have come from England, and I have fine connections." She threw her parcel in his face and left the store, very indignant. I do not know why we do things like that. If we are all British citizens we should be under the same law, and there should be no exception for those of military age who come here from the British isles for the duration of the war. That is my first point.


Mr. BROOKS:: And a very weak one.


Mr. POULIOT:: My second point is that there should be no exemption for Mennonites and Doukhobors. They came here some years ago and were granted privileges through orders in council passed in the time of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But there was then no thought of a war like this. When we speak about the difficulties that some
people may have, we are answered that these are not ordinary times. If these times are not ordinary times for Canadian-born British subjects, I do not see why they should be different for Mennonites, Doukhobors, and conscientious objectors. After all, the same law should apply to all, except when it is a matter of public interest to give exemption to some Canadian citizen who otherwise would suffer a serious handicap because of this draft -as was specified in the Borden act.
The fourth class of exemptions against which I protest veiy strongly is that of conscientious objectors. I do not see why a man should be exempted just because he says-, "My conscience forbids me to abide by the law." It is one of the absurdities of the English legislation as well as of the Canadian legislation. Why should a man have the right to defy the law in such a fashion? I wonder if there is a single hon. member of this committee who would seriously say that, because England has given that privilege to conscientious objectors, we should give it to them here. If a man within a certain period mentions to the registrar that his conscience forbids him to get into the army and carry on, he may be exempted during the entire period of the war. I cannot understand it.
There is another thing that I cannot understand. It is that, in virtue of the first draft of the regulations which I am discussing, Doukhobors, Mennonites, and conscientious objectors were entitled to an indefinite postponement of their draft; and now the word "indefinite" is left out; but they enjoy the indefinite postponement just the same. As a consequence, if a man is a Doukhobor, a Mennonite, or a conscientious objector, he will not serve in the army for the whole time of the war. Is it fair? No sir, it is not fair.
There is something else. It is that, for that privilege, that exemption-I call it an exemption because it can be given by only one of the commissioners-for Canadian-born citizens who are neither Doukhobors, Mennonites, conscientious objectors, or the Canadian who is not a "bloke", a quorum of two commissioners of the three is required for a short postponement not exceeding six months. To my mind that is unfair and unjust.
It is unfair that Mennonites and Doukhobors are exempted, not because they are good farmers-it has to be proved that they are good farmers-not in the public interest, but just because they are sectarian. They do not belong to a religion; they belong to a sect. As to these Mennonites who were called at one time "the peaceful Anabaptists", theirs is a long story. I will cut it short. But do you not think that there is discrimination in provisions like that?
The War

Mr. Pouliot

I find another absurdity in the first draft of the national war services regulations of 1940. It is this:
Seasonal employees. In the case of men engaged in-
Fishing, lumbering, trapping or-
-any seasonal occupation, the board may make advancement orders or postponement orders as may seem best in the public interest. Provided however that every man in an age class called out for training in the twelve months period shall, notwithstanding any postponement order, be called out for training during some one of the training periods held during the said twelve months period.
What I find absurd is that in this first draft farming is regarded as a seasonal occupation, whereas everyone knows that, in our part of the country at any rate, it is work that lasts the year round. The farmer has to begin his work each day before the sun rises and he does not stop until after sunset. Therefore the first draft of these regulations shows complete ignorance of the life of the farming communities in eastern Canada. Of course, in our part of the country farming is entirely different from what it is in the west. In the west the mechanics who grow wheat put gasoline in their tractors in June and take off the tractors in September and then they may grow oranges in California. That is not the sort of farming that eastern Canadian farmers engage in, and probably this is true also of British Columbia. I know they work hard in British Columbia. I honour that province by putting it on the same footing as eastern Canada in this regard.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has the hon. member ever spent any time in the west, either during the summer or in winter, so as to understand the real conditions under which the western farmer works?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will say to my hon.
friend that if the western farmer does as much as he does in the house he must have lots of leisure.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: He does not get much for it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The west is now following the good example of the east by engaging in mixed farming. That shows great progress and I congratulate them. If my hon. friends have anything else to say in reply I shall be delighted to hear them in due course, though they know very well that I have no wish to say anything offensive to them.
There is a change in the phraseology of section 14 of the consolidation. I quote:
14 (1) Each divisional registrar shall deliver to the board in his administrative division copies of all registration cards in his possession
[Mr. Pouliot.1
upon which it is indicated that the men registered are engaged in farming, fishing, lumbering, trapping, mining, placer mining, gold prospecting, seafaring, railroad transportation or other seasonal occupation.
My western friends may be under the impression that in the east and in British Columbia the farmers who have cattle and horses put their animals in the trunks of trees to hibernate as bears do in the winter, and leave them there without caring for them. They may think that the animals spend the winter the same as bears and other wild creatures do. That is not so. These hon. gentlemen do not know the problems of the east-and again, I do not say that in any offensive spirit. I make that statement to inform them that my care has been to keep the ministers in touch with conditions by sending to each of them certain articles that were published each week in a publication put out in my home town, in order to inform the ministers of the situation so far as agriculture is concerned, and of the deficiencies in the regulations with respect to farmers.
The farmers have a good deal of work to do in winter. They have to do the fall ploughing, they have to look after the grain, they have ditches to dig and wood to cut- not only kindling for the house but wood for buildings and repair purposes; they must put manure on the land, and so forth. All that is done in the winter. Sometimes they have to carry milk long distances to the butter or cheese factory, and they have to look after fences and maintain the roads in the winter. They have all these things to do.
1	find it strange therefore that farming should be regarded as seasonal employment. It is also strange to find railway transportation treated in the same way. The railways are working at capacity, both the large companies, as well as some of the smaller lines, in order to carry freight, passengers and soldiers to eastern or western ports, not only in winter when navigation ceases but all the year round. Often conditions are aggravated by war traffic, and never before has the work of the railway men been so heavy. I do not know how it can be called a seasonal occupation. That is why I wish to congratulate the present Minister of National War Services on the timely change he adopted on October 4, by order in council P.C. 7680. These occupations are no longer referred to as seasonal occupations; they are mentioned as seasonal and essential occupations. Subsections 1 and
2	read:
(1) When considering any application made in accordance with section 10 hereof, the board before which the application is made shall have power to grant an advancement or postpone-

The War-Mr. Ross (Souris)
ment order when it is of the opinion that it is in the national interest to do so and, in granting such order, the board shall state the reasons for such opinion. No postponement order may be made for more than six months, but, upon reviewing the application, the board may grant one or more extensions; provided that the board may cancel the order at any time for military reasons or for cause: Provided further that there shall be no exemption and no indefinite postponement of military training or service.
(2) When considering an application for postponement order by a man engaged in farming, fishing, lumbering, trapping, mining, placer mining, gold prospecting, seafaring, railroad transportation, public utility, or engaged in an occupation which the minister has declared to be a seasonal occupation or one essential to the successful prosecution of the war or in the national interest, the board shall take into account the supply of labour available, and the importance of the particular applicant's occupation to the national economy.
This is important, because what I understand by conscription is mobilization as defined by the Prime Minister and by members of the cabinet when the bill was before the house last year. It means total war, a total war effort; that is to say, that each one who makes an effort that serves the country best should be in the right place to make that effort, And nobody should have any objection to it, provided that the necessary distinctions are made in due course. What I complain of bitterly is the kind of propaganda that we have from the information bureau. There is one kind for English-speaking Canadians and another and altogether different kind for the French-Canadians of Quebec. I cannot understand it. We are all Canadians. I am not strong for the word "unity"; I rather think the word "union" is better. It means union of souls, union of human beings, union of minds for a common purpose, but "unity" is used of .inanimate things. As it is accepted now and as we speak of national unity, national unity would be much better served if there wrnre no Chinese wall around the province of Quebec in regard to propaganda. I fully agree with what was said by the hon. member for Broadview last Friday; it would be much better to dispense with such propaganda.
I am not a communist and I take the Russian propaganda with a grain of salt. Nevertheless the propaganda we have just received from Russia about fascism is the best propaganda I have ever read since the beginning of the war. It puts us to shame that the Russians are writing better war propaganda than our information bureau. I would like that bureau to be abolished. My idea would be to have all speeches delivered in both languages, and for those who cannot
speak one of the official languages of the country a translation of the speech should be given on the French network at the same time the talk is given over the English network.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Why not broadcast the speeches of the house?


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret I did not hear the hon. member.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette); I have to inform the hon. member that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Like many others, having come to Ottawa after four and a half months' adjournment I am very much disappointed with the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in which he did not mention Canada or our war effort at all. We are certainly being reduced to government by order in council; in fact parliament has been reduced to a sounding board for the government. Last spring a committee on war expenditures was set up. A very grave charge was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) with reference to the heating plant in a cordite factory there. The minister said the place to make these charges was before that committee. But the terms of reference wrere not broad enough for the committee to consider the matter. The hon. member charged that this heating equipment would result in a waste of $200,000 a year, yet the question could not be investigated by the committee. That makes the committee a complete farce in the minds of the people of this country.
Referring to gasoline, it is evident that little thought was given to the agricultural population of western Canada when that order in council was passed. Imagine in harvest time the people of western Canada, to whom the former speaker referred as mechanical producers, having to stop their harvesting operations on a sunny afternoon in order to go to the nearest trading centre to obtain gasoline. Surely that was not in the interest of the national effort, to say nothing of the hardship to the individual.
In connection with gasoline I have received a letter from a man at Castlegar, British Columbia, in which he said:
With the new gasoline restrictions in effect it has brought to my mind the fact that the Toronto Star Weekly several months back ran a series of articles on a carburettor that was capable of delivering up to three hundred miles to the gallon of gasoline. This carburettor, invented by a Winnipeg man, according to the Star was proved out on a run from Winnipeg to Vancouver and was very successful. As I understand it the rights to this carburettor we.re
The War-Mr. Rass (Souris)

purchased by some large oil company and retired from the public eye, to the financial interest of the oil company concerned.
My idea is that if the present administration was to introduce legislation compelling individuals or companies who hold patent rights on inventions that can be used to the advantage of Canada, to release these rights to the country for whatever remuneration a board of arbitration should decide.
In the case of the above mentioned carburettor, it would make the present gasoline restrictions unnecessary, or if it was used only on our war machines it would be a wonderful contribution to our war effort. Don't you think so?
I know something of a carburettor invented in Winnipeg by a Mr. Pogue. I witnessed some of the experiments there. I do not know what became of it, but rumours were rife that some large oil company had bought it. I trust the minister will look into that for the benefit of this committee.
Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) I am sorry that we have not the opportunity to move resolutions in this committee. Certainly our efforts have been very much circumscribed. The discussion of national selective service would be timely, and I cannot understand the Prime Minister's interpretation a little while ago that discussion must be confined to one department, because certainly the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of Agriculture and the ministers of national defence are vitally concerned in this matter and should be working together in close coordination.
I was elected as opposed to conscription, but I was careful at that time to point to my experience in the last war and to say that if the unexpected happened we should then give the matter further consideration. I do not think there is any hon. member who will not admit that the unexpected has happened since March, 1910, with the fall of France and many other countries.
We have heard much about an all-out war effort, but I venture to say that not fifty per cent, probably not over thirty-five per cent of our possibilities are being exerted in an all-out war effort.
I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding of what national selective service means. It is not a matter of taking all the men off the farms. Many men who have enlisted from the farms would under this scheme be left on the farms where they properly should be. Key executive men have been taken from industry who should have been left there. I doubt whether many of us appreciate the brief placed before the government by the

Canadian Legion. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg
Tribune:
The Canadian Legion and Man-Power
Attempts have been made to show that proponents of an all-out war programme for Canada want to conscript vast numbers of soldiers at the expense of Canada's industrial effort. This is nonsense. ...
In particular, the Canadian Legion does not propose mobilization of Canadian man-power simply to increase the armed forces. It demands, rather, that mobilization of man-power should be undertaken immediately in order that our resources of man-power may be used for our needs, whether in the field of agriculture or industry or in the fighting services.
Here is the main plank in the legion's call for "total war". It takes the form of a statement presented to Prime Minister King by the dominion executive of the legion on October 21, calling upon the Prime Minister to institute all necessary measures to place Canada on a total war footing. The legion specifically said:
By "total war" the legion means:
(a)	Immediate, complete and scientific mobilization, organization and utilization of all our resources-spiritual, intellectual, natural, financial, agricultural, industrial, man-power-in such manner that Canada may be geared to produce essential foods and munitions and to wage war to her maximum capacity.
(b)	The services of all men and women to be employed to the best and most useful effect, according to the age, training, physical capacity and ability of the individual;
(c)	By an intelligent extension of the principles contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act and by the elimination of the provisions restricting service to Canada only-our armed forces in Canada and overseas, including reserves and reinforcements, to be maintained at the highest possible strength, consistent with our industrial and other requirements;
(d)	An equitable division of the burden of service, sacrifice, contribution and effort among all our people to be the basic principle underlying this "total war" policy;
(e)	The cumulative results of this "total effort" to be devoted to the single purpose of destroying the enemy.
That is a reasonable programme. It is also one which the public of Canada at large can support.
As The Tribune has said, again and again, the issue ... is the issue of mobilizing all our man-power-not simply a matter of sending men overseas. The Legion clearly recognizes this. The public feels it instinctively and is coming to recognize it more and more clearly*. The chief laggard is the dominion government which still refuses to face certain realities that the man in the street has long accepted.
There was some difference of opinion between our various ministers of defence the other day; but I was very sorry to see the presentation of the Minister of National Defence made the subject matter of an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of November 7, headed: "Mr. Ralston's Proud Speech; Mr. NOVEMBER 10, 1941
The War-Mr. MacNicol
Ralston's False Speech." Those of us who are returned men have a very great respect for the Minister of National Defence as a fine soldier. This editorial goes on to state that the minister was not speaking his own mind, that it was a matter of cabinet solidarity. At this time, after all that has happened, as one soldier to another might I suggest that he shake off the cloak of political expediency and cabinet solidarity, and really face the critical national situation in which we find ourselves. This is not a matter that affects his department alone. He made the suggestion that some consideration was given to industry in connection with men enlisting in the army. The minister for air, who followed him, said he did not agree with that statement, that he made no exemptions whatever but took holus-bolus all those who offered their services.
I believe the situation overseas is much more critical than many people throughout Canada realize. I am sure everyone who has gone overseas, who has had free access to industrial centres throughout the British isles, who has spoken off the record with that great inspirational leader, Mr. Churchill, agrees that the situation is so critical that it should not be made a matter of political expediency at this time. We are all vitally concerned with this matter, and I am sure we have all received wires and letters during the last few days from many of the most outstanding organizations in the country, from town councils, rural municipalities, boards of trade, the Canadian Legion, all urging this government to take some action before the end of this session of parliament. Certainly the step we are urging is most timely, and I think will be supported by all the citizens of Canada once they properly understand it. I know many young men who feel they should be in the armed forces but who make the plain statement that if this government has not the courage of its convictions, why should they offer their services. These men reason that the government knows more about the situation than they know; and, while I cannot give you the exact phrases they use, they say if the members of the government are prepared to do what is required of them, in the office they hold, then the young men are prepared to make any sacrifice that may be necessary.
I hope therefore that due consideration will be given by the government at once to instituting national selective service at this time, in the interests of people in all walks of life; for I am sure many ministers realize what their duty requires of them in the present situation.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Chairman, together with all other hon. members I listened carefully as the ministers made their reports; and those I did not hear I have read. While in the main they give a very good story of what Canada is trying to do, I am sorry to say that we have no yardstick with which to measure what we are attempting as compared with what is being done in other parts of the empire, in order that we may convince ourselves that we are doing our fair share. Certainly the general public throughout Canada are convinced that we are not doing our share. I cannot say whether or not we are, unless I compare our efforts with those of other parts of the empire.
I listened attentively to the report of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). He is the one man in the cabinet, I believe, wrho really knows-I should not say anything-very much about manufacturing, and he tells a very good story of what is being done in the manufacturing plants of Canada. I should like to refer briefly to some things I have observed myself; for I, too, have visited perhaps fifty to seventy-five of the large plants of this country. I need refer only to one or two items to which the minister also referred. He spoke about guns and shells. As Canadians I believe we should be proud of what has been done by certain manufacturers in this country in the production of lathes to make shells. I am told that the John T. Hepburn company of Toronto, which now employs about- four thousand men in several plants, has produced lathes which are now used in the manufacture of more than half the shells used on the British side. I have frequently seen ten to fifteen carloads of these great lathes being shipped to Australia, south Africa, India, Egypt and elsewhere. As a Canadian I am proud that such a genius as John Hepburn is a resident of this country during this great war. I know he has received commendation from the British government; I do not know wffiether he has received any commendation from the Canadian government. Recently he produced what is said to be the first satisfactory lathe in the world capable of drilling gun barrels from both ends at the same time, which enables these gun barrels to be produced in much less time than is required in other plants throughout the world. These lathes are now being produced in quantity and are being supplied to Canadian companies making various sizes of gun barrels.
The minister also said something about tanks and ships. I think he should have given the official opposition some credit for spurring
The War-Mr. MacNicol

the government into the production of tanks in this country. I remember that when the subject was under discussion a year ago, as one who was connected with steel and iron manufacturing for many years I said this country could produce every component part required in the production of tanks. We can do what the Australians can do. They have produced tank manufacturing plants. Not only that, they have had to produce their own tools with which to make their tanks. On the other hand Canada had to the south of it a great republic from which to purchase machine tools, and could obtain a supply in addition to the vast number we make ourselves.
Whether the minister gave credit or not, as a member of the official opposition I am going to take some credit to that group for the fact that we are now producing tanks, guns and steel ships in Canada. In doing that I do not detract from the minister, nor do I suggest that he has not exercised his best efforts to see that these things are being done. My only point is that the official opposition had a good deal to say about each of those products before they were made in Canada.
I am going to speak briefly concerning what was said by each of the ministers, because I do not expect to be here to-morrow or the next day. For that reason, if I may be permitted I should like to make a statement at this time. Some observations have been made respecting labour. Having been connected with labour for at least a quarter of a century, I do not yield to any member of the house, no matter what his party may be, or no matter where he comes from, in my loyalty to labour and its rights. I, myself, was a labour man-not with my tongue but with my hands and head.
I was disappointed in the report of a recent speech by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) as it was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of October 8, 1941. The minister is reported as follows:
Speaking of labour Mr. Crerar said there is a widespread feeling in Canada that responsible Canadian labour leaders failed in leadership.
The responsible labour leaders I know are Tom Moore, A. R. Mosher, R. Y. Menary, Raoul Trepanier, John Kelly and John Noble. These are outstanding labour leaders, and I have not read anywhere that those leaders have done anything less than their utmost to maintain order in the unions throughout Canada. There may be the odd one who could be placed in the class referred to by the minister, but he would not be as outstanding as the men whose names I have mentioned.


