1941-11-07

LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the orders of the day I rise to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the taking of a strike vote to-morrow, November 8, in certain mines in the Kirkland Lake district in the province of Ontario. The vote has been ordered by the Minister of Labour under the provisions of order in council, P.C. 7307, dated September 16, 1941. The application of the provisions of this order which has been proposed by the minister in this case will, if carried out, further intensify industrial unrest in this industry and threaten industrial peace throughout the country, with consequent harm to our war effort.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member ought to state why he considers the subject matter of his motion to be of urgent public importance and therefore requiring immediate discussion by the house.


Angus MacInnis: The question is urgent because the vote is to be taken to-morrow. I cannot say any more without making a short speech, which I possibly am not entitled to do at the moment, and if I did, I would be taking advantage of the house. The employees who are interested in this matter are of the opinion that the order is so wide that the result will not give a true representation of the will of the employees in the plant.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to what my hon. friend has said, I am inclined to think that the point he wishes to raise could be more properly raised when the house is in committee and we are discussing labour matters. It is quite true that the vote is to be taken to-morrow, but in order to have something considered a matter of urgent public importance it should be something that has recently occurred. As yet no vote has been taken, and I submit therefore that the matter is not one of urgent public importance. The minister's action is one simply of carrying out the law of the land, and I do not think the carrying out of the law of the land is a matter of such urgent public importance as to require the house to adjourn to debate the subject.


Georges Parent: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member, I must decide as to its being a matter of urgent public importance. I refer the hon. member to standing order 31, paragraph 3, which reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
My ruling must be that this matter is not of urgent public importance requiring discussion

Labour Conditions-Kirkland Lake
at this moment. When the house has reached the discussion stage in committee of the whole, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) is dealing with his department, the hon. member will be at liberty to bring up the matter to which he refers. I therefore rule his motion out of order.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to say a word on your decision?


Georges Parent: At the moment I do not think the hon. member would be in order, but when we are in committee of the whole and the statement of the Minister of Labour is before the committee, it would be in order for him to make whatever observations he wishes.


Angus MacInnis: Would Your Honour grant me the privilege of asking a question of the Prime Minister in regard to the proceedings to-day?


Georges Parent: The hon. member has a
right to ask questions on the orders of the day, and we are still on orders of the day.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will bring up the statement of the Minister of Labour first. If we go beyond to-day a vote will be taken tomorrow, and the consequences of that vote cannot be rectified by any discussion or action that may be taken in this house. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister to permit discussion of the statement which the Minister of Labour made last night. That would serve the purpose as well as the procedure I suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was one of the leaders who met with myself the other day to decide on the procedure to be followed while the house was sitting in committee of the whole to discuss different matters pertaining to our war effort. He as well as the other leaders agreed that the best procedure would be to have the different ministers make their formal statements and then have a discussion on those formal statements very much in the order in which they were presented. The danger in departing from any agreement of the kind is that one exception leads to endless requests for other exceptions. Last night I was asked to make an exception and allow hon. members at this stage to make speeches of any nature, instead of confining their remarks for the time being to the subject matter of the particular statement that might be before the committee. It appeared to me at the time that my action would be misconstrued if I were to press unduly the desirability of holding to the agreement as made. I therefore yielded to

the extent of saying that if hon. members of the house, knowing what the agreement was, wished to make speeches on their own account without waiting until the procedure suggested had been complied with, that I, for my part, would not object and that they might proceed if they so wished. But I think I have gone as far as I should like to go in the matter of permitting exceptions to an agreement made to further the convenience of all. What is happening now illustrates the unwisdom of departing from an understanding or agreement once reached, and I am inclined therefore to feel that the matter should be left where it is at this stage.



COMMITTEE TO DRAFT REGULATIONS FOR BALLOTING AT KIRKLAND LAKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the question which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) tried to raise, there is considerable confusion in the ranks of both organized labour and those who are attempting to organize, with respect to the election to be held in Kirkland Lake. There are two points at least which I should like the minister to clarify. First, who is eligible under this order in council to vote in that election? Second, what provision is made for members of the union for scrutineers in the taking of the ballot and in the final count of the ballots?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: With regard to the question of the hon. member, and also in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, I can answer the second part of the question by saying that provision is made for the union or the proposed union to appoint scrutineers at each balloting place. In connection with the former part of the question, about half an hour ago a delegation from Kirkland Lake waited on me and made certain representations as to classes which should be entitled to vote. As to the first question, I appointed a committee of three from the Department of Labour to work out regulations which they thought would be in accordance with the order and would be fair to both parties. Certain representations have been made to me; I have asked the committee to reconvene this afternoon, and, if for a few minutes I can be relieved of my duties in the house I intend to discuss the matter fully with them. For that reason I am unable now to answer the first part of the hon. member's question.