Angus MacInnis: It is the government that has failed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well-


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member need not agree.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am only commenting on a statement made by the Minister of Mines and Resources. Perhaps he did not mean to make it-I have said things which I would have withdrawn, had I been given the chance. I try, however, to be as careful as I can.
I worked at arduous labour for many years, and stated long ago the rights to which I believed labour was entitled. I am conversant with what this country undertook when it signed the treaty of Versailles, which is now "washed up". Nevertheless, the labour articles adopted under the Versailles treaty were good. Their principles were, in brief, (a) that labour should not be regarded as a commodity or article of commerce, and (b) that there should be a right enjoyed by employers and employees to set up associations.
I believe that those are proper principles, and I cannot for the life of me understand why those associations, under proper guidance, could not sit down and iron out their disputes. Both employers and employees have rights. Many people take objection to the term "collective bargaining", but I do not look upon the procedure as one of collective bargaining. Rather, I consider it collective representation. If sincere men representing labour and sincere men representing industry sit down round a common table, as is taking place all across this country to-day in many shops where disputes have arisen, I believe many of our troubles could be ironed out. In my opinion it is the duty of the government to wash out those troubles.
Without casting any reflection on any member of the cabinet, I cannot help thinking that if in Canada we had a. minister of labour like Bevin in England, a man since the beginning of his life seized with the rights of labour, we would be able to iron out our difficulties in a more satisfactory manner.
It will be understood that in what I say I am not singling out that estimable gentleman who is at present responsible for the Department of Labour. I am pleased that the department has seen fit to employ a man who formerly sat in the house. I refer to Mr. Humphrey Mitchell. I met Mr. Mitchell in different places across Canada during the past summer, when he was engaged in the adjustment of labour disputes. When I met him last, in the city of Winnipeg, he and others associated with him were successful in

The War-Mr. MacNicol
bringing about a settlement. I would expect that of Mr. Mitchell, because he has been a labour man-and I do not refer to "labour" in the political sense. I am referring to Mr. Mitchell as a worker, one who has worked hard all through his life. As a matter of fact, I believe he was in a line of business similar to that in which I was engaged.
During the past summer I made some investigations in respect of plants where they were having trouble. I am convinced that in some of the plants in Toronto in which there have been strikes the cause can be traced to the government's own plant in that city. In Toronto the government has a large plant employing several thousands. I believe the employees in that plant are treated exceptionally well. I am informed that cost of production in the government plant is not all important, because the operators receive a certain percentage above costs. On the other hand a private plant cannot operate on that basis. It has not the government behind it to guarantee that there will be no loss. It must sharpen its pencil, and figure out costs. Government plants do not have to do that. While I am in heart}- accord with the government's setting an example of good wages, reasonable hours, and so on, it must be understood that every other plant cannot operate on the same basis.
Therefore, if the government intends to prevent strikes in other plants which cannot operate in a similar manner, certainly it should tiy to prevent strikes by providing a sufficiently large cost of living bonus for the men and women working in private plants. I am strongly in favour of adequate return for adequate service. If privately owned companies could operate on the same basis as government plants, they would be able to do what those government plants are now doing.
Something has been said about oil. I am not going to speak at length at this time on that subject, but I purpose doing so at the next session. On that occasion, after travel during the summer which extended over fifteen thousand miles, I intend to set out a programme of national rehabilitation. I should like, however, to make one or two observations in advance about oil. The minister presented the problem clearly. I cannot forget one salient circumstance, namely that several million German soldiers are hastening as fast as they can toward the Caucasus, the Russian oil fields, principally centred round Batum. In that area about
218,000,000 barrels are produced each year. If the Caucasus are taken, what is to stop the Germans from taking Iraq and Iran, where
about 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 barrels are produced? They already have the Rumanian fields, where about 40,000,000 barrels are produced. If they were successful in obtaining the three other fields I have mentioned, they would have all the oil required to fight a wrar for any length of time they might wish to fight it.
The largest producer of oil is the United States, which produces more than all other countries of the world put together. The United States produces 1,350,000,000 barrels of oil a year. Canada produces just a little over
8,000,000 barrels a year. I remember, before the war broke out, hearing or reading, or both, that the German government or someone associated with it had applied to Canada-I do not remember how-for the right to run a pipeline from an oil field in Canada to the Pacific coast. I cannot think for one second that they had the Turner valley oil field in mind. The Turner valley is a really fine oil field, well managed and with an excellent plant, as good as any in the world. I was through it and was greatly pleased with what I saw. But its capacity is limited. I remember last session asking the Minister of Mines and Resources if it would be worth while running a pipeline from Turner valley to the Pacific coast, and as I remember, he replied in the negative. Then what part of the country did Hitler or the German government have in mind to run a pipeline from? After a thorough investigation I am convinced that what they had in mind was running a pipeline from the Athabaska river near McMurray at the junction of the Athabaska and Clearwater rivers.
I am quite aware of the fact that there can be an improvement in the method of extracting oil from the oil sands. I also know that the McMurray oil fields are not too far away to run a pipeline from there to Edmonton. On the Athabaska river we have by far the greatest potential oil field in the world. It is said that Canada could produce from there one hundred billion barrels of oil, and United States geologists have put the figure at two hundred and fifty billion barrels of potential oil. There can be improvements made in extraction, although they are doing a very satisfactory job there now. They are producing and shipping oil-I saw it at various mines-seven or eight hundred miles north, and I heard it pronounced as good as the best in the world. If those statements are true, and I know that they are true, and that they are producing oil and doing it fairly rapidly-it takes only three minutes to extract the oil, twenty minutes to get it into the tanks, and seventy minutes to turn it into
The War-Mr. MacNicol

finished oil; it is said the system of extraction can be improved-therefore I am going to ask the minister between now and the next session of parliament to have his department investigate the possibilities in that region. Oil is perhaps the most important of our munitions requirements, and next year we may have to be shipping vast quantities of oil for the use of the British navy; for it may be-I hope it will not be-impossible for them to get the oil from Iraq or Iran, and there is no other source except the Dutch East Indies, which produces only about sixty million barrels a year; Venezuela, which produces about two hundred million barrels a year, and the United States. Therefore I am going to ask the minister to have his engineers survey that oil field, and if it is found that vast quantities of oil can be produced rapidly, to bring a bill into this house, if necessary, to erect refineries, or support companies that will do it, in the Athabaska river valley or the Peace river valley, for they have a lot of oil there too, with a view to our producing the greatest possible quantity of oil. I quite realize that to do so might result in our having too many refineries after the war. But that is not our problem now. Our problem to-day is to win the war, and then deal with these other problems after the war. If the minister with his energy will undertake to have that field surveyed and the possibilities explored, I hope that he will have something to present to the house next session, when I propose to deal with this question in a much more extended way.
I wish to speak for a moment about maintaining harmony in industry. The government has granted a cost of living bonus-and I am heartily in accord with that step-to certain classes of the civil service which it believes should be granted such a bonus. Certain municipalities have done likewise, also some industrial plants. I hope that some method may be worked out whereby all workers in industry will be granted a cost of living bonus.
I should like the present scheme to go further, for the sake of maintaining harmony in this country. I should like to see a cost of living bonus granted to pensioned returned soldiers of the last war and to the dependents of soldiers of this war and the great war, and further I should like to see a cost of living bonus granted to those receiving old age pensions. I know that would make a long list, but harmony in war time is essential, and you cannot have harmony if you give a cost of living bonus to this class and that class and leave out other classes. It should be uniform and apply all round.


Robert Fair: To the farmers, too?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I certainly believe that the farmers are deserving of consideration and I have always been an advocate for them. In fact, I have come to the conclusion, after travelling extensively in the farming areas of the west, that there are places where the farmers should be given a pension for staying on the farm. They do the very best work, and farming is an essential part of our war effort.
I have made a bit of a survey in our retail stores, and I know that when the average working man's wife goes to a merchant on St. Clair avenue in Toronto, the part of the city where I live, but it applies everywhere else, she finds, as I found when I made investigation, that the cost of what she has to buy has gone up on many commodities from forty to sixty per cent. I know that some classes are receiving a small cost of living bonus, but certainly it is not the equivalent of a forty to sixty per cent rise in the price of the necessaries of life which the average housewife has to pay.
I wish to refer to something the Minister for Naval Services (M. Macdonald) said the other day. He said that submarines had been sighted off the coast of Labrador. Last year when I was making a survey along the shores of Hudson bay I talked at Churchill with some of the old residents there, and they told me that when the Eskimos came to Churchill in the summer they had reported seeing igloos floating on the water with a stovepipe sticking out of the top of the igloo. If the Eskimos really saw an igloo with a smoke pipe, if that was not the product of their imagination, it was not an igloo at all but a submarine. I do not for a moment say that submarines have been in there, but on the other hand I see no reason under the sun why they could not get in there. For a submarine to get into Hudson bay, all it has to do is to come west of Greenland, enter a very deep and wide strait-from forty to a hundred miles wide-pass between a few islands at the mouth of Hudson bay, and then it is in that great bay which is almost an ocean by itself. No one can predict what will have happened by this time next year. I have read that in Germany they are producing very large submarines, which will carry aeroplanes, and I have been saying to myself, what will happen if a submarine gets into Hudson bay carrying high-powered bombing planes and releases them somewhere near the south end of the bay? That, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is in your own bailiwick, or not far from the constituency which you represent. A submarine arrving in Hudson bay might release an aeroplane which could make a round trip of a couple of thousand miles and might blow Winnipeg right off the map; the city would

The War-Mr. MacNicol
have no defence beyond, perhaps, a few antiaircraft guns. At least I do not know; I hope it has a good many. For that matter, perhaps German submarines might send aeroplanes down to Toronto and blow it oil the map; it is not more than 900 to 1,000 miles from the south end of Hudson bay. I hope that the government has provided against events of that kind. I am told that there are aeroplane fields up in that country; I hope there are, and that there is adequate defence of our back-door. But this summer, when I was travelling in that million-square-mile area north of Edmonton, up around the 63rd parallel, I inquired from those who should be informed as to how many mounted policemen were up there, and was told that from the 63rd parallel north there were approximately thirty. I hope there are more than that, in view of the danger from high-powered aeroplanes. Our back-doors in the north are, I trust, properly provided with equipment to shoot off any aeroplanes coming from that direction.
I have just a word or two to say about recruiting. I have travelled a great deal this past summer. I visited various towns where there are military camps, and saw some things which I did not like, and which might be expected under the system under which we are now recruiting men for the army. I was rather alarmed when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made the statement the other day that recruiting had fallen down. I noticed that on Friday last the Hon. Charles Dunning, who sat in this chamber for many years, referred to the matter in these words:
This is our war. Waiting for it to come to Montreal is the surest way of letting it reach our shores.
On the same occasion, Brigadier-General Panet mentioned the statement of the Minister of National Defence that recruiting in the past months had dropped. That is a serious circumstance. It is not for me to tell the government how it is going to get recruits; that is their responsibility. But I want strongly to emphasize my belief that the government should tell us before we go home how they expect to get the necessary recruits without some system of national compulsory service. I am not going to tell them the system. There are different systems. I am not familiar with the one in use in the United States, nor can I say that I know how the British system operates; but there is a method whereby governments can get recruits, and it should be selective; the men should not be taken holus-bolus. As an industrialist I realize that there are many good men in tank plants, gun plants, screw plants, and factories making all the components which enter into the construction
of war munitions who should not be taken into the army. Well, how are you going to keep them out of the army unless you have some system of selection? The same consideration applies to agriculture, in the case of farmers' sons and the like. My investigation showed me that there is something which is not quite right. The Minister of National Defence was quite emphatic the other evening as to the government's objective; he said that the government of Canada is pledged to an all-out war effort, and he then stated that that effort at the moment amounted to the following:
At the present time we have overseas-
I assume, in England.

the first and second divisions, the third division which went overseas in July; the army tank brigade, and thousands of corps and army troops,-
To which, he said, he would refer a little later. Then he added:
We have in Canada the fifth armoured division, which according to the programme is to go overseas before very long.
Upon being questioned, he added that the total number of men now overseas is 110,000. I have been trying to read up what is being done by other parts of the empire and to make some deductions therefrom, and I found a statement as to the recent campaigns in Greece and Crete. I have not so far come across a statement about the campaign last winter in Libya. But, regarding the Greek and Cretan campaigns, I find that Australia and New Zealand had, in Greece, 33,657 men and in Crete, some 13,550 troops, or a total of 47,207.


Mr. POWER:: You did not add the two together, did you?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The troops engaged in Greece and in Crete were partly, but not wholly the same. The Crete totals at the start of the fighting included men evacuated from Greece but not reevacuated to Egypt before the Crete operations. I have not been able to separate the numbers who were taken out of Greece into Crete; certainly not all of them were, because the numbers in Crete were very much smaller than those engaged in Greece. At all events, taking the situation of Greece alone, it is clear that there were 33,657 Australians and New Zealanders, of whom 5,234 were killed, wounded, or missing-captured or otherwise. Then, of the numbers of Australian and New Zealand troops who had been in Greece and went to Crete, plus any others, the loss in Crete was 6,100; a total of 11,334. If you deduct those as casualties from a total of 33.657, the losses amount to approximately thirty-three and a third per cent.
The War-Mr. MacNicol


Charles Gavan Power: Is it the purpose of my hon. friend to show that we should have casualties?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, no. I might ask the minister the same question; is it his purpose in enlisting young men to go into the air force to have casualties?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister knows it is foolish to ask questions like that. I agree that he is just as much interested as I am in seeing that the war is conducted as it should be; perhaps his concern is greater because he knows so much more about the responsibility.
Mr. POWER; But why the comparison? The comparison seems to be intended to show that there is something wrong with us because we do not get our men killed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister will just possess himself in patience for a minute or two, I shall ask him a question based on these figures. If we take the figure for Greece, there were 33,657 Australians and New Zealanders there, and of those who wrere in Greece and in Crete, according to this statement published on August 7 by the Canadian Press, from London, the total loss was 11,334. Let me ask the minister this question. If these had been Canadian troops, by what method would the government have provided the men to take the places of those who were lost?


Charles Gavan Power: Probably by the same method that is followed in Australia. It is exactly the same as we have here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister makes that statement, then I will ask him why it is that in Canada the men recruited are so much less in number comparatively than in Australia.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not prepared to admit that either.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am prepared to prove it.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish the hon. member would.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will prove it by quotations. I do not know that it is true, but on November 8 the statement appeared in News of Toronto that in Australia there were 532,000 men under arms and 250,000 more at home, or
782,000.	They have 170,000 in munition plants.


Charles Gavan Power: Is my hon. friend able to break down those figures?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister will try to make out that we are doing the best we can, and I have not said that we are not.


Charles Gavan Power: I am asking the hon. member to break down the figures and tell us how many there are in home defence.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The statement is that
532,000	men have enlisted for active service.


Charles Gavan Power: Overseas?


John Ritchie MacNicol: How otherwise does the minister suppose that they had troops at Singapore, in Iran and Iraq, and in Libya, as well as in Greece and Crete? I am surprised that the minister should try to belittle their effort.


Charles Gavan Power: I am making a distinction between that and fouling our own nest.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not said one word against our own effort. I am as loyal a Canadian as the minister is and I have not said a word to disparage what we are doing, but I do not know how good that effort is or whether it should be better because there is nothing by which a comparison can be made. There is nothing to go on except what we read in the press. I hope that at the next session when the minister makes his statement with regard to Canada's air force he will be quite explicit. Let me say here at once that there are no better aviators in the world than the Canadians and I am sure they will give a good account of themselves wherever they go. Their efforts will shine with glory. I want the minister, however, to tell us next session, if it is in order, how we compare with Australia or with New Zealand in the air.


Charles Gavan Power: As soon as I get permission to give the official figures from Australia I will give them, but I can tell my hon. friend that they are nothing like those he quoted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not responsible for these quotations; they are dispatches to the press.