Wheat Board



QUESTION OF PARTICIPATION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS IN FORD COMPANY ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) :	I wish to ask the Minister of Labour
a question arising out of a telegram. I am sorry I could not give him notice, but I have just received the telegram. It states:
Ford of Canada announces election under labour department supervision in which only company union would be on ballot. Majority of 12,000 workers have already requested United Automobile Workers to bargain for them and will accept democratic election. Company action threatens defence production and loss of millions of allies in United States. Urge you present this national issue immediately and demand labour department protect genuine collective bargaining.
Does the Minister of Labour intend to protect the democratic rights of workers by allowing the union of their choice to take part in the ballot?
Norman Alexander McLarty: I must say that notice of a question of this length is something I would have appreciated. I do not know at all what are the intentions of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, and it would be a little presumptuous for me to suggest that the Department of Labour would be taking any action until it is informed of the action which the Ford Motor company proposes to take.



MARITIME PROVINCE LUMBER WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is able to make a report to-day with reference to the questions asked yesterday by the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. O'Brien) ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question relating to
lumbering?


Richard Burpee Hanson: People
going over to the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I should like to give later on a more detailed statement than I am in a position to give at the moment. In a word, I can say that such men as have been crossing over to the United States have received permits, not from our government at all but from the government of the United States. They have been cutting wood which for the most part, I understand, is shipped to Saint John, Canada, to be manufactured in mills or factories there in a
fashion which will help to serve the war industries in Great Britain. But I will give my hon. friend the full particulars later.



INQUIRY AS TO WHEAT BOARD'S OPERATIONS AND THE 1940 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he proposes before the house adjourns, presumably early next week, to make a statement with respect to the wheat board's operations and the 1940 crop? When may we expect a report with respect to the handling of that crop?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to take the hon. member's question into consideration.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Middlesex West):: I should like to inquire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the Ontario wheat grower may expect his final payment from the wheat board for his 1940 crop?


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member for Middlesex West kindly notified me of his intention to ask this question, and enabled me to get definite information for him. I am advised that the distribution of the final payment on the 1940 Ontario wheat delivered to the Canadian wheat board merely awaits the complete returns and the audit of the processing levy. A proportion of this processing levy, of course, will be distributed on the Ontario 1940 wheat crop, and as soon as the total amount is definitely known and confirmed by audit the final payment can proceed. The board's receipts of 1940 Ontario crop have all been sold at a small profit on the sales transactions, quite apart from the processing levy, and the board expects to be able to proceed with the final payment early in 1942.
May I just mention in this connection that, with the final payment on the 1939 Ontario crop, which was announced in November 1940, there are still about five thousand of the certificates outstanding; that is, the producers who are entitled to this money have not yet picked it up.



ACREAGE BONUS-WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Edward Perley: Can the Minister of Agriculture give the house any information with respect to speeding up pay-
Wheat Board

ments of the wheat acreage bonus in western Canada? I am prompted to ask this question because of the numerous inquiries I have received in the last ten days as to the cause of the delay. The minister when he was out west stated that he was going to speed up payment. Would he care to say when the final payments may be expected?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: One of the difficulties in making payments as rapidly as otherwise would have been possible has been that about forty per cent of the applications for the bonus contained mistakes having to do with location, ownership, acreage or something of the sort, and that forty per cent had to be checked back in order to correct the mistakes. But the last returns indicate that in spite of all these difficulties and delays approximately half of the total estimated amount of money payable was paid out prior to the end of last week. During this week in order to make it possible for more applicants to receive payment the plan was started of paying seventy-five per cent of the total claim, retaining the other twenty-five per cent until a final check had been made to determine the full amount payable. I expect within the next few weeks, in addition to those who have already been paid in full, the others will receive seventy-five per cent of the full amount payable, and in addition all claims under 150 will have been paid. With respect to the larger claims, seventy-five per cent of the amount claimed will be paid and only twenty-five per cent retained until such time as the claims can be fully checked.



ACREAGE BONUS-ORDER IN COUNCIL RESPECTING PRICE CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Would the Minister of Agriculture make a statement concerning the recently proposed acreage bonus to wheat producers under the new order in council covering the price control set up by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of statements, which have been published in the press. If it is desirable that further statements should be made before the house closes and after the discussion on the war services, I shall be pleased to answer any questions with regard to the matter.



NAVAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to comment on a report which recently appeared in the Detroit Free Press. This report received considerable circulation in this country as well as in the United States, and aroused some concern particularly at border points. It is by Clifford A. Prevost, Washington correspondent of the Detroit Free Press, and the relevant parts of his dispatch read as follows:
British warships have been withdrawn. from the north Atlantic and the United States Navy has taken over the task of defending Canada and convoying American and British merchant men beyond Iceland, according to information made available in Washington and Ottawa to-night.
It was stated reliably that Britain's greater harbour on this side of the Atilantic^-Halifax- had been taken over by the United States Navy. This was neither confirmed nor denied by the navy. . . . That the United States Navy is in control of Halifax was not denied by the president. .	.	. Mr. Roosevelt said
that of course the joint defence board had been considering joint use of defence facilities in the event of an attack. He said that he supposed the board had mentioned Halifax and Toronto and he knew they had discussed Chicago.
The report goes on:
But this much has been reliably established: That Admiral Ernest H. King, of the United States Atlantic fleet, is in complete charge of the Halifax harbour and that the Canadian navy has been released from its obligations to convoy ships leaving the Nova Scotia coast.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): In answer to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I would say in the first place that it would have been advisable for this reporter to consult some naval authority in the United States before making such statements. Had he done so, and had he been given permission to use the information thus acquired, I am sure the statements would not have been made. His dispatch is quite long and I do not know whether an answer should be made to it in this house, or whether ministers can be expected to deal with statements made by reporters in all parts of the world, statements obviously based on ignorance of the subject and lack of information. However, out of deference to my hon. friend who has asked the question I would say first of all that there are still British warships in the north Atlantic and there are still Canadian