Charles Gavan Power: Why does the hon. member argue on something he knows nothing about?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will say at once, however, that so far as the Canadian Press is concerned, I believe any dispatch it sends out is correct as far as it has the facts. Now that the recruiting effort has been mentioned, may I make this statement after what the Minister of National Defence said. He told us that there were several committees-the civilian committee, the agriculture committee, the industrial committee-all of them working as best they can to persuade young men working in various plants and on farms to enter the service. Let me tell the committee what I saw in connection with this system.
-NOVEMBER 10, 1941
The War-Mr. Gillis
I travelled a good deal last summer, and one evening I saw in front of a hotel in the west two stout, well built men, far beyond the fighting age-they were as old as I am-bulldozing a young man about joining the army. I did not wish to reveal who I was because I thought I might get into trouble, but I certainly do not agree with that system of recruiting. I do not agree with the bulldozing of young men in the street. I cannot endorse that method of intimidation. Young men have a great responsibility, and if they want to enlist, if it is in their hearts, I assume they will volunteer. That has been the British spirit at all times, but I do not believe in the intimidation of young mem. May I mention what I was told in one recruiting camp. I do not believe this, but I will tell the committee what I heard; I hope it is wholly untrue. At any rate, I heard that three pieces of paper were handed to a young chap and they would ask him to choose the one he wanted, The blue one said that he would enlist; the white one said that he would consider it and think it over; the yellow paper declared that he was not going to enlist for overseas service at all. I hope there is not a word of truth in that, though I have heard it and I believe others have. If it is true, I am not in accord with it.
I am not going to back up the statement about recruiting falling down. I have here a good many clippings from Pembroke, Winnipeg and across Canada. I am going to take the minister's statement in this regard. The state of affairs being what it is, and taking the loss of our troops in wastage, through sickness, through men being sent home for one reason or another, I would ask this question.


Mr. WARREN:: The hon. member has referred to Pembroke. Has he read in the newspapers that the enlistments in the Pembroke district to date are equal to the enlistments in that district for the four years of the last war?


An hon. MEMBER:: How does the population compare?


Ralph Melville Warren: The population is about what it was.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not finding fault with what was done in the Pembroke district. I have no doubt the young men there will enlist as loyally as in any other part of Canada, but I have this statement from the press:
Pembroke, Oct. 17-(staff)-Concern over a heavy decrease of enlistments in the counties of Lanark and Renfrew during the past week was expressed to-day by Lieut. Purvis, district recruiting officer.
14873-266	eevisi
That gentleman may not have had the facts, but that is his statement.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I understand that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) does not wish to speak at this time. I am going to be as brief and as explicit as possible in what I have to say. I rise after listening to the last speaker in his references to recruiting, labour and so on, and I wonder, as I often wonder, when I hear discussions in the house, whether we expect to win the war here; for, as far as I can see, travelling across the country, this is where most of the war effort is being made. One thing that most members fail to recognize is that Canada's largest army to-day is in overalls.
Our greatest requirement is production. While what I have to say may not come directly within the province of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), his department is eventually affected. I wish to call attention to something that I had the privilege of seeing yesterday for myself. From time to time hon. members rise in their places and talk about democracy and the necessity for its preservation, and our democratic way of life, and fine phrases like that, but as far as that army in overalls is concerned anything but democracy is being practised. It is no mystery to me why we are not getting recruits voluntarily. In order to get men to fight they must be assured that they have something to fight for, and for hon. members to rise in their places and use all these fine phrases about democracy does not make it a reality, because democracy is something that is supposed to work in the lives of the people. I draw this to the minister's attention, that there is now developing in the Kirkland Lake area a situation which, if allowed to continue, will have serious repercussions not only in that area but perhaps all across Canada, and will eventually ramify into the Department of Munitions and Supply, because the same situation is developing at the Ford Motor company in Windsor where the machines are made that are so necessary to our war effort.
I remember the efforts of the workers at Kirkland Lake to accept the principles laid down by the federal government, the right to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. These men have been patient and long-suffering; they have gone along for the past fifteen or sixteen months through all the legal processes provided by the govern-



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The War-Mr. Gillis
[Stage Direction]
ment with respect to exercising that democracy about which we talk so much. A commission made inquiry into the situation in that district and recommended a company union. The men still carried on negotiations with the government through the Department of Labour and were successful in having another conciliation board appointed. This board unanimously recommended recognition of the union in that district. The operators refused to obey that mandate of the conciliation board. The operators refused to obey the laws of the country, and their only excuse for refusing to accept the decision of the conciliation board was that they would not do business with the C.I.O. I know something about the C.I.O. and I say that the C.I.O. does not exist in Canada at the present time. To begin with, the C.I.O. is not a trade union, it is a trade union centre. The C.I.O. does not sign collective agreements, does not negotiate wage agreements. The C.I.O. is a legislative centre for the unions in the United States; when the Canadian Congress of Labour was set up in Canada it replaced the C.I.O. in Canada, and the Canadian Congress of Labour is now the legislative centre for the industrial unions in Canada. Therefore the mine operators are very badly confused or misinformed or else are deliberately ducking the issue when they give as a reason for not accepting the mandate of this board that they will not do business with the C.I.O. They will not have to do business with the C.I.O. but will do business with their own workmen in that section once the organization is set up.
Speaking again of democracy, I consider the franchise to be the very basis of democracy. But the machinery provided by the Department of Labour for taking that vote in Kirkland Lake was a disgrace. Whoever was responsible for it made a complete mess. I was there on Sunday, attended three meetings in the afternoon, and I say that there is as well developed and as well led a trades union movement in that section as in any other part of Canada, sensible men who know where they are going and who are patient and long-suffering. Some eight or ten men from the Department of Labour went in there and conducted that vote. The men were given no opportunity to see the form of ballot that was to be used; they were given no list of those eligible to vote. Let me read the ballot; if this is not a deliberate attempt to take the franchise from the men on that question, then

I am no judge of ballots. It starts off with some straight propaganda for company unionism. It reads:
Your employer agrees to negotiate with a committee elected by the employees of the company but not with local 240 of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' Union.
Are you in favour of a strike unless the company is prepared to negotiate with local 240?
Yes	
No	
That ballot is handed to these men with no opportunity given to understand it; it is a deliberate attempt to propagandize against the legitimate rights of the men in that section.
This is what I am concerned about; the main concern of any responsible executive of a trade union is to avoid trouble or head it off. Hon. members know that since I have been in this house I have continuously given warning against what would happen. For five and a half months last summer we went through a mess in Nova Scotia that would not have arisen had attention been paid to some of the things I said here. Now I see developing a similar situation in Kirkland Lake. According to the figures I see in the press the men voted in favour of a strike. Some 4,500 men are affected; an entire community is affected, and if that strike develops it is a shame and a crime on the part of those responsible for handling the situation. The men could legally have gone on strike this morning, but they postponed it until Thursday in order to give the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) an opportunity for further negotiation to make the mine operators see what is fair and just.
A strike is an easy thing to call, but a hard thing to settle. The workers there have canvassed all their legal rights; if a strike takes place it is going to affect the entire labour movement in Canada, because there has been so much injustice and disregard of regular procedure in that area that the entire labour movement in Canada will take it up, and perhaps we shall have trouble from coast to coast, while all that is necessary to head it off is that someone with authority, realizing what should be done, shall settle the matter on the basis of that vote.
I bring this situation to the attention of the committee now because I know that if this continues until Thursday morning without something being done to assure the men there that their democratic rights are going to be protected, there will be trouble and that

The War-Oil and Gasoline
trouble may spread all across Canada. The people in Windsor sent a telegram which was read here the other day and we have had several letters, making the same objection to the same form of ballot. Instead of the matter being decided on the majority basis, the same basis as that on which hon. menjbers are elected to this house, the eligible vote at the mine is taken and every vote not cast is counted as a vote against the union. Yet even on that basis the union won with quite a large percentage.
In rising it was not my intention to waste time or to make a long speech. I simply wished to direct the attention of the committee and of the Minister of Munitions and Supply -because he is going to be affected sooner or later if this is allowed to continue-to the situation that exists. Instead of criticism I am presenting an appeal to those in authority to stop this, to do something about it before it goes too far.
George Hugh Castleden: On Friday afternoon
the minister requested that I should repeat my questions to-day, with regard to the increase in the consumption of gasoline in June, August and September of this year compared with the same months of last year.


Mr. HOWE:: I have the information
requested by my hon. friend, but I think, to give it fairly, I should give it month by month from January on, because in April there was an increase in taxation which affected the figures considerably. The statement is as follows:
	Increase
1941	per cent
January 		
February 		
March		
April		
May		
June 		
Average, 18 per cent.
My hon. friend will recall that there was a three cent increase in the tax on gasoline in April, so a large part of the increase in that month was due to people who stocked up in anticipation of that increase.


George Hugh Castleden: Do these figures show the value of the gasoline?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; this is the percentage
increase in the number of gallons used.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What has been the increased production in Canada, say in the last six months or year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I gave the figure; it is
in Hansard.



H873-266J

Charles Edward Johnston: I mean
the Canadian production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I gave that figure.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand the July increase was about 20 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister the
figures for August or September?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a sharp reduction, as a result of the rationing. I think the August figure came very close to the figure for August last year, while the September and October figures were arbitrarily set at 20 per cent below the corresponding figures for September and October of last year.


Angus MacInnis: When rationing went into effect this autumn I believe there was an increase of one cent a gallon in the retail price of gasoline. What was the reason for that increase in price? Did the companies provide the department with information indicating that an increase was necessary; and, if that information has been supplied, will the minister give it to the committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The increase in the price of gasoline came after some months of control, as a result of the steady increase in the price of crude. I mentioned on Friday that during the same period the price of gasoline at the gulf, which of course is where all our gasoline originates, and where transportation charges do not have to be considered, had risen two cents, while the price of gasoline in New York, where the transportation charges are much lower than to Canadian points, had risen by from 2-4 to 2-6 cents. The increase of one cent in August was looked into very carefully. All the savings that had been made possible by the oil companies through the regulations of the controller, such as cutting out the use of credit cards and similar savings, were assessed, and the companies were given considerably less than they asked. Subsequently they took their case to the war-time prices and trade board, and the situation was carefully reviewed by that board which at that time was responsible for all prices. A further increase of one cent in the price of gasoline was granted in certain areas, I think in the maritime provinces, Quebec and eastern Ontario. It was not granted in western Ontario, the prairies or British Columbia.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask whether we shall be given a statement on what is being done in the way of reclaiming lubricating oil. I understand a process has
The War-Oil and Gasoline

been perfected by which they can take lubricating oil that has been used in aeroplane engines for a certain number of hours and, by heating it and putting it through pressure, can filter and reclaim that oil to a very high standard, at very little cost.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think every militia camp has an oil reclaiming unit. It is my understanding that oil from the airports, as well as the oil used in the military vehicles, is sent to these militia centres, where it is reclaimed and used over again. Of course, my hon. friend will understand that it could not be used for aeroplane engines; it is not brought back to its original grade, though it is not a bad grade after being reclaimed. It can be put through this process once or twice with good results, and I believe pretty well every army vehicle is using reclaimed oil.


George Hugh Castleden: My information was , that in large areas of the west this was being done by private firms, that the militia units were not doing it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know there is one of these units at Camp Borden, because I have seen it, and I think we have purchased reclaiming outfits for all the military camps. I doubt very much if oil from either military aeroplanes or military vehicles is being refined by private firms; I should be surprised if that were the situation. I do not see how they could acquire the oil to refine it.


Robert Fair: I wonder whether the minister or the oil controller has considered giving the farmers the right to purchase gasoline in barrels for their cars. As a rule farmers do not live within a few blocks of a service station. In many instances they are twenty, thirty or even more miles from a filling station, and in order to. buy what gasoline they can afford they are compelled to use one, two, three or perhaps more gallons of gasoline to make the trip. In my particular area the price of ethyl gasoline by the barrel is 34 cents a gallon. At the pump the same gasoline costs 39 cents a gallon, or almost the price of a bushel of wheat. I wonder whether some step could not be taken to give the farmer a small break by allowing him to buy gasoline both for automobile and truck use by the barrel, instead of compelling him to go to the pump and needlessly waste gasoline.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think farmers have been given certain concessions that have not been extended to owners of ordinary pleasure cars. I believe a farmer is allowed to purchase gasoline in cans, is he not?


George Hugh Castleden: No, not for a car.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps he can purchase it in cans for his farm machines, but not for his car. I believe all this will be corrected as soon as it is possible to put in the coupon books. Then the farmer will have a coupon book which he can use at all times, and the present restrictions, which were designed to cut down the use of gasoline, of course will not apply. I dare say that at that time some arrangement can be made such as my hon. friend suggests. The ethyl gasoline to which he referred would be used for pleasure driving.


Robert Fair: It is also used in a number of new trucks now being produced, because it gives better performance. If we were allowed to purchase in barrel quantities we would save five cents a gallon. We now pay $17.55 per 45-gallon barrel for ethyl gasoline, when purchasing locally. That is a condition which should be corrected.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member's observations illustrate the difficulty of having uniform regulations in Canada. This is a most difficult country in which to ration or control gasoline, because different areas present different conditions. I am sure, however, that the oil controller is constantly obtaining new information and solving new difficulties. The reason why we did not ration gasoline months ago is that we had to acquire a great deal of information respecting the requirements in different areas across the country. I am hopeful that when a complete rationing system comes out, it will be possible to take into account all conditions, including the ones mentioned by the hon. member.


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe what has been said exemplifies the lack of foresight the government has shown in respect of its handling of oil. The hon. member for Davenport pointed out the necessity for the government immediately considering the possibility of utilizing the Alberta tar sands. I recall speaking particularly about the Alberta tar sands immediately after the outbreak of the war. On that occasion I pointed out that a German syndicate had offered to install a pipeline. On that occasion the Minister of Munitions and Supply answered me.
It is now evident that there is a shortage of gasoline. While in my opinion the time is long past when this matter should have been looked after. I would urge that it be done now. The government should do everything possible to increase production. It goes without question that there is a tremendous supply of oil products in the tar sands of Athabaska.

The War-Oil and Gasoline
Some money may be required to develop production. If, however, we want gasoline, then why do we not go out and get it?
It is now said that gasoline is to be rationed. I am completely mystified, because when price control was discussed some time ago the government told us that rationing could not be carried out. Yet it is now undertaking to do so. The only difficulty is that it is about two years too late in beginning. A year ago in the house I pointed out that if there was a scarcity of any commodity it would not be proper to allow the price to increase, as has been done with respect to gasoline. The proper procedure was to enforce rationing. If we are short of gasoline, let us not just fool round with the idea of rationing; let us have a strict rationing system. If we are really in need of gasoline, every pleasure car in the country should be put off the road.
At the same time I believe the present system of gasoline control is wrong, and the government is losing the confidence of the people, not only through the operation of the control now in effect, but because it is not making every endeavour to increase production. The minister has said that he placed production figures on Hansard. I looked for them this morning, but did not succeed in finding them.
I have in mind particularly the Turner valley, and the tar sands in the north. I believe that in those fields the government has done nothing more than a small amount of surveying of possibilities. I am concerned chiefly with the actual increase in oil production. I am convinced that in the last six months or the last year oil production in Canada has not been increased to any appreciable degree, certainly not to the amount it should have reached, if we really wanted to obtain gasoline.
The statement published by the Joy Oil company is astonishing. I do not believe the minister has answered it fully. One paragraph reads:
During September, 1941, we were promised tankers by the United States tanker pool, providing we secured the recommendation of Canadian oil controller, G. R. Cottrelle. Despite our repeated efforts, Cottrelle refused all our requests, and we were advised to buy our gasoline from the big Canadian oil companies.
That is a serious charge. They were short of gasoline-and I have no doubt the Minister of Munitions and Supply is right when he says there is a shortage. If we are short of gasoline, then why force this large oil company to buy from Canadian companies, when it could buy from the United States? It must be remembered, too, that this company is underselling other Canadian companies. If
I am to be robbed, I do not care if it is done by a Canadian or an American. My only concern is that I am being robbed. Surely the Imperial Oil company could sell gasoline just as cheaply as the Joy Oil company? If I am correctly informed, the Imperial Oil company is only a subsidiary of the Standard Oil company of the United States.
I can see where oil companies might gain great advantage by rationing present supplies, even to the extent of eliminating civilian consumption. I believe it would be more to their advantage to have such rationing than to have an increase in production which would take care of both civilian and war-time needs. After the war, in the event of increased production we would have an abundant supply of gasoline, and prices would naturally decrease. The oil companies which have practically a monopoly of oil production in Canada would have a tendency to keep the price up, and to cut down the supply.
I believe the government is negligent almost to the point of-yes, someone has whispered "sabotage"-when it neglects its present opportunity to increase our oil production to the maximum. The minister may say, as he did once before, that the government is not going to put money into oil production. If he does reply in that way, then I say to him, as I did before, that it is the government's business to get the gasoline. I do not care how they get it, but certainly it is their business to get it. With our potentialities there is no reason for a shortage of gasoline. The tar sands in northern Alberta are estimated to be the largest potential oil fields in the world. Not one solitary thing is being done so far as actual production is concerned. Some surveys may have been made-but that is not production.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to say anything to the committee, but I received a letter this morning from the secretary of the Thunder Bay Milk Producers' association. This letter draws a picture of what the farmers of that district have been going through. Their second crop of hay was lost; their wheat, oats and barley were rotting in the stook, and they have not been able to harvest their potatoes on account of wet weather. The story is told of one man with sixteen acres of
The War-Mr. Mclvor