The War-Mr. Church
ships in that same area, as would appear from the remarks which I made the other night in this house.
As to the harbour of Halifax having been taken over by the United States Navy, I may say, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has just commented, that that report, like the one about Mark Twain's death, is somewhat exaggerated; in fact, it is based on pure imagination. Halifax harbour is still as it has been for two hundred years, a British and Canadian harbour. I think that covers the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: The answer as to Halifax harbour is definitely no. While, as I said the other night when speaking in this house, we are most grateful here as are all British people for the assistance that is being rendered by the United States in one way or another, it is not true to say that there are no British warships left in the north Atlantic, and certainly there are a great many Canadian warships there.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the release of the make of cheese since November first, is it the intention of the dairy products board to see that a portion of it finds its way into the trade, so that the large processing firms will not buy it all up and deprive retailers of their share?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member just at this moment has referred the question to me. I can only say that the matter was discussed before the cheese was again placed on the domestic market, and the board is placing what I think are sufficient safeguards about the disposal of the cheese to make it impossible for concerns such as those referred to to get possession of any more than their proper proportion of the cheese which is going on the market.



WAR-TIME HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS AND MUNITIONS WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether any consideration is being given to allowing soldiers' dependents as well as munitions workers the use of the new war-time houses. I ask the question because I have letters on my desk with regard to soldiers' wives being thrown out of houses on account of landlords selling the homes over their heads.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The situation was called to my attention some months ago, and also to the attention of the Minister of National Defence. Arrangements were made that a certain number of houses would be available for wives of soldiers now overseas who were ejected from their houses for reasons that the city or municipal authority, who are really responsible for the situation, could not prevent. I believe that all the localities where housing is being provided were notified of the arrangement. Certain cities have taken advantage of the offer and are now using a few houses for the purpose mentioned. If the responsible authority in the city represented by the hon. member will make the proper approach, I am sure that similar action will be taken in Peterborough.



THE WAR

[Stage Direction]
INTERNATIONAL SITUATION SINCE JUNE 14, 1941 -Canada's war effort
The house again in committee of the whole, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: During the past week the house has listened for four days to a considerable amount of window dressing by hon. gentlemen opposite who are in charge of the war. It is the desire of every good citizen to cooperate with them in their task, the greatest task with which any government could conceivably be entrusted, but if the Prime Minister will keep his ear to the ground -and he was in the west and over in England and other places-he will find that there is a good deal of rumbling all over Canada.
This is not the first government that has sought to conduct a great war on a political basis. In England the Asquith government, which went out of office in 1916, had conducted the last war along similar lines. That government had to resign because the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, sought to conduct the war precisely in the way in which our present Prime Minister is carrying on this conflict, namely, on political lines.
Parliament has been treated during the last two years with contempt. We meet, so to speak, on again, off again, on again. The doors of the house are locked without any respect for parliamentary institutions. In the British house the other day twenty-six members of parliament supporting that government rose in
The War-Mr. Church

their places and offered constructive criticism of their government. The Prime Minister there listened to a great many uncomplimentary remarks which were made in the course of the debate by members supporting the government in the house, sitting on all sides. He listened to remarks condemning the failure of the so-called Atlantic conference, the eight points of which reasserted a good many things, many of which cannot be carried out, though some are political and economic and will not add one iota to the fight against Hitler.
Those who criticize the party system in this country do so with some degree of justice, because the system has some defects. It sometimes leads people to forget the basis upon which political parties were formed and organized, namely, to promote the greatness of the country and the welfare of the people. But when you criticize the party system for its defects, do not forget that it has its merits and virtues too, as we can see by studying some of the great governments that have functioned there in the past, and gave England good government on the whole and free parliamentary institutions.
In a democracy such as Canada claims to be, the opposition, under the rules and regulations laid down in the constitution, must in effect share the responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of the country. It must share responsibility with the government if this is not a total war. The opposition is the alternative government, and its policy is to offset that of hon. gentlemen opposite. If the opposition make a strong case the government of the day may feel impelled to agree with them and to bring about some changes, or an appeal may be made to the people, and if the government wishes to remain in office it is bound to make such changes in its policy as are necessary.
This opposition has consistently protested against the conduct of this war as a political war. Take the members from the Toronto district. We have heard in the last few days three ministers representing respectively the air force, the army and the navy, for all of whom I have a great deal of respect. But the fact is that not a member of parliament from that district has received a single invitation to attend any meeting that would promote the successful prosecution of the war since it started, or to visit a camp, or see a parade or an inspection. Why, I do not know; perhaps it is beoause we are Conservatives and the government are conducting a Liberal war. At any rate, we have not received an invitation to visit a single camp. There is a certain building at the exhibition of which I laid the cornerstone, in which
	:
there are housed some 7,000 men, and although I had a great deal to do with getting that building erected I have never been invited to visit it. But people from Hollywood can get invitations galore. As a matter of fact, members of parliament should not need invitations to go on federal government property if they want to. I do not blame the ministry, because they cannot look after everything, 'but I do suggest that they should pass word on to their deputies that the country has federal members. Yesterday we had an invitation from the minister in charge of the army. I do not wish to add to his burdens, which are heavy enough already; I would like to help. We had an invitation yesterday to go and help in recruiting. I for one will not help restore it or be responsible for its failures and mistakes because, as I say, it has been a case of on again, off again and on again, and voluntary recruiting has been destroyed. One does not feel any great enthusiasm until the government shows signs of hearkening to the voice of the people and doing something for the soldiers and their dependents, and giving some redress of grievances. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is protected and can get a bonus, but when you ask the Minister of Finance to do something with regard to a high cost of living bonus for our returned men and for the soldiers who are fighting for us overseas, the only answer you get is, "I will give the matter consideration," the same as was said a year ago.
If anyone is entitled to a war bonus it is the dependents of the soldiers, women and children, the mothers and wives of these men. When you are spending $4,000,000 a day, surely you can afford to give a fair share of justice to these men overseas or in training to go over. If you are not prepared to do so, then do not look for recruits. You must first give some consideration to the grievances of the soldiers and their dependents and to their requests for insurance, free fares, bonus, a readjustment of pay and so forth.
The people are very much dissatisfied with the conduct of the war as it has been carried on so far. While we wish to give general support to the government and have done so, there are a great many shortcomings in the administration of the war. I have been trying to get a readjustment of wages for these men, and it took me about four months to get some information and the rates of pay. I wrote, first, an excellent official, Judge Davis and he passed it on to the army; then it went to the navy and to the air force, and it took me four months to find out what the rates of pay were in these branches of the service. Look over the sheet which the minister has been good enough to give me and you will see the various

The War-Mr. Church
ranks set out there, with rates of pay. I am not objecting to them. Take the rank of colonel-and some of them are not going overseas, but are staying at home, some in civilian duties. Some of them, with sustenance and living quarters, get $6,500. Then you come down the list and you find lieutenant-colonel, major, captain, lieutenant, the last receiving $5 a day, with $1.70 for sustenance allowance and all that kind of thing, amounting to $2,600 a year. Then you come to the humble private who gets $1.30 a day, although some of these men are serving in England. That schedule is inequitable. This is the pay, $1.30 a day, of the privates, the men who are doing hard work, and I submit that there should be some readjustment of salaries all along the line of these low-paid men.
The same applies to the air force and the navy. With regard to the latter, there are 4,000 or 5,000 men who cannot get into the navy on account of lack of ships. Then you come to the new army which has been formed, the army of women-and dear knows they were doing an important work in the last great war. I do not know how the war could have been conducted without them. But look at the rates of pay-$11.35 a day plus sustenance and other allowances in this new war, as much as given to eight or nine privates serving in the old country, in the actual theatre of war. I am not objecting to what the women are getting, for example, wing officers, $6.70 and all that, but if that is the rate of pay for the ladies' army, the privates serving in England should have some consideration.
I received a letter from the Minister of Finance, which was written on both sides of the paper-that is, about the only economy I have seen since I have been in Ottawa-with regard to this bonus for soldiers. If he would look into this wonderful information bureau he would see tons and tons of paper going to waste, just tossed into the waste-paper baskets when received. The minister said of course that with regard to a bonus for soldiers he was not in a position to reply or say whether there would be any change. Well, then, do not go round looking for people to join the army and to put up with this thing; do not ask members of parliament to ask the women to give up their husbands and sons for the country when soldiers' dependents are not paid enough to keep body and soul together, and are paid for only two children a small pittance and none for more than two. The whole system is wrong and should be changed in the interest of recruiting.
As far as the conduct of the war is concerned there are one or two things that I desire to call to the attention of the committee. The
first is the accusations which were made by the heads of the legion last summer, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Herridge. I do not know anything about the matter myself. I have a great respect for the present Prime Minister, I think I have known him now longer than anyone else in the house and I sympathize with the work he has to do, it is almost beyond any man's capacity, but I want a total war effort. I think it would be better to reply to these gentlemen instead of sending the Postmaster General to North York. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would kindly lay the papers on the table of the house so that we might know what happened, as well as all correspondence for a year before the war. I moved for this in 1940, but did not get it.
During the six months before this war broke out, this government and the whole House of Commons were saturated with the Geneva type of mind, thinking we could get on without arms or allies whatever and remain at peace. The papers to which I refer should be laid on the table now, because if the government was pacifist it was no different from any other governments, and the charges which I have mentioned could be cleared up.
There is a meeting of the Conservative party in Ottawa to-day and it is very much alive; notwithstanding criticisms, it has always stood fast to its principles of the British connection. As the late Sir John A. Macdonald said at Kingston on October 5, 1844: "It is my firm belief that the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connection with the mother country, and I shall resist to the utmost any attempt from whatever quarter to weaken that union." One of the things we saw here recently was the tremendous popularity of the monarchy, and the failure of the House of Commons to deal with problems as they occur. I have often wondered at that. Canada at the colonial conference in 1937 put forward the view that we have no commitments with the rest of the empire, that parliament should decide. They might well know that if war came Canada was at war, would be directly involved. But they refused to arm or get ready.
I believe the Prime Minister would have been well advised to have a war cabinet; that it is an absolute necessity. New Zealand and Australia wanted a war cabinet; south Africa did not, and the south of Ireland is neutral and outside the empire. Instead of ministers having to go across to England by aeroplane from time to time, we should have a war cabinet to sit in and meet with the other dominions. Down to the time of the outbreak of the war there was not a single member of
The War-Mr. Church