potatoes who had to go out in top-boots and dig enough for his own use; he lost his crop. The milk producers of the district want an increase of twenty-five cents per hundredweight for milk and an increase of five cents a pound for butterfat, for cream used in the fluid trade. This application, of course, has to go before the milk control board at Toronto, and the board's decision will have to be approved by the war-time prices and trade board. The milk producers certainly are deserving of consideration. I hope also that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is considering the bonus question he will not forget the farmers in the Thunder bay district who have lost everything.
I hope, too, that the dependents of soldiers will receive first consideration when the bonus question is considered. The young man who has volunteered for service overseas and left his wife and children behind in Canada has certainly a better right to a bonus than the man who takes his place in civil life. Old age pensions should also be bonused.
I am sure, too, that this house will be grateful to the Minister of Finance for not adding a bonus to the salaries of the members of parliament. If such a bonus were suggested, I believe there would be a revolution in this house.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who was a storm centre last year because he advocated growing less wheat and more feed. The farmers of Ontario must be wishing that he had got better support then, because they are very glad now to get feed from the west.
I also want to congratulate the government upon what it has done under the war-time housing scheme at the head of the lakes. We needed houses very badly at the head of the lakes, and the government came to our assistance. A local committee was formed, consisting of A. F. Hawkens, superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway; C. E. Chappie, of Chappie's Limited; E. J. Saulsby, manager of Canadian Car, and P. E. Doncaster, district engineer of the public works department. That committee got to work, and the result was that forty four-roomed dwellings were constructed renting at from $22 to $25; ten six-roomed dwellings renting at $30; and two staff houses for male workers, each housing eighty-eight men, or one hundred and seventy-six altogether. In those houses the rent for a single room is $4 a week, and for a double room, $3.25 for each occupant. The people who have been able to get into these houses have expressed their delight at these

comfortable homes. I believe that thirty-six other houses are now under construction under this scheme.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) the other day state that in future trades unionism must be interwoven with industry. I heard the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) speak to-day of how he rose from the ranks of labour, and he will take second place to nobody except perhaps myself in understanding labour men from the ground up. The government that gives the right to the worker to organize and to join any union of his choice, and ensures that it is not made a criminal offence for a man to belong to a union, is going to stand behind labour through thick and thin, and there are many of us in all groups in this house who will stand behind the government if they will carry out that policy, and who will criticize them if they do not. When I was belabouring the C.I.O., my brother-in-law, who is a doctor of sociology in the university of Michigan, said to me, "You are criticizing an organization about which you know very little," I said, "I know some bad things about it, and the way to help is to advertise the bad in it." He said that those who were responsible for the C.I.O. were the craft unions because they did not organize completely and include everybody in the industry. I found it to be true in the case of the Great Lakes Pulp and Paper company at Fort William, that they included everybody in their union without the C.I.O. The man who works with a shovel and does ordinary labouring work has just as much right to protection as any other man. I know there are things in the C.I.O. that are not very good. We shall have to watch the organization closely. Nevertheless any man who toils has to fight for his own good.
Turning to another matter, I would suggest to the government that we arrange for an exchange of ministers with Russia, for two reasons: First, the change that Russia has undergone and the change in our own attitude towards Russia. I can well remember the time when Russia wanted total disarmament by all countries, but got very little support. That was the day when the League of Nations began to slip a bit. Second, our own attitude to Russia changed completely when they announced freedom of religion and that they would allow a man to worship God as he pleases. That is what we appreciate in this country. Our attitude toward Russia also changed when, instead of being a potential enemy, she became an ally. Therefore I think it would be a wise move on the part of the government to arrange for an exchange of ministers with Russia.

The War-Mr. Howe
I am not going to say much about what is going to happen after the war, but it is most hopeful when minister after minister, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, says that after this war things are not going to be as they were after the last war. I can well remember when I struggled hard going about in my Ford car to try to find a returned man work at twenty-five cents an hour and could not find it. I do not think that day will ever come again. I hope we have learned a great deal since then, and when minister after minister rises in his place and says that we shall have a new social order after this war, a Christian social order, it gives us a good deal of hope. There are two things that I should like to see in this new Christian social order when it comes. I should like the Sabbath day to be a day of rest when a man can go to worship where he pleases. The other thing is this. We have heard a great deal about the control of gasoline in one way and another, but I have not heard a word said about the control of another liquid that is used by far more people than use gasoline. That is a matter which should be given consideration by the government.


Mr. GREEN:: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether any plans have been made for the operation of the merchant ships and for their manning. The minister announced in the house the other day that we would have approximately one hundred merchant ships in operation by the end of next year, and I believe there are to be fifty more in the following year. Large crews will be required to operate these vessels. I am not aware that any men are now being trained for that purpose, and I would ask the minister to explain to the committee just what the situation is at the present time with regard to crews.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Transport has taken in hand the task of training crews for merchant ships. Manning pools have been established at Halifax and Montreal and are now in operation. Training schools are also being built in connection with these manning pools. It is the intention to pursue an intensive programme of enlisting and training candidates for the merchant marine.


Howard Charles Green: Will there not be schools on both coasts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume that there will also be a school on the west coast. I am not sure what the plans are for that. This is a new activity; it is just getting nicely under way. But I have no doubt that there will be training schools on the west coast as well. Of course, the advantage of working in connection
with manning pools is that every man graduating from a school can be assured of being placed.


Howard Charles Green: How are they to be operated? By War-time Merchant Shipping, Limited, or by the government, or by private companies? That is, once the ships are actually carrying cargo?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There again, I assume that the ships being built for Canada will be operated by the Canadian government merchant marine which was organized for that purpose in the last war and is now operating ships that have been seized as prizes of war in Canadian waters. I should imagine that would be the method of operation. But of course, the recruiting and training of merchant seamen constitute an operation which is carried on in connection with all British ships. Some of our ships are being built for Great Britain, on order from Great Britain, and some are being built on Canadian orders.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be against the public interest to disclose how many are for British order, and how many for Canadian?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe that either twenty-six or twenty-eight ships are on British order, and the balance are Canadian.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there is a shortage of steel. I see by a press report in the Vancouver Sun on November 3, that Mr. MacMillan, head of War-time Merchant Shipping, Limited, is quoted as saying:
Shortage of steel for the ships has been and still is a serious problem. It has slowed up the programme considerably in all parts. There is not enough steel produced in Canada for all war purposes and the United States defence programme, now gathering real momentum, has cut down the amount that can be got from there.
Mr. MacMillan said that experts have assured him that there will be plenty of steel by late next spring. He hopes they are right.
Could the minister tell us whether or not that report is correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would say that the shortage of steel is not as severe as is indicated in the newspaper extract which my hon. friend has just read. Steel, of course, is short in Canada. We have doubled the production of steel in Canada since the war began, but we have always imported steel from the United States, and we still do, and in about the same relative proportion to our own production as formerly. Usually, I believe, steel for about one-third of our Canadian production is imported from the United States. One difficulty was that we started a shipbuilding programme at several yards at exactly the same time; each yard required the same type of steel at the same time; and we had a
The War-Mr. Howe

limited capacity for the individual ships. Another difficulty is that certain structural shapes which go into the ships have to be imported; they are heavier than any mill in Canada can roll. Just at the time we required them, the United States changed its system of priorities, and it has taken some time to get the system established. But the steel position in November is going to be very much better than in October, and I should say that by the end of the year no shipyard- at least, on present indications-will be short of steel. We have had, however, to curtail the amount of steel moving into domestic uses. We are letting the very minimum quantity of steel go into non-war uses at the moment. Practically every ton of billets that is being manufactured in Canada is being rolled into plate for ships or armour-plate or gun-barrel forgings or some use of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: Have we not now reached a time when wooden ships could be used to advantage? If steel is scarce, would it not be wise for War-time Merchant Shipping, Limited, to undertake also the building of wooden cargo vessels? I understand that this can be done, that there are men available who have had training in building wooden ships. Would it not be well for Canada now to branch out into the building of wooden vessels as well as steel ones?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question of whether or not wooden ships should be built received very careful consideration. Speaking personally, I became less and less enthusiastic as I studied the situation. The plain fact of the matter is that the cost per ton of the wooden ship is at least as great as and perhaps somewhat greater than the cost per ton of the steel ship. Operating costs are considerably higher for wooden ships than for steel ships. It must be quite obvious, I think, to all hon. members, that a timber ship would have no post-war value, and that the same man-hours put into a steel ship would produce much more value, even for war time, than the same man-hours put into a timber ship.
It may be said that a different class of labour is used in the construction of a timber ship. That is true to only a limited extent. The hulls of ships are, of course, a great deal less than half the cost of the ship; they are, perhaps, no more than one-third of the cost; and it is only the steel hull as against the wooden hull that we are discussing. For the interior fittings we draw on the same manufacturing resources for the steel ship as for the wooden ship.
As far as the Department of Munitions and Supply is concerned, and viewing the matter i*olely from that point of view, we of course

build on order from someone. We usually have a customer for the gun or tank or ship or whatever we build, before we build it. We have no appropriations of our own excepting for ordinary running expenses. If the Department of National Defence for Naval Services want a corvette, they come to us with a certificate of encumbrance, plus the order for the corvette, turn over the money to us, and we build the corvette and deliver it to them. That applies to everything which we build. While we have had no customer for a wooden ship, we have had many people come forward quite willing to build those ships; we have had nobody come forward to say that they want them.


Howard Charles Green: Who would order the ships? The navy, or the Department of Transport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It might be the merchant marine, or it might be the Canadian shipping board.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who is the Canadian shipping board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian shipping board is a board that operates under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Under the instructions of the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, then, we can tell them to buy them. Am I to understand- if I may ask a question in connection with this matter of the wooden ships-that the urgency of the situation is surmounted by the dollars and cents point of view? Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I would not say that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understood the minister just now to say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have tried in our war manufacturing to turn out a good article, and I think we have succeeded very well. If we build a ship, we build a ship which is a good ship compared with any on the ocean. If we build a tank, it is a good tank; if we build a gun, it is a good gun, equal to any. I think that when you turn out a wooden ship in this day and generation, you are turning out a second-class article, and one which hardly justifies the man-hours and the material which you put into it.


Howard Charles Green: Do I understand that the minister's point is that the building of wooden ships would interfere with the construction of steel ships?

The War-Mr. Howe


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Of course the engines for wooden ships come from the same factories which build engines for the steel ships.


Howard Charles Green: I have in mind that it should be possible to increase the number of ships which Canada can build, by building these wooden ships in addition to the steel ships. That is the argument, I believe, which is being advanced.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course you can build wooden hulls without competing materially with the steel hulls, although there is a good deal of steel even in a wooden hull. When you come to all the fittings of the ship you are stepping into the same factories that are building interior fittings for the steel ships, and with a little greater effort you could get a steel hull as well as you could a timber one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where are you
getting the steel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are getting it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understood the minister to say he could not get sufficient
steel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are doing all right so far.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Am I to understand the minister to say that we are building a sufficient number of ships to meet the emergency?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We look upon Britain as a great shipbuilding country and it has been building ships for a great many years. It is still building ships; every yard is full


George Alexander Cruickshank: England is still being bombed, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the next year, 1942, we expect that Canada will turn out about the same tonnage of merchant ships as Britain will, which I think, for a country that was building no ships prior to the war, will not be a bad effort. In addition, we shall have a large naval programme which will also be turning out ships in our yards. There is, however, a limit to the extent of our effort in any direction, and I doubt whether we can go into a big programme of building timber ships without crippling our efforts in the direction of steel building.


Howard Charles Green: I would urge upon the minister that the question be considered very carefully. In the war effort, we have been inclined to think we could not do certain things and then the next week, by the pressure of events, we have found that we can do them. I fancy that the building of wooden ships will sooner or later exemplify that truth. I urge that he have his department or 14873-267
whoever is responsible for the decision review the whole position again. It may be that we are missing something that would be of great help in the war effort.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Wooden ships at present are being built at Shelburne and Yarmouth, N.S. I understand that there are three under way. They are, I believe, going into the merchant marine service.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those are Fairmile ships. They are of the mine-sweeper type and are being built for our own navy and the British navy. That is a highly specialized timber ship built of mahogany and to naval specifications. It is a naval vessel.


Joseph Henry Harris: There is very little steel in these ships, and their construction certainly gives work to those skilled in this art in that part of Canada. It seems to me that if there is a shortage of that class of craft there is an abundance of room for immediate expansion of work. I have seen the work going on. At the very most there were only ten men working on one hull and probably six or eight on another, and the mill which was operating the band-saws to turn out cribwork and what-not did not have a staff of sawyers of more than a dozen. I do not believe that there was more than 150 horse-power in use, and a few ox teams for hauling in the logs, at a speed of two or three miles an hour, did not strike me as adequate. I do not wish to criticize, but I would point out that the lumber is there, and the people who have lived in that area on the Atlantic coast for many generations are accustomed to that class of work. I repeat, therefore, that there is certainly an abundance of room for a little more energy being put into that work. If, as the minister says, these particular wooden ships are efficient for a certain class of work, I should be glad if he would answer my question. I should like to have him outline the policy to show what is being done, not only in these two small yards but in many others in Nova Scotia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is getting rather mixed up between two programmes.


Joseph Henry Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on wooden ships I recited a case that is actually being discussed under this item, and properly so, and the minister rises in his place and says that the hon. member is getting mixed up. If he sees fit I would ask him to withdraw that remark. I think he is out of order in saying that I am mixed up.

The War-Mr. Nicholson


Clarence Decatur Howe: I withdraw. I will put it in another way. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was speaking, I believe, about quite another programme of ships than that to which my hon. friend was referring. My hon. friend was discussing the small boat programme which is being carried out in fifty-four yards from one end of Canada to the other. We have built nearly 800 ships in these shipyards and we are still building them. Wooden ships are being built all along the Atlantic coast and on the great lakes as well as on the Pacific coast, but these are small-boat programmes and the boats are being built in yards suitable to that type. The hon. member for Vancouver South was referring to cargo boats which would have to be built in yards of the type suitable for steel ship construction, or new yards would have to be established of that general nature for the building of merchant ships. The programme to which the hon. member for Vancouver South was referring was not the same as the programme which my hon. friend was discussing.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I wish to direct a few questions to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, but before doing so, I should like to make one or two remarks with regard to war-time housing. A dispatch from the minister's office points out that on October 27 there were twenty-seven cities and towns from coast to coast where war-time housing had been under way. According to this information we have appropriated $15,-
750,000	to complete projects that were authorized up to that date. We have provided for 4,427 houses, thirty-five staff houses and four dining halls. The sum of money mentioned might appear to be a large commitment, but if one thinks of it in terms of the entire appropriations for the Department of Munitions and Supply, it will seem small. According to the information the minister gave the other day, he has authorized to date contracts totalling $2,600,000,000. It is difficult for most of us to think in terms of such vast sums. I was examining the public accounts over the week-end, and I noticed that our entire war expenditures-demobilization expenditures included-during and since the last war totalled $1,695,000,000. In other words, this one department has awarded contracts for nearly $1,000,000,000 in excess of our entire war bill and costs since the last great war. If we add all our dominion government expenditures since 1868 chargeable to consolidated revenue fund, to capital, for railway subsidies, for war and demobilization, and for other charges until 1935, as reported on IMr. J. H. Harris.]
page 62 of the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1941, we find a total of some $11,704,150,309, or about five times the amount of the expenditures in this one department.
When hon. members consider the tremendous development all across Canada in order to carry out the programme outlined by the minister, they will see how closely the supply of housing for the men working in the various industries is tied up with our whole industrial output. During the last great war it was not until 1918 that the matter of supplying housing was recognized as a national war emergency. But the situation during the last war was very different from what we find to-day. At the commencement of the last war we had a surplus of from 7 to 15 per cent of vacant houses in Canada. At the commencement of the present war it was less than one per cent. In addition to this, during the ten years preceding the outbreak of the war little was done in Canada to replace obsolete houses that were wearing out. It is estimated that we have about 2,500,000 housing units in Canada, and assuming that the life of the average house is fifty years we should be building 50,000 houses each year to provide for normal replacement, without making any provision for the new houses required as a result of shifts in population and the establishment of new families. But instead of building 50,000 houses a year, according to the information in Maclean's building reports we built in 1940, 20,933 houses; in 1939, 21,946; in 1938, 18,565; in 1937, 18,284, and for the years 1932 to 1936, an average of less than
12,000	a year. Thus it can be readily understood that we entered this war with a serious shortage of housing.
In peace time, with a large number of people unemployed, it is possible for two or three families to be housed together in one building; but when the men go back to work, start receiving wages, coming home from work at all hours of the day or night, it is only natural that families desire to have individual houses. It is not conducive to efficiency to have several families living in one house and the sleep of the workers disturbed by men coming and going. Therefore we find large shifts in our population, large military and naval encampments about the country where people have brought their families and are finding great difficulty in securing accommodation.
I am very glad that early in the war the government recognized that this was becoming a national problem and appropriated a sum of money. I am not, however, satisfied with the administration of war-time housing as I see it. I was asked by our caucus to