the cabinet on the front benches who believed in empire policies and what they stand for; they were more Washington-minded than empire-minded. The Prime Minister said in Britain that he is averse to any participation in an imperial cabinet. That is a mistake. In south Africa they want a separate republic after the fashion of the south of Ireland. We are dependent upon Britain; everything in freedom and liberty we have in this country we owe to Britain; if it were not for Britain and the British fleet, where would we be to-day? This very building in which we meet would be bombed. As I said in 1936-37 during the Ethiopian war, we needed a proper empire shipbuilding policy and a programme for training youths for the merchant marine and air empire scheme, and events have proved that the government of the day was all wrong when it did not seize that opportunity and rearm. We are dependent upon Britain for our very existence, and there is no reason why we should be reluctant to enter into closer relations with the mother country during the war and have a war cabinet for the empire in London. Canadian sentiment is like that of New Zealand and Australia, loyal to the empire ideal. It was a great mistake when the Prime Minister decided that he was against a proper war cabinet to consider the various phases of the war in London, because London to-day is the new centre of Christendom as no other capital in the world is. There was the battle of London and the battle of the Atlantic, which in some sense is a misnomer because it is also the battle of the Pacific and the Indian ocean and the seas of the world, a battle for the freedom of the seas and British supremacy of the seas. Mr. Menzies, the former prime minister of Australia, who addressed this house wanted an empire cabinet and an empire policy, and I believe the overwhelming voice of the Conservative party in this country is in favour of having a war cabinet formed right away. The war is creating a comradeship between empire troops, and I believe that comradeship should be extended for the conduct of the war by an empire council. Had that been done we would have known more about the war.
We have had hardly a single paper laid on the table of the house of a record of correspondence with Britain and the empire. I am sorry the body which meets in another part of this building has gone home for the holidays; they could greatly aid in the war if given work, but apparently the House of Commons is not wanted around here either; as far as I see we might just as well pack up and go home. Members of the government rise in their places and read to us essays about things

which can be got in the public press just as well. They have made Canada restless for a total war policy in this the third year of the war. In the first year it was not to be expected that Canada could do everything it should do because we had a pacifist government which was not war-minded; many of them knew nothing about war, and it is no disparagement of hon. gentlemen who make admirable executives in peace time, to say that they have no knowledge of war problems, because peace and war administration are far apart, especially in a world war like this. Some are able and efficient gentlemen, but now what is needed is a total war effort on their part.
The battle of Canada's propaganda goes on night and day. You cannot turn on the radio without hearing all kinds of talk from members of the government, the information bureau and their favourites and radio paid agents, and the ghosts behind the scenes, as I called the unnamed spokesmen, and there seems to be a distinct United States taint about all the speeches and little praise for Britain. How does it come that we hear so little about the great fight Russia is making against the mechanized hordes of the axis powers? On the radio and from the information bureau we hardly ever hear about Russia, but we hear much about the American isolationists; in sections of our press and radio and information bureau they seem to be troubled with Lindberghitis. There is more space given sometimes in some papers to Colonel Windberg-I mean Lindbergh-and the United States isolationists than to all the proceedings of this house. The battle of the air is going on, and all these paid officers are giving their views. I believe the time is coming when we should cease having press censorship in this country and adopt the policy followed in the old country. Why not trust the newspapers, as we did in the last great war and abolish censorship? It is unnecessary. We would have very little trouble, and we would save all the money that is being spent on an information bureau which turns out literature presumably for the benefit of the United States press, and is resented over there as trying to bring the United States into the war.
Then I should like to know where the auditor general is during these times, because every department seems to be run by its own minister, who apparently is able to spend all the money he likes. We also have the celebrated joint defence board which, without the authority of parliament, is binding Canada to various treaties for the next hundred years. We have the Minister of Agriculture announcing a policy with regard to a fixed price for