The War-Mr. Nicholson
make a special study of this problem, and I have received letters from people all across the dominion. I explained to the minister last session that in taking up this problem I had no desire to discover any scandal; that is the last thing I would wish. The minister was very kind in his attitude. There should, however, be someone in Ottawa in a position to discuss with any hon. member the activities of war-time housing, who could satisfy us that the taxpayers of Canada are receiving good value for the money spent. I felt that the set-up we had for national housing should have been used for the supervising and organizing of the war-time activities.
In 1935 the Dominion Housing Act was passed; since 1938 we have had the National Housing Act, and I am sure hon. members are pleased with the progress made by this fairly new branch of government administration. We have spent a large sum of money in making it possible for quite a large proportion of the Canadian people to have much better housing than they could have without this scheme, and this has been done at a very low monetary outlay. We had men in this administration who were familiar with housing programmes in the United States, in Europe and in all countries where really progressive work has been done in providing housing for the people. But instead of using the government administration we brought in Mr. Pigott, one of the dollar-a-year men. I say nothing against Mr. Pigott; he has to his credit some of Canada's very finest buildings, but being able to place one's services at the disposal of the country for a dollar a year does not necessarily qualify one to do a job such as that of president of War-time Housing Limited. Mr. Goggin, the general manager, must also be a very good man because we are paying him a very good salary, $10,000 a year, enough to secure the services of the best men in the housing field. I feel, however, that we are not using the personnel or the research work which has been available under our national housing administration.
I have not been able to secure the information that I think I am entitled to as a member of parliament. I wrote to War-time Housing Limited early in the summer saying that since I had been assigned to this work I should like to be supplied with as full information as possible regarding the activities of war-time housing all across the country. On August 7 I had a reply from the general manager giving the names of places where war-time housing was active and the number of houses in each place. It did not give any information regarding the type of buildings, terms of contracts, rentals charged, or information from which to judge
whether they were really dealing with the problem as it should be dealt with. While I have not had a great many complaints, the information I have is that there is much to be desired in connection with the operation of war-time housing. A letter from St. Catharines makes complaints regarding an unusual clause in the lease. They rent only on a month-to-month basis; a tenant must give one month's notice when leaving, but it is stipulated that a tenant may be asked to leave on only three days' notice. The argument advanced is that war-time housing want to prevent the area becoming run down or houses being used for bootlegging or prostitution. No doubt their objective is worthy, but it seems to me that asking people to vacate on three days' notice is unreasonable. The rents charged are not especially low, $22 to $30, similar to the rents mentioned in Fort William. I believe this parliament is entitled to more information regarding the activities of war-time housing.
If the minister had time at his disposal to supervise work on housing, no doubt it would be very well done, but with $2,600,000,000 being spent by the Department of Munitions and Supply, it is almost impossible for him to be in close touch with all that is going on in the hundred and one different branches under his supervision. I believe there should be in his department in Ottawa some civil servant who is familiar with everything that is being done by war-time housing. I think in the Department of Finance there should be some official with complete information as to the types of construction, the nature of contracts and so on, who would be in a position to assure members of parliament that the people of Canada are getting good value for the money that is being spent.
May I conclude with five or six questions which I should like the minister to answer if he can do so. First, would the minister tell the committee why the staff of the national housing administration could not have been extended and used to carry out whatever wartime housing building programmes were necessary. Second, what check is there by the Department of Finance and/or the Department of Munitions and Supply on the types of construction and materials of war-time housing projects? Third, what has been the cost per unit for the housing units completed in any of the centres where houses have been completed? Fourth, what is the largest number of pre-fabricated houses constructed by any one firm? Fifth, what are the estimated expenditures in connection with the entire building programme as at present contemplated by War-time Housing Limited? Sixth, what policy has been followed in connection
The War-Housing

with the purchase of materials in general, and heating units in particular, by War-time Housing Limited for the 4,400 houses which have been built? I am not sure that the minister can answer .these questions at the moment, but I would appreciate it if he could.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think, when my hon. friend has time to investigate more closely, he will find War-time Housing Limited to be a very efficient operation indeed. About a month ago I had the pleasure of going to Hamilton to take part in the opening of a staff house. While there, I investigated a number of housing projects in that neighbourhood. One thing that struck me was the very attractive appearance of these houses. In any block of them, out of five houses not one will be exactly like any other; they are well spaced, and so on. I was particularly interested in the reaction of those who had just moved into the houses. I had a talk with one man and asked him how he liked his house. He spoke in very high praise of it and said, "I will put it this way. A few years ago I built a brick-veneer house that cost me $5,200. If I could swap even for this house I would be delighted to do so." The house to which he was referring was one of the smallest of the war-time housing units, a four-roomed house which cost about $1,800 or, with plumbing, local improvements and so on, perhaps $2,000 or $2,100. Getting that reaction, which I got almost everywhere I went, it struck me that we had built something the public were receiving favourably, and that a good job had been done.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Was that a $5,200 house which was used as a comparison?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Compared with the smallest unit in this housing scheme?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I am simply repeating what this man told me. I am not suggesting that the trade could have been made, or anything like that, but that was what he told me.
My hon. friend referred to the huge amount my department has spent. Well, we have placed a great many contracts and spent a tremendous amount of money, and the reason why we have had no scandals and no great difficulties is that the department is very highly organized. We have chosen the best men in the industry to carry on this undertaking. We have had a very good treasury staff; and while I read in the papers that we have made mistakes, frankly I do not know what they are. Perhaps some day those who say we have made mistakes will tell us what they have been, but in the meantime it seems to me we have been getting on very well. We organized War-time Housing Limited very 
carefully. We chose Mr. Pigott to head the company because I think he is at the top of his profession in that particular type of construction. We had associated with him a Canadian architect who all his life has specialized in that type of housing, and on the board of directors we placed men who took a very great interest in that type of work.
The first question my hon. friend asks is why the national housing administration staff was not extended to handle the work. The reason, of course, is that their work is along quite a different line. The national housing staff administers the government's responsibility largely in private construction; in other words, the houses over which the national housing staff have jurisdiction are largely built by private owners, to standards and specifications fixed by the national housing administration, but the main job of the housing administration is to see that the loan guaranteed by the government on those houses is properly secured. War-time housing had a very difficult task. It had to go into heavily congested industrial areas and build houses to take care of a temporary situation. It was concerned with a type of house that need not be a permanent affair, in case there should be another shift of population away from that area.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice that in the September 11 issue of The Lachute Watchman it is stated that the national housing administration supplied the plans and specifications for the very large project at Sorel, Quebec. It seems to me they have already done a good deal of work in preparing plans and specifications for the very sort of work that War-time Housing Limited has done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can explain why that is so. The Sorel gun plant and shipbuilding plant, as my hon. friend knows, were privately owned at the beginning of the war. The government has made some investment in the gun plant, in its programme of expansion, and the houses are more or less a joint operation, partly privately owned and partly financed by the government. The housing project there was undertaken before War-time Housing Limited was organized, and at my suggestion the national housing administration did take charge of that programme for both private and government interests. They designed and supervised the construction of the houses at Sorel, but so far as I know that is the only case where the national housing administration has actually designed and supervised the construction of houses as a complete job.

The War-Housing


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why could they not have extended their operations all across Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They could, but we decided to do it in another way, and I think we were wise. We organized a staff which I do not think could have been organized under the national housing plan. In any event, the national housing administration has a very large programme of its own. The houses that are to be built by War-time Housing Limited are very few in number compared with the houses being built under the national housing plan, even at the present time.
Then my hon. friend asks what check there is by the Department of Finance and/or the Department of Munitions and Supply on the types of construction and materials in war-time housing projects. There is the very closest check. Officers of the Department of Finance check every item that goes into any war-time housing project. The treasurer of War-time Housing Limited is an officer of the Department of Finance. The auditor is the auditor general of Canada, and every dollar spent by war-time housing is handled by the Department of Finance. The buying for War-time Housing Limited is supervised by the purchasing branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply, which is aware of the price paid for everything that is bought and which makes sure that every discount to which the government is entitled is secured, and that the lowest price obtainable by the government is obtained by War-time Housing Limited.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Are tenders asked for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, they are always asked for.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are the municipalities protected in so far as taxes for school purposes are concerned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I will explain that.
The next question is: What has been the cost per unit for the housing units completed in any of the centres where houses have been completed? From one end of Canada to the other, I would say that the houses themselves, including plumbing and heating, cost between $1,800 and $2,100 per unit.


Howard Charles Green: Without the land?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and without furniture. That includes only the house itself, which may be built on posts. In many instances we take an undeveloped lot and put in sewage, and all the improvements that go with the land. In some instances that brings up the cost to another thousand dollars. I
should be very glad to analyse the various projects, and if my hon. friend would put a question on the order paper I will see that a return is made.
The next question is: What is the largest number of prefabricated houses constructed by any one firm? I believe the largest number is the contract with the Brookfield Construction company at Halifax. That has been a continuing contract, and runs into about two thouand houses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All in Halifax?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think there are 2,800 houses there altogether.
The next question is: What are the estimated expenditures in connection with the entire building programme as at present contemplated by War-time Housing Limited? The total amount authorized to date is between $15,000,000 and $16,000,000.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice there have not been any projects undertaken in any of the prairie provinces. We have an acute shortage in many of our cities, and I wonder whether the plan as at present contemplated does not envisage an extension in many centres where the shortage is acute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These houses are entirely for the purpose of housing munitions workers.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: W'hat about Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Winnipeg was a city where there were many vacant houses. I suppose before the war there was no city which had as large a number of vacant houses as had Winnipeg. I have heard of no shortage there, but if a shortage occurs we will meet it. We have been building only in cities where there is a shortage of houses. I believe I have answered the last question as to the policy followed in purchasing materials in general, and heating units. Those are being purchased under the supervision of the purchasing branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Are prices asked for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We buy in large units. We buy for the whole project.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I rise, not to ask a question of the minister, but rather to correct what appears to be a wrong impression in the mind of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), when he referred to the status of Mr. Pigott, president of War-time Housing Limited. I think the hon. member's understanding could arise only from his not knowing Mr. Pigott, or the reputation he has throughout Canada. I can say from personal

The War-Housing
knowledge that Mr. Pigott is a man of the highest integrity and ability. He has a reputation of doing his work thoroughly and well, and is to be entirely relied upon in any of his undertakings. He has had a long experience in one of the leading contracting firms in Canada, and I do not think anyone better qualified could have been appointed to the job.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member is imputing to me motives I had no intention of expressing.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am not imputing motives at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member has drawn the inference that I cast some reflection upon Mr. Pigott's integrity. I did nothing of the sort.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about school taxation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An arrangement has been made between War-time Housing Limited and the municipalities in which it builds. The arrangement has been ratified by all the provinces in which these houses have been erected. The government pays to the municipality a flat rate per house sufficient to cover school taxes and, I believe, a small amount in addition. I am not familiar with the exact details, but I know that each province and each city in which houses have been built have approved the arrangement.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not interested in what each of the provinces may do, because we have had certain experiences in British Columbia. They will approve anything in connection with school costs.
I must apologize for reverting to the subject of shipping, but I did not have the privilege of being in the house when the minister was speaking in this connection. During the last twenty-four hours I have had to stay near a telephone. A certain convention is being held, and I have been holding myself in readiness to accept any nomination which might come my way.
To return to the subject of shipping, I understood the minister to say there was a shortage of oil, and he gave as a reason a shortage of tankers. In that connection I would quote from possibly the best paper in the Dominion of Canada, namely, the Vancouver Daily Province of February 22, 1941. I hope the reporters in the gallery hear what I said about that paper. Speaking in British Columbia, the minister said:
It has more ship orders than any other province. The yards are filled to capacity until the end of 1942.

Since that time many orders have been given in British Columbia. We have since launched our first steel cargo ship. And yet, according to what the minister is recorded to have said, as reported at page 4192 of Hansard, when he was speaking about oil, we still have not enough shipping. He said:
The refiners have had to contend with a very sharp rise in the price of crude oil, and they have had to contend also with greatly increased transportation costs.
I presume the minister meant that increased transportation costs had been brought about through a shortage of shipping. He has stated before that it is not practicable to build wooden ships, and that because of their longer life steel ships are more practicable. Yet we are short of oil.
I must apologize again for reverting to the subject of oil, but there may be some explanation for the question which is in my mind. I know the people in the constituency of Fraser Valley and in the city of North Vancouver want to have the answer. May I repeat what the minister said:
The refiners have had to contend with a very sharp rise in the price of crude oil, and they have had to contend also with greatly increased transportation costs.
I do not expect an answer right away, but I should like the minister to state what these increased transportation costs are. So far as I know, there is no increase in transportation costs between California and Vancouver. Much of our oil prior to the war came in, not by tanker but by tank car. I have yet to learn that there is a shortage of tank cars.
Again, as reported at page 4192 of Hansard, the minister stated, in his explanation as to the increase in price:
-that is, two cents based on the small United States gallon, which is somewhat more when translated into cost, in Canadian money, of the Canadian gallon.
All hon. members know the difference in size between United States and Canadian gallons, but we also know that every major oil company operating in Canada is controlled in the United States, and they enjoy a benefit of approximately ten cents on the dollar.
I do not expect an answer right away, but I would ask the minister to state at his convenience what the increase in cost of transportation of gasoline delivered to British Columbia amounts to. I would also ask why these oil companies, with a ten per cent exchange advantage, are entitled to an increase of one cent a gallon. Each and every major oil company operating in Canada is controlled in the United States and, as one hon. member has stated, they are actually selling oil to themselves.

The War-Oil
There may be a shortage, but with all due deference, I suggest there is no shortage in British Columbia. If there is a shortage, we are willing to submit to rationing to-morrow or any day. At present, however, I do not think there is a shortage. One oil company in California selling oil to its own subsidiary company in British Columbia receives an increase of one cent a gallon, plus the figure mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reidi) of a certain amount in lieu of credit cards. Yet they pass none of that on to the little distributor. Nobody can tell me that the big oil companies have not had a wider and more profitable market for their gas since the war. Now, instead of selling to the small distributor, they sell by the hundreds of thousands of gallons to the dominion government and the Department of Munitions and Supply. They are selling more gasoline than they ever sold before in British Columbia, and they get an increase of one cent a gallon, which is not passed on to the little distributor, but is kept by the big oil companies themselves. I do not want to be critical, but that situation does not make sense to me. Nothing has caused more dissatisfaction in British Columbia.
I accepted the explanation of the minister in connection with the Joy Oil company. I did not know there was a Joy Oil company. It certainly has not caused much joy in British Columbia. Rightly or wrongly, we in that province think the oil controller is playing into the hands of the big companies and is operating in their interests. The minister can dispel that idea in so far as my riding is concerned if he can show me that the cost of transportation from California or Texas or Oklahoma to British Columbia has increased, and if he can show me that these companies in California, Texas and Oklahoma are not selling to a subsidiary company in Canada, thereby getting the benefit of the ten per cent, and in addition one cent a gallon increase. I think I am entitled to an explanation. Personally I do not know anything about the oil business, but I do not believe there is a particle of shortage of gasoline in British Columbia, in spite of the figures that have been given by Mr. Cottrelle. With all due deference to Mr. Cottrelle I do not think he realizes the situation in western Canada or in western United States. We see in the papers to-day that the United States has lifted all gasoline restrictions on the eastern coast. Yet in spite of everything the long-suffering poor Standard Oil company has to have one cent a gallon increase, plus all the credit charges, and the only justification given is the vague statement that the increase is due to transportation costs. If the minister can explain the situation satisfactorily to me,
I may be able to explain it to my constituents, but he is going to have a hard time explaining to me that the oil companies are suffering as was intimated in that statement. Will the minister give me an explanation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot at this moment discuss transportation costs on the British Columbia coast, and my hon. friend was fair enough to say that he did not expect me to.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But the minister will in the future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said it was partly due to the increased cost of crude, which I know to be a fact. I do not know exactly what the increase has been in the Los Angeles area, where British Columbia oil comes from in the main, or how much tankers have gone up. My hon. friend says that in British Columbia they have been accustomed to get their gasoline in tank cars. I venture the statement that not two per cent of the gasoline used in British Columbia has come in there in tank cars in the last ten years. You would have a very sorry situation if you had to depend on any considerable movement of oil in tank cars. If my hon. friend will put a question on the order paper for exactly the information he wants, I will try to get it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you. Shall I get it this session or have to wait until January?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends upon how complicated the question is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is a simple
question.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to ask a question with respect to the shipbuilding programme.
The discussion is getting mixed up with housing and oil. I would ask the minister what progress is being made in reconditioning the big steel mill at Sydney, Nova Scotia, to roll plate for shipbuilding. It is felt in our part of Canada that this work is very much behind, in preparing for this very necessary programme of shipbuilding. I should like to know when it is expected that plates will be rolled, also what outlay is being made by the department to enable these plates to be rolled, and what assured use there will be for these plates.
I should also like a statement from the minister as to the steel shipbuilding programme in Nova Scotia. We have been much disappointed that up to the present there has been only what I might call a political promise that shipbuilding will be undertaken at Pictou, Nova Scotia, while on the western coast, in

The War-Munitions and Supply
Montreal, and on the great lakes ships are actually being launched; but in Nova Scotia the steel shipbuilding programme is only being projected, though it is recognized by practically everybody that Nova Scotia should be in the very forefront and be given a preference in a programme of this kind.
I should also like a statement from the minister as to what yards are projected in Nova Scotia to carry on this shipbuilding programme?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend speaks of a political promise of shipyards. I may say that my hon. friend himself is the one man who can never forget politics when asking any question.


Percy Chapman Black: That statement is not fair. The minister himself is the one minister who made a political promise with respect to war expenditures on aeroplane factories. I think he was the only minister who in a political campaign sent a telegram to be read at a political meeting, stating that if so-and-so were done, an aeroplane factory would be built at Amherst.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And was it?


Percy Chapman Black: It was a political promise of public money provided for war purposes by all the people of Canada, and the minister made it a political issue on the platform.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On what platform did I say anything about it?


Percy Chapman Black: The minister's telegram was read from the platform in Amherst in the last federal campaign.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not responsible for what is read on a political platform. I certainly never mentioned Amherst in any political speech that I made in any part of the country. If my hon. friend will forget politics for a moment and talk about the war, we shall get on faster.
So far as the plate mill in Sydney is concerned, it is being brought into production as rapidly as possible. I understand that the date on which it will be put into operation depends upon the delivery of some heavy motors which are being manufactured at the present time. They are somewhat behind schedule, but I hope the mill will be in operation in February or March of next year, contingent on the delivery of those motors.
We are somewhat short of plate capacity at the present time; not unduly short, because we are rolling every billet we can manufacture. Our billet capacity is increasing, and the plates from Sj'dney will be needed.
IMr. P. C. Black.]
As far as new shipyards are concerned, we have only two new ones in contemplation at the present time, one in Vancouver, which is now laying its first keel, and one at Pictou, which is suitable for the present programme of ships. I do not know what other questions there were.


Percy Chapman Black: I asked the minister what commitments have been made and what outlet there will be for the projected production of the rolling mill at Sydney; also, what its expected tonnage output per year will be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rather think the capacity of that mill when it is in operation will be about
12,000	tons a month. I judge that from what I know of the capacity of the mill. Getting back to the matter of the distribution of the billets which can be produced at the mill, I may say that every billet is being used now, and if we had the mill in operation now it would be used pretty well to capacity. I daresay that condition will continue.


Percy Chapman Black: There is additional blast furnace capacity, is there not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Additional blast furnace capacity is being brought in, and there is a plant under way at the present time to increase the production of pig.


Percy Chapman Black: Is that being financed by the minister's department or by the government? I refer to these additions and new facilities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Partly by the company itself and partly by the government. I believe the total expenditure under way runs to about five and a half million dollars, of which four million dollars is represented by a loan from the government.


Percy Chapman Black: I did not like the retort of the minister, in his political reference to myself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just why did the hon. member need to mention "political promises"?


Percy Chapman Black: My basis for that is that, while ships are being launched in other parts of Canada, it was during the political campaign in Nova Scotia during the past few weeks that the announcement was made by the minister of industry and publicity and the premier of Nova Scotia that a shipyard was to be started in Pictou. That was the first public notification we had that such a programme was to be carried out. I think it is unfortunate that it should have been announced in that way. I ask the minister to advise me or advise the committee why the announce-

The War-Munitions and Supply
ment with respect to the programme in Nova Scotia has been delayed, while ships of a similar nature are being actually launched in other parts of Canada. It is a matter of discrimination, or was so interpreted in Nova Scotia. I think it is reasonable on my part to ask the minister why the programme in Nova Scotia has been delayed. I think we should have this information.
The programme of shipbuilding was discussed in this chamber in previous sessions by hon. members from the maritimes. The contention was made, and was supported by hon. members from Toronto and other parts of Canada, that Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces have not had a fair share of the distribution of moneys for government works having to do with the war. In shipbuilding, for which above everything else they should have had the preference, they are the last place in Canada to receive recognition. Nova Scotia is the last place where a programme for building steel merchant ships has been announced. It was announced for political advantage during an election. It does not seem to me that sort of thing creates a good atmosphere wherein to carry on the war. There should be no political pressure or political advantage in order to carry out programmes of this kind. As I have said, it is not my intention to be critical of the minister, but I believe we are entitled to some explanation with respect to the shipbuilding programme in eastern Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The remarks of my hon. friend illustrate exactly the point I made a few minutes ago. What he takes exception to indicates the fundamental difference between my viewpoint and his. My viewpoint about ships is that I want to get the maximum number for use during the war period. My purpose in building ships is not to enrich any one section of this country or to glorify any particular town, or city, or province. My object is to get ships where I can get them most quickly and cheaply. The reason why we built ships where we have built them is that there were organizations there which understood how to build ships, and slipways which would take ships. We filled those first. Then we looked round to see where we could increase shipbuilding capacity, and we found that the places where we could increase it reasonably were very few; in fact, there were only two. We found in Vancouver two steel companies which were in a position to combine and build slipways and launch ships, without the necessity of robbing existing shipyards of their skilled personnel.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister say which firm that is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a combination of, I think it is, Vancouver Engineering works and one or two steel companies there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is quite a good riding, anyway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not even remember the name. The other place we found was at Pictou. What we found at Pictou was not, by any means, a readymade shipyard, but a certain amount of skilled personnel was available there. I may say that we searched Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from one end to the other to try to find the nucleus of an organization which could handle a steel shipbuilding project of this magnitude. We found it at Pictou. After a good deal of discussion and negotiation, including considerations of capital assistance and additional skilled personnel which had to be furnished, the project reached the point where an announcement could be made. Now my hon. friend says it was announced during an election. I do not think he could expect us to stop the war for three or four weeks so as to get that election over.


Percy Chapman Black: My complaint is that the announcement was not made by the minister or by the federal government; it was made by a provincial minister while running an election in that province, and on behalf of the premier of Nova Scotia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not suppose. that one could keep it very much of a secret. Negotiations were going on between this group at Pictou and war-time merchant shipping, and I assume that the premier had ways of finding it out in the natural course of events. I daresay he knew when the deal was closed, and announced it accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an awfully innocent statement. Does the minister not know that the whole thing was done to have the effect that the provincial government of Nova Scotia had paved the way for this new industry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. gentleman says so, but certainly I do not know anything of the kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why was it announced in that way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why was it announced in that way? I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why was it not announced by the minister of munitions?

The War-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our announcements come
through the publicity branch whenever we sign a contract, and I suppose this one went through in the usual way. I like to be accused of playing politics by hon. members who seem to think of nothing else; all I have heard from this section is, "Why don't you put something in the maritimes?" I have said repeatedly that I do not care where I put these things so long as I get the materials of war.


Mr. HANSELL:: After discussing steel and ships and housing, I wonder whether we can come back to the matter of steel. I am not certain that I understood correctly the minister's statement with regard to whether or not there is a serious shortage of steel in Canada. I wish he would make himself a little clearer on that point. We do know that we have a steel priority in this country, and I assume that it is necessitated by shortage of steel. In that connection might I suggest something which will be of some little benefit to the western farmer. The suggestion comes to me that, on account of the present priority method of distributing steel, the men who run the small engineering shops experience tremendous difficulty in getting any. That has caused a serious situation for the farmers of western Canada during the time of harvest when they need repairs. I know for a fact that many have been held up in their operations because the local machine shop would not take care of their repairs, being unable to get a reasonable amount of steel, even though only a small bit was required, the shop being a small one. Of course, we in this corner realize that the farmer has been handicapped time and again, and it is another reason for dissatisfaction when he discovers that he cannot get repairs for machinery. It is a little late now to talk of that in connection with farming operations; nevertheless it seems to be true that the small shop is unable to get a reasonable amount of steel. Would the minister throw some further light on the priority arrangement in Canada with regard to steel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This continent as well as every country at war is short of steel; in other words, we could use a good deal more than we can make. I believe we are getting along fairly well with our war programme notwithstanding that we are short on steel. If we had more forgings at the present time we would be making more guns, and if we had more plate we would get on faster with our shipbuilding programme. We are, however, bringing new capacity into production each month, which will tend to ease that situation, and as far as the war is concerned 
we have a reasonably balanced programme as between steel production and such imports of the finished product as we can count on from the United States. As far as non-war use is concerned, at present no steel is being allocated for such purposes. We have shut off a great number of types of manufacturing that depend upon steel, not because we wish to do so but because we cannot afford the steel. I daresay the farmer has been considerably inconvenienced on that account. We hope to be able by the spring to relieve the shortage in machine shops doing non-war work. At present we cannot do so because we are trying to allocate steel as carefully as we can in order to make it go as far as possible for essential war purposes in Canada.


Mr. POTTIER:: I should hate to have the words of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) go unnoticed, and I wish particularly to meet two impressions which he left. The first is that we have no shipbuilding in Nova Scotia, that all that we have is a projected shipbuilding programme at Pictou. There is shipbuilding in Nova Scotia in mine sweepers, Fairmile vessels, scows, and the like, and they are building slips in different places on the shore for ship repairing. Repairs are going on in Halifax as well, and their yards are working to capacity. It is not fair for anyone to rise in his place in the house and leave the impression that Nova Scotia is forgotten altogether. I cannot let it go at that; I cannot allow the impression to remain that there is merely a projected programme at Pictou. There is considerable shipbuilding going on in my constituency, and at Weymouth, on the border of my constituency, we have one of the best Fairmile ship yards in Canada. At another place we have a number of mine sweepers and the like. Moreover, the hon. member made reference to political reactions that might arise and that were hoped for by the announcement of the projected plan of shipbuilding at Pictou. The only constituency in Nova Scotia that lost a Liberal to a Conservative was Pictou, so that it is plain to be seen, if one follows that suggestion to its logical conclusion, that any announcement that was made did not have the effect suggested. If anything, it worked the other way. The hon. member should be the last one to give the impression to the committee that in a particular declaration benefit was sought. As a matter of fact, the results went the other way.


Percy Chapman Black: I was referring to a principle in the announcement. I was referring to merchant steel shipbuilding.

The War-Munitions and Supply


Mr. HAZEN:: The minister in his report
last Tuesday said, as reported at page 4082 of Hansard:
Capital assistance to industry for the extension of existing plants and for the construction of new plants, instalment of equipment, et cetera, aggregated a total of $550,000,000, partly for Canada, partly for the United Kingdom and partly for joint account.
Will the minister break down these figures and tell us when he can how much of that amount was for Canadian account, how much for United Kingdom account and how much for joint account? Will he also break down the figures so as to show how much was allotted to each province in Canada?
Mr. HOWE.:	Just before the last adjournment of parliament I gave a break-down with regard to Canadian, British and joint account. It runs pretty well in the same proportion. I will bring that up to date later on; I have not the figures before me. As regards a breakdown by provinces, that is a purely political question which we have refrained from answering, and I do not think I should care to compare expenditures province by province.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister
to say that the government was financing some of these shipyards. Earlier in the year the policy announced by the minister was that all that financing was being left to private industry. Has the policy been changed? If so, about when was it changed, and how many shipyards are now being financed by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no shipyard that is
really being financed by the government. That is rather a misstatement. In connection with the merchant shipbuilding programme, it was necessary to build a number of new berths. The general policy was to include the capital expenditure in the contract and to allow that to be written off for the first five boats with the understanding that when they were built the cost would be dropped accordingly. I think in one or two instances the capital sum was advanced to cover the improvement. In any event it was allowed to be written off over a certain amount of work, or advanced direct. I think that was done for practically every shop where an expansion of programme was involved. '


Howard Charles Green: The same question comes up in connection with power. The minister, speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' association on June 10 of this year, said:
We are accustomed to think of Canada as a country of large reserves of electric power. To-day every kilowatt that can be generated is being used.
14873-267i
He went on to explain the attempts being made to overcome the shortage. Is that still the position? Are we short of power right across Canada? If so, has consideration been given to the government financing the development of further power? Is that a government policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not financed any
power development in Canada since the beginning of the war.


Howard Charles Green: Is the position that we have now reached the limit of our available power in Canada, that all power that has been developed is in use? If so, it would seem that some step should be taken to develop further power either by private industry or by the government, because the water and the power sites are there; it is simply a matter of harnessing the water.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Power is being developed
privately, and while every kilowatt available is being used, we are not exactly at the end of- our resources, because we can cut off peace-time use to some extent and convert it to war-time use. We are about on the borderline now. Of course this is the time of year when the domestic load is the heaviest. I think there will not need to be much diversion; there have been some instances in Ontario where peace-time loads have been cut off for certain parts of the day, but I do not think it will be serious this winter. A year from now it may be more serious. On the other hand, nearly a million horse power will come in between now and perhaps a year from now, which will relieve the situation.


Howard Charles Green: For example, at the Bridge river site in British Columbia there is a partial development, but I think there is a potential of several hundred thousand horse power. Is there not some way by which the government could have that developed? Surely the power controller, or some department of government could have that done, or are we just to be bogged down waiting for private industry to move?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government decided
early not to develop power. We had to decide what we would do and what we would not do. We decided we would not develop power, drill oil-wells-


Howard Charles Green: Oil-wells are different; that is speculative; but the power site is there, it is only a matter of putting in the plant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The owners of that site are
well able to develop it if they can sell the power.

The War-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Gillis: I was pleased to hear that
there was so much shipbuilding going on in Nova Scotia. As I remember the last discussion, there was an appropriation of 150,000,000 for shipbuilding, and one per cent of that went to Nova Scotia. At that time we discussed the possibility of utilizing, I think, some twenty-five shipyards in Nova Scotia that were too small to handle the type of ships required. The minister stated that there was considerable activity in the building of lifeboats and small craft of that kind. To what extent are the shipyards in Nova Scotia being used for that purpose? As I go through the province I see very little shipbuilding activity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know that a large number of the ships are being built there; I would think every shipyard that wants a government contract and is able to do the work efficiently has all the work it can do. Of course there are yards that prefer to keep to the ordinary peace-time work rather than take war work. I cannot give the number of boats being built in Nova Scotia under the small-boat programme, but it is a large number; we have let contracts for some seven or eight hundred boats of that type to date.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Has consideration been given to taking the boats from Churchill? There are four that have been laid up there for the last three years, steel hull boats in good condition. Two of them at least could be used.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Consideration has been given to that. I know those boats very well. The tug at Churchill is of a type of which there is no particular shortage; it is not an oceangoing tug. As to the other equipment there, we have not been able to see value for taking it out of Churchill and having to take it back later when it will be required.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When will it be required there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Dredging has to be done there from time to time, and we cannot operate a dipper dredge without a tug and three or four scows.


Mr. McNIVEN:: What progress has been made with regard to the "bits and pieces" programme? In western Canada, and particularly in Saskatchewan, there are many machine shops tolerably well equipped, many of them with machine tools and having a nucleus of anywhere from four to ten skilled employees, and particularly at this season of the year there is a dearth of employment for shops of that kind. These shops are anxious

to render service at this time. It is true they have been inspected from time to time, their tools listed, their equipment checked over, and their personnel passed upon. We who live in the west have regretfully come to the conclusion that the eastern industrialist who has a war order practises the British maxim, "What we have we hold," and is unwilling to pass out to other shops the right to manufacture component parts of the completed product. Could the minister indicate to the committee what organization has been set up for the "bits and pieces" programme and what hope our shops in western Canada may have of participating in the war programme in the months to come?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our "bits and pieces" programme is well organized and is, I think, meeting the needs of industries of the kind to which my hon. friend refers. We have a district office in Winnipeg, and I think in Calgary, as well as in the eastern centres. Of course there are two sides to this question. I know the aeroplane plant at Fort William was carrying its "bits and pieces" as far west as Calgary in an endeavour to place contracts. My experience leads me to believe that the difficulty is more concerned with the little shop looking for work than with the larger plants trying to place work. One can hardly expect a large plant to distribute its work to every machine shop in the province; one might more reasonably expect the owner of the small machine shop to come to Winnipeg, discuss the matter and see what work is available. The "bits and pieces" programme is, however, succeeding as the small manufacturer becomes sufficiently interested to do what the large manufacturer has to do in obtaining an order, namely, come where the order is being placed and "sell" his capacity. I think we are educating the large manufacturer to break down his orders. There is a large contract just getting under way in Regina which I think can be very easily broken down into "bits and pieces"; but there again it will be necessary for the operator of the small machine shop to go to Regina and show what he can do, in order to obtain the work. I do not think anyone can sit back and expect the "bits and pieces" programme to bring him work.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Just what function is the office in Winnipeg supposed to perform? Does the contract holder or the manufacturer list with the Winnipeg office those component parts which he desires manufactured outside the plant? It is exceedingly difficult for the operator of a small machine plant, say at Wynyard, Saskatchewan, to know what component parts are required in connection with the production of an aeroplane, let us say.

The War-Munitions and Supply
What he desires is some central place where he can obtain that information and where the size of his shop, his equipment and his personnel can be listed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly the purpose of the Winnipeg office, to obtain from the manufacturers the components they would like to place, and to obtain from the small machine shop the type of work it is capable of doing. I think that programme has been carried farther in Quebec than in any other province, because there seem to be more small machine shops in Quebec than in the other provinces; and through the "bits and pieces" programme I think we have pretty well filled the entire field there. A programme of education is being carried out on both sides, with the large manufacturer being educated to break down his production and sublet, while on the other hand the operator of the small machine shop is being educated to sort out what he is capable of doing and what he cannot handle.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What protection have the subcontractors with regard to receiving payment? I ask this question because a contract was let down on the lake shore in 1940; lumber contractors sold lumber to the man who had the contract, and they have not been paid as yet. What chance has a subcontractor of being paid? Does the government check on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As one who has had to do with government contracts over a great many years, I can say from experience that the government never pays a contractor in full as long as there is any claim or lien outstanding. If the suppliers of that contractor failed to notify the government that they had claims, I am afraid their recourse against the government is gone.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The government did hold back $7,000 on this contract, but I believe the contractor was paid $70,000 and he owed his subcontractors over $20,000. I believe one of those subcontractors has received about $1,200. Another lumber man is minus twelve or fifteen hundred dollars, and as far as I can see there is no chance of these men getting paid, because the contractor would be better off not to try to collect the $7,000 from the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How about the contractor who got the contract; is he bankrupt?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
believe he is pretty close to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unless a man protects his position on a government contract, I do not think he can be any better off in selling to a contractor who has a government contract than in selling to anyone else. The nature of contracting has not changed over the years, and ordinarily a person supplying a contractor must protect his position or he has no position.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My question has not yet been answered. I think the government should look after the subcontractors.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What relation is there between the government and a subcontractor?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The subcontractors believed this .man, having a government contract, would pay them; they thought he was honest and that the government would see that they got paid. In this instance they are holding the bag, while these other fellows are profiting by it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps they had better see their lawyers, but certainly I can say that if the government is notified of a claim, sufficient money is always held back before final settlement, provided the claim can be shown to be proper.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The government has been notified about this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think we have had a very exhaustive discussion concerning the Department of Munitions and Supply, and I wonder whether we could not proceed to the next department.