The War-Mr. Church
wheat which may cost the country from $125,000,000 to $200,000,000 with other allowances, and which is to be carried out by order in council. We have the Minister of Munitions and Supply, for whom I have the greatest respect, spending money in vast quantities. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance knows about all this, because there seems to be no coordination or central control, with the result that a great deal of money is being spent without the proper authority. Toward the end of the session in June I asked the Minister of Finance if the auditor general had jurisdiction over all these dollar-a-year men and all these boards. At that time the minister said he had, but that does not seem to be the situation, because every department seems to have its own auditors independent of a central auditor. As a result money is being spent like water by the navy, the army, the air force and everybody else, on home defence which will never win this war. Then we have the mayor of New York, who heads this defence board. He has announced expenditures running into millions of dollars, and I doubt if the Minister of Finance even knows anything about them, but this joint defence board binds Canada's future. The policy of the government seems to be, "A board a day will keep Hitler away."
In the first year of the war the mechanized hordes conquered Norway, Czechoslovakia, the low countries, Belgium, Holland and, last but not least, France. In the second year of the war they swept over Yugoslavia and Greece, and the mechanization still goes on. What is the position in Canada? We are now in the third year of the war and the government can give us no definite war programme for the next twelve months. As I said when this war began, the big question was man-power. I was told it was not, but it was food and munitions. Has there been any war in the history of mankind in which man-power has not played a major part? I say there has not; and if the government of the day had taken the right stand at the start, voluntary recruiting would not have reached the state in which it is to-day. We should have had a million men. During the first months of the war the country was willing to give the ministers time to become war-minded instead of believing in pacifism and disarmament; but two years of armed warfare should be sufficient to bring about that changed mentality. We should be taking active steps to see that in this third year of the war ours should be a total war effort from coast to coast. Now we find the government without any concerted, coordinated war planning for the coming year, to deal with the demands of the military services and the other demands
in connection with production, shipbuilding, agriculture and so on. Home defence will never win any war; there is no possibility of that. We should take stock of our military position. The people want to know the facts, but they cannot get them. As I said in 1937, are we to wait until the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence by air, land and sea, and bombs the citadel and this very building? All the protection we have is provided by Great Britain, and the United States would be attacked also but for the British navy. The small nations of Europe have been enslaved by this mechanized army; they have endured the spies, the sergeant-majors, the concentration camps, the loud speaker, the tramping of feet, the gestapo, the whips, the spirit of barbarism, brutality and savagery; and but for Britain we on this continent would be compelled to suffer the same experiences. Yet we do not pay her tribute.
What are we going to do about it? Sooner or later there must be another Peninsular war on the continent, and what is Canada doing to prepare for it in man-power to aid the mother country? New Zealand and Australia were represented in Africa, Greece, Syria and other countries. Canada was not. Now we have been told by one of the ministers, within the last day or two, that no Canadian troops can be moved out of England without the authority of this government. That is just what I said in this house last June, that not a man could be sent from England without the permission of the government of this country. That is a fine state of affairs. That is not a total war effort, or coordination with Britain; that is not showing cooperation with the other parts of this empire. The time has now come when there should be a change. I think we need something more than words, something more than the essays and all that sort of thing we have been getting. The people should know the extent of our war effort and exactly what our position is.
In addition, I believe that when the government takes over private property as crown property throughout the country it should pay taxes. The Ontario government and the hydro electric system pay municipal taxes. Why, the city of Toronto spent two and a half million dollars in connection with one plant on the harbour there, doing dredging, building retaining walls, putting in pavements, sewers, sidewalks, power at cost, water supply, roadways and all that sort of thing. Now the plant has been taken over as crown property. Surely the government of the day should pay something to help meet the cost of all these municipal services, and should pay some part of all this cost to the municipalities. This war is alto-
The War-Mr, Church