Percy Chapman Black: Before we do that, I should like some further assurance from the minister with respect to the breakdown of that expenditure of $550,000,000 to build plants, partly for Canadian and partly for United Kingdom account, requested by the hon. member for St. John-Albert. The information was promised 'by the minister, and I should like to know if we might have it before this part of the session ends. On February 25 the minister submitted an appendix to Hansard showing a total expenditure of $268,499,894. The expenditure under this heading has reached $550,000,000, and the information concerning it is of the greatest importance. I would support what was said by the hon. member for St. John-Albert in requesting that this information be placed on Hansard in the same form that was followed last February.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will have that information prepared just as quickly as possible, and will try to get it on Hansard this session.
4238	COMMONS
The War-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Gillis: The minister will remember that last session we discussed the possibility of extending the air lines, both passenger and mail, to the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia. At that time the minister said there was a possibility that this service would be so extended by August of this year. Has any progress been made in that direction, or has the matter been forgotten?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it has not been forgotten; as a matter of fact, it is very close to coming into being. I think the difficulty was that we had so many urgent demands for the beam equipment that we intended to use there. We had to obtain emergency beam equipment in connection with the Newfoundland airports, and we are a little behind in that programme. I hope that by the new year we shall be flying planes to Sydney, but again that is subject to new calls for equipment. We are, however, doing our best.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you. We are beginning to get linked up with Canada at last.


Joseph Henry Harris: On November 4 the minister was discussing what he called the "bits and pieces" programme. He will recall that I asked a specific question, and I hope in the intervening six days he has had an opportunity to prepare a specific answer, or in any event to give the country a general statement as to the policy which his department intends to pursue in that regard. Only to-day an example of what I had in mind at that time came to my attention; I will recite the instance in order that the minister may give us any policy he may have with regard to the question I asked.
The question I asked on November 4, was: In respect of capital assistance is it the policy of the Department of Munitions and Supply to extend1 liquid capital or working capital to those industries which find themselves with a backlog of orders for ordinary business? If I may amplify my question, I would say that manufacturing institutions find very large priority orders coming in for munition manufacture, business which has to do with the Department of Munitions and Supply. Of course they must give first attention to those priorities, with the result that the normal shipments of commodities have to stand back until the priorities are filled. What is the position with regard to these small concerns about which the minister spoke on November 4, and concerning which I asked that simple and easily answered question?
They find, in connection with their capital structure that it is taking more money even in their normal business procedure to carry

their accounts receivable, to carry their inventory, to carry their raw materials, and to carry any stock they have ready for sale in the ordinary routine of business. The net result is that they are short of working capital. While they are in that position, a demand is being made on them to extend their plants, and they are anxious to answer those demands. Arrangements are made at present within the Department of Munitions and Supply to take care of that fixed assets cost, or capital assistance. But the policy as to what might be done with regard to working capital ought to be brought up to date by the minister, so that they would know what they are to do.
Many of these small industries have been established for two or three decades, and in taking on this war business, business which may be here to-day and gone to-morrow, they do not want to lose their old established lines. I have in mind an instance in Toronto which has to do with sandpaper. Sandpaper and buffing wheels are required for the polishing of rifle butts, et cetera. In this particular instance all other orders had to wait until that priority war older was turned out. In the meantime, furniture factories, and other plants throughout Canada which required sandpaper, could not be supplied. Some of the sandpaper may have been supplied for what might be described as semi-war work, but a good deal of it was for ordinary routine business. I use sandpaper only as an example. The people in question find themselves without the supply they require. Those who are charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that Canada has a sufficient supply of their commodity would be quite anxious to help out by building a temporary plant to take care of the condition which has developed.
I would ask the government to recite its general policy with regard to a problem of that kind, in respect of the capital structure of the extension which would have to be built. I would ask that in answering that question, particular attention be given to the write-off. In other words, if a building were of temporary construction to last for five years, would there be an increase in depreciation write-off on such building? I would not suggest that it need necessarily be 20 per cent, because there would, no doubt, be some reclamation. If an answer could be given, people who are having difficulties in that connection would have some peace of mind with regard to actual capital expenditure.
We may have to go a good deal further in extending working capital to take care of the three items I had in mind. My purpose in rising at this time is to ask the minister if he will answer the question I asked him in

The War-Munitions and Supply
good faith on November 4. I ask him to recite the policy so that those who are trying to do a job on behalf of Canada in respect of our "war effort will have some confidence that they may receive reasonable assistance from the government with regard to the war section of their business, and so that they may see to it that priorities are not dodged, and are given the right of way during the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy of the government in relation to capital assistance is that it extends capital assistance to its own contractors. That is, if a firm takes a large contract from the government, and requires building accommodation and/or machinery which it has not at present installed, under certain circumstances the government will provide the building and install the machinery, provided that the company will transfer the property on which the building stands, and the title of ownership, and the government will retain ownership of the building and the machinery. This type of assistance is extended only to prime contractors. I believe my hon. friend is referring to subcontractors, and to a case where a subcontractor is responsible to a main contractor.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am referring more particularly to "bits and pieces."


Clarence Decatur Howe: "Bits and pieces" usually involve the breaking down of a main contract into subcontracts, which represent the "bits and pieces." Therefore there is no advance directly from the government to the "bits and pieces" man. We never advance money to a subcontractor, although sometimes we do advance money to a main contractor which will be spent with a subcontractor. That is an advance to the main contractor, because it must be his responsibility, which he passes on to the subcontractor. That is the policy with regard to capital expenditure.
In respect of our general policy, each case is examined to see whether an advance is justified, or whether it is a situation which a contractor should take care of by himself. Of course, if the contractor spends his own money, he has the privilege of appearing before the war contracts depreciation board, upon which occasion Mr. Justice McTague and his colleagues decide the post-war value of the improvements to be built. They determine the amount of the write-off and the period over which the write-off can be made.
In the matter of capital advances, it is against the policy of the department to make advances for working capital. Sometimes it has to be done. We may find that a firm taking a contract does not appear to have adequate working capital, or for one reason or another may find itself short of working capital. In that event it is always our practice to put a controller into the company to watch income and expenditures. Under such circumstances we do advance money. We have controllers in twelve or fifteen businesses in Canada to-day to watch working capital. But it is a difficult business to follow, and we avoid it as much as possible.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister bring up to date the statement given by his deputy before one of the committees which sat four or five months ago with respect to the amount of working capital advanced by his department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall place that figure before the committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: I have one further question, which is not entirely confined to the Department of Munitions and Supply. Due to the placing of ceiling prices on large numbers of commodities, a condition has arisen whereby raw materials for such commodities still being exported to the United States are finding a market in the United States ranging anywhere from 10 to 50 per cent higher than the market which prevails at the ceiling rate in Canada. For example, manufacturers for years have tried to make their contracts for one year, but latterly it has been for six or three months. The raw material for the commodity they manufacture is under contract to December 31, 1941; the producer of the primary product now finds himself under the September 15 ceiling, and the man who buys from him is unable to increase his price to meet the competition which comes from the United States. The goods are exportable to the United States. The net result of it all is that before 1942 is over, there is going to be a large shortage of raw material. Certainly it is going to be very difficult to contract for raw material for the year 1942. Those supplying raw material who have in days gone by intermittently exported their commodity to the United States have latterly, due to business being considerably improved in the last year, found their market in Canada during the year 1941. Naturally they will want to revert to the high United States market again. General market conditions in the United States, as the minister well knows, are anywhere from 10 to 50 per cent higher than in Canada, and in the instance I mentioned, the market is from 90 to 100 per cent higher. The quantities I am thinking of run into millions of pounds.
*4240

The War-Munitions and Supply
Contract time is fast approaching, December being the month when contracts for the year 1942 are made. There has been no announcement of policy as to how the government proposes to hold and maintain this ceiling. Priorities on supplies for war contracts must be taken care of. Certain industries will find themselves denuded of their supplies of raw material. The problem is approaching dimensions which may give our government some concern.
One way out, of course, would be to lift the ceiling on the finished product. But we do not want to do that. There will probably be no ceiling for that portion of material which goes into war products, but one cannot reasonably sell a product at one price to a customer who has been on your books for twenty or thirty years and is operating a necessary industry, and sell the same product to some other industry which is engaged on "bits and pieces" or any sort of munitions work and expect that one will have anything but chaos in that particular industry. I admit that the problem is a difficult one, but I think the Department of Munitions and Supply should be apprised of what they are going to be faced with during the year 1942, and I would appreciate it if the Minister of Munitions and Supply or some other minister would make a statement on the matter before the house adjourns until January, so that the year 1942 will not find the entire situation upset.
To follow it along a little further, what actually happens to-day is this. Many large United States industries have branch plants in Canada, and these branch plants interchange raw material between the branch plants and the main plant in the United States. The branch plants try to concentrate on one line of manufacture, and they may gather up in Canada the raw material for half a dozen lines of manufacture of similar commodities. There may be as many as twenty factories between Canada and the United States using probably twenty different kinds of raw material. In one city they would concentrate on the manufacture of one grade of raw material, another in Buffalo, another in Chicago, and so forth, and concentrate on another manufacture in Montreal, another in Brantford, and another in Toronto. Thus the raw material is flowing back and forth all the time. My question is, where is it going to flow to? If the prevailing market in the United States has no ceiling on it,, which is the condition that obtains to-day, it offers a much better market, and are we going to be handicapped and embarrassed to a degree by

the manufacture of munitions and the hundreds and thousands of supplies of all sorts which come under the purview of the minister?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The problem put forward by my hon. friend the member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) is not a new one. Exports are controlled by export licences in lines where there is a threatened shortage for Canadian purposes. At the present time licences are required for the export of any steel product, and licences have been required for a good while for the export of certain chemicals. It is the practice of our department, whenever a material gets in short supply, to place that material under the necessity of export licence.
In the matter of lumber we have a situation where we have no export licences because it has not been thought necessary. About fifty per cent of our lumber is consumed in Canada, I suppose, and about fifty per cent is exported. What is exported brings prices anyvrhere from twenty to forty per cent higher than can be obtained by sale in Canada. One might say that that is a case where we must exercise export control, but as a matter of fact the industry is regulated by a controller, and the controller, by agreement with the industry, has provided that as long as the industry will supply to Canada at pegged prices the lumber required in Canada, it is quite welcome to export the remainder. The trade have played the game; there has been no shortage of timber in Canada, and the industry has been able to market about fifty per cent of its product in the United States.
The steel situation requires control. If a dealer in Canada could buy a keg of nails and get an export permit,, he could sell it to any south American country for twice what he paid for it and never see the keg of nails. There, of course, is a situation which requires control, and we have control of the steel industry. Unless it can be shown that a manufacturer of steel products is supplying an old customer in a market that has always been his, he is not likely to get a permit for the export of steel from Canada to-day. That will be extended perhaps to all products in Canada as the pegged price in Canada tends to spread from the prices abroad.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps I should take the time of the committee to put on the record this letter which came to my attention only this morning. I have not been given permission to use the name of the writer, and therefore I shall omit that. The letter

The War-Munitions and Supply
is dated November 5, 1941. I asked my question on November 4, the day preceding. The letter reads as follows:
We have been offered extremely good prices for shipment of ... to the United States.
We realize and appreciate the fact that we have been shipping to you for some time at prices that were established in January, 1941, but in view of the present price ceiling we are unable to ask you to quote prices that would compete with our American buyer.
We would ask you, however, if you are willing to allow us to ship certain quantities of this raw material to the above-mentioned buyer in the United States. . . .
I am not going to mention the name.
. . . and if you would consider this would you kindly advise what proportion you would consider releasing for the American market?
Unfortunately we did not review our prices earlier and hence we are saddled with fixed prices which we do not believe are in line with what was readily obtainable in the basic period, September 15 to October 11.
We know that a number of people are in the same boat and of course it will take some time before adjustments are made to take care of this ceiling price.
We hope you will consider what we have requested and trust that you can give us an early reply.
That particular contract represents fifty-two carloads of material, and that is only a portion of a total of 19,000 tons. This firm which is in the same boat happens to be connected directly with the sandpaper industry. All I ask is that some recital of policy be given, so that the relationships between contractors, manufacturers and their sources of supply will not be disrupted too much.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I can say with confidence that if my hon. friend will notify the proper controller, either in the Department of Munitions and Supply or in the war-time prices and trade board, of his request, an export licence will be required for that material. The government will require to be convinced that there is sufficient for Canadian needs at the pegged price before any export whatever is permitted.


Robert Fair: If I may return to the question of gas, which seems an appropriate subject here, I wonder whether the minister could tell us what has become of the Pogue carburettor- whether it is in the process of being put on the market?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shared my hon. friend's interest in the Pogue carburettor at the time it was a subject of interest, and I know of the so-called experiments carried out with it in the west. The inventor of the carburettor finally found a wealthy sponsor in the person of Mr. J. E. Hammell, one of Canada's great
mining men. Mr. Hammell moved Mr. Pogue and the carburettor into his own estate near Toronto, fitted up a workshop for him, and took pains to see that the development was carried out by proper experts. Mr. Hammell has never been willing to quite say what happened to the Pogue carburettor, but he did say that he spent about $40,000 or $50,000 and decided that it could not be made a financial success. I can assure hon. members that there was no sinister influence from either the big oil companies or the automobile companies; they had nothing to do with it. Mr. Hammell took the thing in charge because those accusations were made and he wanted to have an independent inquiry and see what could be developed from it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise at this hour of the evening, a quarter past ten, because at the present time there is a black-out in several cities of the province of Quebec, which are protected by adding darkness to darkness, by making the night blacker. The modern Joshuas do not stop the sun, as happened in the olden time, but they prevent the moon from shining-and it means that this country is well-protected!
What is the purpose of this black-out? It is to prevent the enemy from seeing military secrets which do not exist. If you remember, Mr. Chairman, last year, when I asked what kind of protection was accorded to the county of Temiscouata against any attack by land or sea or air, I had from the Minister of National Defence this insolent reply, "It is a military secret"-when there was no defence at all.
I find that this black-out business is a sinister joke on the Canadian people. What, sir, a black-out! And all that light shining on the St. Lawrence river? A black-out from here, a black-out from there, a little space of darkness on the lights of my province or on the lights of any province in Canada!
The Minister of Munitions and Supply gave us figures about the production of armaments in this country. I do not believe what he says; I believe what I see, and I see nothing. Let us go up the tower of this building and look round the roof of this building, or the roof of the east block, the west block, the confederation building, the justice building, or any other of hundreds of buildings round here; how many anti-aircraft guns are there? None. They are well hidden; it is a military secret; there are none. Where is the member of parliament who has seen one anti-aircraft gun in Ottawa or in any other city of this dominion? There are none. Yet we hear of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars being spent for munitions and supplies; we hear of

The War-Munitions and Supply
this from the mouth of the minister, and on paper, and in the stupid propaganda of the bureau of information. As a Canadian I am fed-up with that. "Black-out" means protection against the enemy who is coming to invade this country, and what protection have we in Canada? None. All our munitions are going abroad-meaning that Canada does not need to be defended, that eastern Canada where I live and where many people live, does not need to be protected. I submit it is an absurdity.
What about these corporations a VitaUenne and these commissars a la russe that infest the Departments of Munitions and Supply? During the last war, when Sir Robert Borden was in power, at the time of the union government, there was only one man handling all the business in which there is now such a mix-up. That man has been honoured by the king; he is a former colleague and a very dear friend of mine; he is the lieutenant-governor of the province of Quebec, Major-General Sir Eugene Fiset, formerly deputy minister of national defence, at a time when there was no such mess as the Department of Munitions and Supply, against which I protested at the start. He alone handled all the business. How is it that at that time one man from Quebec, Major-General Sir Eugene Fiset, whom we all respect, could do the work of all those nonentities who are now in the Department of Munitions and Supply, and who never cease to pass regulations which swear at each other all the time? The minister cannot say anything against General Fiset because he saved his skin in the committee of railways, canals and telegraph lines when he replaced the deputy speaker, the chairman of the committee of the whole. Sir Eugene Fiset was a good man; he is still a good man; he is lieutenant-governor of Quebec. It took hundreds or thousands of people to replace that man. During the time of the Borden government and the union government, Sir Robert Borden was strong enough to put Sam Hughes out and to replace him with General Mewburn, which showed his strength, his determination and his firm will to have an able man at the head of the department.
I am a Liberal; I have never been a Tory and I never will be, although I have many friends on the Conservative side. But in time of war there should be freedom of speech and one should never be afraid to tell the truth. As a Canadian, I should be ashamed of myself if I took for granted all that is said by the minister. My eyes cannot deceive me. Where is the member of parliament who has seen aircraft here in action over parliament hill? There was a display of [Mr. Pouliot.l
floodlights some time ago, but none of those who were operating those lights could find the aeroplanes that were in the sky, and an aeroplane had to come into the middle of the beam of light, it had to expose itself, in order to be seen.
The law of the land is the mobilization act, which provides for the defence of Canada. We should be defended, but we are not now. All sentimentality should cease. I have had enough of bed-time stories. I want to see some of these guns, some of that ammunition that we hear so much about and never see. I want to see every part of the country well defended; I want to see the Department of Munitions and Supply serving some purpose. I do not want it only to give an opportunity to some capitalists to receive subsidies that are so high, higher even than the amount issued to the public for the building of a dry dock or anything of that sort.
I will not "dot the i's" to-night. It will be enough to mention some schemes floated along at the expense of the public for the building of a dry dock, a ship, or plants adjacent thereto. The issue was so much and they received from the Department of Munitions and Supply a subsidy so high that not only did it cover the issue but there was a surplus; and those who received such subsidies were embarrassed. They did not know whether they were to distribute the surplus as dividends to shareholders of the company, or remit it to the public treasury. Moreover, there was a depreciation of fifty per cent per annum which was supplied to that company. It is not surprising that we have a lot of expenditures now. What amount is spent for England; what amount is spent for Canada; what is protected by the black-out? We have a right to know, and if the minister cannot answer in public but repeats again the eternal story that it is a military secret, then let us sit in camera. Let us clear the galleries and let us get true information.
Members of parliament should be relied upon as much as any business man who comes here to make money in the Department of Munitions and Supply and to organize trusts. I said-and it was not denied either by the Minister of National Defence or by the Minister of Munitions and Supply before the last adjournment-that on the treasury benches there were men who wanted to organize Italian corporatism, Italian fascism in Canada. I am for democracy, and I regret that my hon. friend from Parkdale is not in his seat. But members must recollect that when it was desired to have the hon. gentleman who was in the chair-he was not you, sir-prevent the hon. member for Parkdale

The War-Munitions and Supply
from speaking, I said: "Let him speak; I will answer him afterwards; but both of us must be given freedom." That is what I understand by Liberalism, and my freedom of speech shall not be curtailed by anyone in this house. I was here a long time before the pontiffs of materialism who are now handling the business of this country in certain departments, and what I think is that the human lives of my constituents and the lives of other citizens in Canada are worth more than any pile of money, worth more than any of those earthly treasures that some people seem to appreciate so much. If the people of Canada are ready to make the supreme sacrifice in the defence of this land, there should be a general clean-up in the Augean stables of the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not quite agree with the Minister of Pensions and National Health when he says that we have exhausted this department. I do not think that we can exhaust that department or exhaust the minister even though some of us would like to exhaust the whole government. I wonder whether the Minister of Munitions and Supply would give the committee the procedure that is followed when the government buys land on which to establish an air training school. Mv understanding is that the government have their agents out looking for desired sites. The agent will go to the owner of the land, who may be a farmer. I suppose most of the land is owned by fawners, and the agent will dicker with the farmer. He will tell the farmer that the government is going to establish an air training school here, that this particular property has been chosen for the school and that the government must have it. Perhaps he asks the farmer how much he wants for his land. The tendency may be for an individual to say then, "Well, now, here is a chance to make a little money." I suppose that is sometimes done. Anyway, the farmer will quote his price; the agent will say, "Oh, that is much too much," and the agent then will suggest how much the land is worth, which perhaps is about half what the farmer asks for. Then there will come bargaining one with the other. I am told that these agents will say to the farmers, "Well, now, there is no use in your bucking the government; the government is going to take the land anyway. Of course, if you want to go to court about it, that is your own business." But no farmer wants to go to court against the government; he thinks he will not win the ease anyhow, so eventually he is brought to a place where he will accept what is offered. The agent reports to his superiors and the deal is closed. Would the
minister tell us just what happens when an agent reports to his superiors what the land has been offered for? If there is a board of arbitration has the minister any record of the board raising the ante on the farmer and giving more than he asked? Perhaps it would be in order on some occasion to ask for a return of the amounts paid for these parcels of land; however, I am not interested in that for the moment. Would the minister tell us exactly what the procedure is? I have in mind the case of a man who claims to have been paid half what his property was really worth.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply arranged with the Canadian National Railways that the experienced land department of that railway would acquire the lands needed by the department, and that practice 'has been followed in all our land purchases. Mr. Clark, the head of the land department of the national railway, with his staff, has made all the arrangements. My hon. friend gave the procedure. Of course, before any land is purchased, the government is free to act, and the usual practice is, I think, to test out the value of land in that area by endeavouring to make actual purchases. If that is done and it is not possible to complete the purchase by offer and acceptance, then expropriation is proceeded with, and the reluctant seller has the choice of going before the exchequer court and taking the value placed by the court or settling with the government. Sometimes one course is followed, sometimes another. I have heard many criticisms of prices paid for land, but as far as western Canada is concerned the criticism has seldom been that the price was too low. I think my hon. friend will find that usually it is well above the normal price in the area.


James Arthur Ross: Is it necessary that plans be signed by the Minister of National Defence for Air and the commandant in that area before an airport is constructed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


James Arthur Ross: Is it never done otherwise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: Have any steps been taken to set up a steel rolling mill in British Columbia? As I understand, there is no way of disposing of scrap iron there unless it is sent to the United States; yet many cargo vessels are being built for which steel has to be imported, and steel will be needed there for a long time. Would it not be worth while for the government to put in a rolling mill or whatever plant is necessary to make use of that local supply?

The War-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government never builds mills of that kind itself. It will assist in the financing of a mill, and I have offered to do that on one or two occasions with those who take an interest in the situation at Vancouver, but the matter has never been followed up. There are difficulties; Vancouver is ordinarily a sort of dumping ground for the eastern mills. Ordinarily the price of steel products in Vancouver is lower than in Sydney or in Hamilton where the steel is made, and all the companies seem to compete in that area. It is very doubtful whether an industry put there at this time could succeed in peace time.
As far as building steel ships goes, the contribution of an electric furnace would be of very little use, only to make castings suitable for bolts and nuts and foundry work of that kind. It could not make ship plates or ship shapes or any of the highly finished products. The small capacity furnace that would be warranted by the amount of scrap available in British Columbia would be neither here nor there. We would like a small supply of that type of steel on the west coast, and my offer is still open if we can find anyone willing to risk their own money in the venture and supply the management.


Mr. SHAW:: In connection with land purchases, is the actual contract negotiated with the assistance of officers of the crown, or has the department lawyers in the employ of the government in the various provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The actual negotiations are
carried out by the land department of the railway. In acquiring the title we apply to the Department of Justice for legal assistance, and if they have an officer in the area they usually refer it to that officer; if not, they choose a solicitor, usually convenient to the area, who conducts the search and certifies the title.


Ernest George Hansell: Is there a board of
arbitration at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The other day when the Minister of National Defence for Air was speaking he described the repair and overhaul of aeroplanes as a troublesome problem. What facilities are available in western Canada for the repair and overhaul of aeroplanes? What policy is pursued? If it is done in large centres or central plants, where are those plants located and what capital assistance has been given towards their construction and equipment?
There are a number of aerodromes in western Canada, a number of schools being operated, and I understand there is a staff

in each of those aerodromes, varying from twenty to perhaps seventy mechanics, more or less proficient, who make minor repairs and who in course of time become so skilled in these repairs that they tell me they could take care of anything except the repair of a crashed plane. Does that come under the Department of Munitions and Supply, and would the department consider the extension of the plan, supplying each aerodrome with some additional equipment so that even more extensive repairs could be undertaken?
The other day the minister stated that the shortage of parts was a serious problem. What provision has the department made with regard to furnishing parts, and to what extent could the smaller machine shops throughout western Canada be used in the making of these repair parts? We have, as I said before, a large number of skilled mechanics in the west, I should have said still in the west. From week to week these men are being drained into industry in eastern Canada. Only some three weeks ago an advertisement appeared in all the western papers asking lathe men, grinders, borers and other skilled operators to apply to the employment agency, stating that their expenses would be paid to points in eastern Canada. I realize that the Minister of Munitions and Supply is most anxious to obtain a completed product, but we who live in the west dislike this continued migration of our skilled workers to other parts of Canada. Therefore I would once more urgently call to his attention the desirability of bringing industry, and a greater part of Canada's war effort, to the point where the labour can be found.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as the overhaul of planes is concerned, the Royal Canadian Air Force maintains an overhaul staff at each airport. A plane, of course, is overhauled almost every time it lands. It is checked out each morning after an inspection, and any minor repairs are made by the staff. The air force can expand these staffs as much as it wishes, but I think it has been found economical to have them do only the minor repairs. Any major overhaul, such as the tearing down of an engine, the repairing of a wing, or anything of that sort, is sent to one of the overhaul centres which are operated by the Department of Munitions and Supply. Each type of engine has its own overhaul plant, one in western Canada and one in eastern Canada. The engine would be sent to that plant, which has facilities for tearing it down, replacing any defective parts, rebuilding it and testing it for use. Similarly the planes are sent to certain major overhaul

The War-Munitions and Supply
depots where they are stripped down and where defective parts are replaced. There are a number of these depots in western Canada; two at Vancouver, one at Edmonton, one at Prince Albert, one at Moose Jaw and one at either Medicine Hat or Lethbridge. There is a very large one at Winnipeg.
Certainly the intention has been to repair in western Canada the planes used in western Canada. The plan we have followed in locating the major overhaul bases has been to expand existing industries. In Vancouver we had two pre-war repair industries; these have been expanded. We had an overhaul plant at Edmonton, which had been in existence for a good many years; that was expanded, and the same thing was done at Prince Albert and Moose Jaw. In Winnipeg we had MacDonald Brothers, which plant now has been expanded into a very large overhaul project. As my hon. friend has said, the repair of aeroplanes, both major and minor, is a very large and growing problem. I think I said in my statement that the major overhaul plants would handle about five thousand planes this year. Of course some planes would be handled two or three times, but nevertheless the number of planes requiring overhaul this year will be about five thousand. We estimate that next year the number of planes requiring overhaul in all Canada will be ten thousand, so this in itself has become a major industry.


Mr. REID:: There was a return brought down to-day showing the exports of steel scrap from British Columbia. Does the minister think it is good business on our part to allow steel scrap to be exported from British Columbia when it is so greatly required for the manufacture of steel in Canada? In answering that question, could the minister tell us what has become of the shipload of steel scrap that was on the ss. Boris, tied up at the Vancouver dock? My view is that no steel scrap should be exported from Canada, because every pound of it will be and is required for the manufacture of our steel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all very well to say that not a pound of steel scrap should be exported from Canada, but we must remember that on balance we are importers of steel scrap to the extent of about five hundred thousand tons a year. There is no steel industry in Vancouver at the present time; in fact, to my knowledge there never has been a steel industry there. We have scrap in British Columbia, which is not an economical area for any steel consuming furnace. When we are asking the United States to give us scrap in the eastern area to the extent of about five hundred thousand tons a year-and I may
add that without this scrap we would not be able to conduct our steel operations at Sydney, Hamilton or Sault Ste. Marie at the present rate of production-it is very difficult for us to refuse to export to the United States scrap which is needed there and which is in an uneconomical area in Canada. You may say provincial politics will prevent it, if you like; nevertheless this is a national problem of great importance, and we are meeting it as we should meet national problems. In other words, we are allowing the scrap to move out of an uneconomical area for the sake of getting a very much larger tonnage of scrap in an economical area, where the scrap can be used for war purposes.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister any information regarding the 7,500 tons of steel scrap tied up in the Greek ship ss. Borist


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I think the ship and its cargo of scrap are still at the dock. Our department is very much interested in both the ship and its cargo, but so far no means has been found of acquiring ownership. Greece, of course, is not an enemy of Canada; it is an ally, and as yet we have not been able to find a Greek government which can release the ship to Canada. We are hardly justified in seizing it from a friend, and we cannot buy it.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to put on record an observation with regard to the matter discussed a moment ago by the hon. member for Regina. Perhaps the minister will be able to give some thought to it, or possibly he may be able to reply. In my opinion one branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply has not been given sufficient consideration; that is the branch having to do with the salvage, for example, from the five thousand planes the minister mentioned a moment or two ago. Quite a number of planes are not overhauled. As the minister knows, badly crashed planes are thrown into the corner until after the inquest and whatnot. They remain there for a considerable length of time and eventually find their way into ordinary scrap, aluminum, steel, or whatever it may be. I would not suggest for a moment that some branch of the air force, taking its advice from the Department of Munitions and Supply, should try to reclaim those parts to put in other planes, but I do believe that a very large quantity of parts of considerable value might find their way into the ordinary plant repairs and maintenance requirements of industry. They would be worth a good deal of money, much more than would be their value for salvage. On account of freight rates it is

The War-Munitions and Supply
difficult to move large quantities of salvage to points of consumption, but a large number of parts used in industry-because, after all, they are standard goods-could be put to useful purposes, and add to the general economy of Canada.
I believe, if the minister would have an investigation made at Uplands, he would find motors which may have been in crashes, and other parts of planes, left out so that they are rusting and spoiling. I would ask the minister to answer this portion of my question:	Is
there any branch in his department giving attention to the matter of salvage? Do not let there be any misunderstanding, I would not for one moment ask that the spare parts be put back into aeroplanes which are carrying people 10,000 feet up in the air. I would not ask that such a chance be taken. At the same time there is a market for those parts, and it seems to me that with the elaborate inspection system in the Department of Munitions and Supply they could be reclaimed and put back into service in industry, if not within the Department of Munitions and Supply itself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply has a scrap disposal division, but it deals more particularly with scrap from our own industry, such as turnings from shell castings and gun forgings. Crashed aeroplanes, however, are the property of the Royal Canadian Air Force. My hon. friend may know of instances where engines have been left out in the open. I would not question his knowledge, but I would assume that parts of engines are so badly needed as spare parts for the Royal Canadian Air Force that an engine would be reclaimed very quickly and stripped.


Joseph Henry Harris: It is not being done to the extent it should be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to take the matter up with our own aircraft department, and with my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air, and we will see that it is done. I fully agree that it should be done. Of course, no property of the government can be sold, except through the salvage officer in the Department of Finance. That office is functioning. Any reclamation or sale of government property is carried on through it.


Mr. ESLING:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the matter of real estate, and I do so because I would expect him to be in ignorance of the case I shall place before him. After, however, I relate the circumstances, he may wish to have a chat with someone in his department

entrusted with the erection of buildings. In the Slocan valley at a point called Crestover there is a beam station. Two residences were constructed for those looking after the station. Each of those residences cost $9,000, and the director of housing in Ottawa told me that the average price for a six-roomed residence under the government plan is about $4,500.
The blue-prints and specifications in this instance constitute a huge volume more than an inch in thickness. Who the architect was, I do not know, but I would ask hon. members to follow the plans. Downstairs there are two bedrooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. There is also a combination livingroom and diningroom. Upstairs there are three bedrooms, but no bathroom. The joke is that the specifications call for a waterproof concrete foundation. The fact is, however, that two or three wells have been drilled to a depth of over 400 feet, and water has not been found.
I know the minister resents any suggestion of politics, but I must point out that within thirty miles of these buildings there resides a Montreal architect who moved to Kootenay West for the purpose of supervising and planning the construction of a $100,000 residence. His further capabilities were indicated by the fact that he was awarded a prize for the construction of the Canadian building at the world's fair. Nobody in the interior was given an opportunity either to review or to tender on the buildings. But the one who did get the contract was a man who had done most of the Liberal contracting in Kootenay West for the last twenty years, and he resides in Vancouver, 500 miles away.
This means that $9,000 was thrown away on those buildings. The two buildings could have been constructed for $9,000, instead of only one of them. The people resent this, when they stop to think that they are striving to meet the government's appeal for the purchase of war savings certificates and victory bonds. Surely the minister would admit that any repetition of such reckless and useless expenditure should not occur.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Houses of that type are built by the Department of Transport. They build a great many of them. I recognize the layout of the house described by the hon. member, because I have been in many of them.


William Kemble Esling: The man upstairs could not take a bath, I suppose.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a full basement in those houses. They contain first-class heating plants, because they are usually built in remote areas. Of course they have complete plumbing. Because they are built in remote

Labour Conditions
areas they are of fireproof construction. I believe my hon. friend will agree that they are of either concrete or brick construction.
Mr. E8LING: No; they are frame.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be surprised to find that. The ones I have seen are of fireproof construction. I shall, however, look into the matter. May I point out that tenders are usually let. The plans are advertised in local papers. That is the procedure which has been followed by the Department of Public Works for many years, and I cannot imagine that the contractor would obtain very much more than the fair cost of the building. The plans may be extravagant, but, as I say, they are plans which have been adopted as being suitable for similar buildings in other parts of Canada. My hon. friend has, however, pointed out that this is a frame building, and for that reason I would be pleased to look into it, and perhaps give him some information with respect to it later.


Joseph Henry Harris: I would ask for a reply to-morrow to the question I asked on November 4.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will give it.
The committee rose and obtained leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
On motion of Mr. Crerarthe house adjourned at 11.03 p.m.
Tuesday, November 11, 1941