gether different; and I hope the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who has not been unmindful of the needs of the municipalities, will-take this matter into consideration. These crown plants are getting their power, light and water, and transportation, street cars, at cost; they are being provided with sewers, pavements, transportation facilities and all the rest of it. Surely the municipalities should be helped, and all their revenue should not in this way be taken away. Since the early days of the hydro electric commission they have paid taxes on their municipal property, and I appeal to the government to take the same stand with regard to these crown property costs.
I see no change in the cardinal principles of the government's war policy, except the sending overseas of one hundred thousand men, though the Prime Minister said we would never send another expeditionary force to Europe. A few months before the war broke out, the right hon. gentleman said the danger to Canada was minor in degree and secondary in origin. In 1938 and 1939 we were told that our war policy was directed to home defence and the maintenance of Canada's neutrality in case the United States should be attacked by a foreign power. Since then we have had several agreements with the United States, one of which was announced at Ogdensburg, and we have had a joint defence board set up as a result. We have been told by the Prime Minister that Canada has no commitments, that parliament will decide. That is not so. We knew if Britain was at war, Canada would at once be also involved. Bases are given away and commitments made for the next ninety-nine years under the agreement giving the United States bases reaching from Newfoundland to British Guiana in exchange for fifty obsolete ships, some of which were useless and of no value at all, and Canada is bound by our United States-Canada defence board. Canada knew all about that agreement; it has been said that Canada was the author of that British-American Atlantic bases policy, but in any event we are bound by it for the next ninety-nine years. And whether we like it or not rve are also bound by the policy of the defence board created as a result of the Ogdensburg agreement. Supposing the United States should go to war with Japan. There would be no reason why Canada should also go to war; we are in a different position, but we are bound by these agreements into which the Prime Minister has entered with the President of the United States, over the head of parliament, of the mother country and of the other dominions who should know of it and to whom in an empire sense we are connected. The defence board agreement was entered into over the
fMr. Church.]
head of the mother country and of our sister dominions. It was agreed' to set up this defence board for the protection of America for the next ninety-nine years, and this action was taken over the head of this parliament. Nobody knows where it is going to end.
There is no time to be lost. As Lord Beaverbrook has so well said, and as was said a few weeks ago in the British house, there is no time to be lost in giving aid to Russia. To-day Russia is fighting with the mother country for the freedom of the world. The whole history of the world for the next two hundred years will be decided by the battle of Britain, the battle of the Atlantic and the battle of Russia. Russia is standing against the mechanized hordes. The Germans have lost 8,000 tanks so far in their struggle against Russia. At one time it was said that we could not turn out tanks in this country, and then we were told that we would have fifteen by the end of the year. The minister now thinks that we shall have produced 100 or possibly a few more. Germany is supposed to have 30,000 tanks, so that means that we shall have to produce 29,900 more if we are to be on an equal footing.
As I say, the history of the whole world is being decided over there in the battle of London and Russia. Were it not that Russia is now bearing the burden and the brunt of the struggle against these modem savages and barbarians with their awful mechanization, the British losses on land, sea and in the air would be terrible. These losses would be in addition to the already heavy burden being borne in this war by the mother country. The Hun has his awful mechanized hordes with their savagery and slaughter. This year has witnessed the collapse of all the ideologies of the past, and they should remain in cold storage until the axis gangsters are destroyed. After all, a kindly providence knows better than our own government. We should all face the facts and appreciate how Russia is benefiting, saving and aiding Great Britain in this struggle.
There are some who do not like this collaboration of Great Britain and the United States with Russia, and they quote General Franco. Had he said three years ago that he would not accept the military help of gangsters like Hitler and Mussolini he would now be in exile as a defeated man. But he renounced all his ideologies of the past, as Great Britain and the United States are now doing. By the use of diplomacy, Franco got both his axis partners out of Spain.
It is time for Canada to wake from her slumber. It is time for Canada to do something and not keep on talking about what will be done in 1942 and 1943. Canada

The War-Mr. Church
seems to think that there is all eternity in which to prepare the necessary man-power, food and munitions to help Great Britain and her allies. The time has come when this government will have to come down out of the olouds and let us have a total war effort. At the beginning of this debate the Prime Minister gave the reasons why Russia went into the war, but he forgot to say anything about man-power in this country. No matter whether we like it or not, something will have to be done about man-power or else the war may be lost. Call it conscription, compulsory service, or anything you like; it all means the same.
As in the last war, I am in favour of a selective principle. In 1937 and 1938 I proposed that we should have a compulsory national registration with a view to obtaining the utmost national service from the people. That is the only way we can have equal rights for all and special privileges to none. We would not have needed it if voluntary recruiting had been properly handled from the start. Now it is too late. The recruits are not coming forward.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. Why does this country continue to permit the Vichy legation to remain open? We all know the record of that notorious government during the past year in France. We all know that it is simply a puppet government of Hitler. We all know how France suffered in the last war to preserve civilization and how all Canada wants to aid her.
Before this house adjourns I should like to know what action this government intends to take in connection with the great losses to our shipping off the coast of Ireland. Are our sailors, soldiers and ships to be lost? In one of his speeches President Roosevelt said that they were not going to stand for it, and Mr. Churchill has referred to this as well. This kind of thing cannot go on much longer. A total of 340,000 tons of shipping has been lost in one month, most of it in the Atlantic. Throughout the centuries one continuous thread can be detected running through the variegated web of British military and naval policy-the strategical indivisibility of the British isles. We are all aware of the glorious record of those two little islands from the days of Elizabeth. They leaped up and became a great world power. We are proud of the record not only as the main defender of freedom and civilization, but also in discovery, the arts and sciences, and literature.
The defence of Ireland is the defence of Britain. Elizabeth knew it; Cromwell knew it; William of Orange, of pious and immortal memory, knew it, and so did Pitt and
Castlereagh. In our own time Mr. Lloyd George knew it. While prepared to give up much, he shrank from giving up all. Speaking at the Methodist conference at Cardiff in 1921, he said that he did not know what would happen to Great Britain in another war with Germany if we did not have these ports, yet later he gave Eire those very bases. In each epoch of British history 'her enemies have appreciated the situation in the same way. Elizabeth's struggle with Philip saw a Spanish landing in Ireland; the Napoleonic wars saw the French at Killala, and in the great war of 1914-18 Germany too made a nibble at the island on the western flank.
In the grim struggle in which Britain is now engaged only one thing can deprive her of victory. If her sea communications with the arsenal of democracy across the Atlantic are cut, the war for her is lost. Ireland lies across those lines of communications. An Ireland fighting on her side would make those communications safe, while a neutral Ireland would imperil and has so far gravely imperilled them. With Ireland in the possession of her enemies, the vital arteries would be severed. But this government does nothing about it but drift. It has a legation there as well. Apparently this government is ready to see our brave soldiers and sailors and our shipping and food for Britain lost in the seas off the coast of Ireland without saying one word of protest about these bases, instead of joining with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt in seeking the use of these bases at once.
It is from these points that the Germans got the range and lights to destroy Coventry and Cardiff, and prevented our ships from reaching shore. The result has been that Great Britain has been unable to use Portsmouth and other ports on the southern channel, as she did in the last war. We might have lost the last war without these bases. Another result was the loss of the Channel islands. The Prime Minister was asked by me in 1939, 1940 and last June about these ports, but nothing has been done. Great Britain has been forced to use the narrow northern channel, and the result is that a month or two ago the shipping losses amounted to 144,000 tons. It is time for us to think about this bridgehead in Ireland and do something about it. We should appreciate what is being done by the people of Ulster, the six northern counties. Their war effort has been magnificent and were it not for that great arsenal, Hitler would have won Ireland long ago.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: In the early days of the war we were led to believe that men were not needed. This illusion was
The War-Mr. Bruce

entirely dispelled by the straightforward statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on Wednesday last, so that there can no longer be any doubt that men are urgently needed. In answer to the question as to the government's military objective the Minister of National Defence stated that it was to be an all-out war effort.
The government's adherence to the voluntary system of recruiting is inconsistent with total war, and yet this is the only kind of war that will enable us to help defeat Hitler. Contrary to the opinion expressed by the Minister of National Defence it is the government's responsibility. It is perfectly obvious to every thinking man that Canada cannot make a total war effort without compulsory selective service, and also that if our aid is not to be a vital factor in this struggle this empire, and with it Canada, is doomed. Speaking for myself in this house on May 12 last, as I do to-day, I called upon the government to put this method into effect, adding that voluntary recruiting had reached the stage where it was slow, cumbersome and wasteful, and that selective compulsory enlistment was the only fair and efficient way to meet the complex needs of Canada. I believe now, as I did then, that nothing will strengthen national unity more than the knowledge that every section and every class of our population are bearing an equal share in the defence of our country.
I was pleased to read the report of a statement made by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Whitman) on October 8 last to the effect that we shall have conscription if and when it is shown to be necessary. Surely that time has now arrived. Every report we get from reliable sources emphasizes beyond all doubt the terrible crisis upon which we have now entered. Yet Canada allows a man to decide for himself whether he will sell goods over a counter, wave women's hair, work in a factory, vital to our war effort or otherwise, or serve in our armed forces overseas. The government must take upon itself the responsibility of putting the right man in the right place.
There is no doubt that there has been a very great change in public opinion in Canada on this subject since May last, and to give the committee some indication of the extent of this change I should like to quote from an editorial in the Montreal Star appearing under yesterday's date. In commenting upon the speech of the Minister of National Defence it says:
The problem will not be solved by indiscriminate enlistment of men for either industry or the armed forces. That is why so many people throughout the country are clamouring

for a system of selective national service that would permit the government _ to send men- and women-wherever their aptitudes could best fit into the war picture. There are thousands of men and women, not all of them fit for active service, who nevertheless are eager to do a war job-and they cannot always find openings. Voluntary civilian organization for war" purposes is all very well in its way, and is indicative of a high spirit of willing service, but unless it is related to a general official plan, it wastes both money and valuable effort.
I should also like to give the opinion of three ministers of the church, of different denominations. Two Roman Catholic army chaplains, Colonel C. L. Nelligan and Colonel T. J. McCarthy, when speaking in London recently, warned Canadians to do away with complacency and get into action. Colonel McCarthy, recently returned from London, England, speaking to Canadian wives and mothers said:
If your husbands and your sons are of military age don't hesitate to send them to fight your battles across the sea because then they won't have to fight them on your own doorstep.
Lastly, I would quote Bishop Renison, who has just returned from a visit to England where he went with a party of Canadian journalists as the representative of the Globe and Mail. I might remind the committee that Bishop Renison's two sons, his only children, went overseas at the beginning of the war. One son, like the boy referred to by my leader on Tuesday, paid his own way to England to join the Royal Air Force. His plane was shot down over France during Dunkirk and he was made a prisoner of war and is now in Germany. The other son went over with the first contingent. I wish to quote from a report in to-day's Ottawa Citizen. Bishop Renison said:
It is my opinion some form of compulsory service is absolutely essential.
The report goes on:
The young men who had joined the armed forces with the encouragement of the government have "pledged their all", Bishop Renison said, and "the Canadian government therefore cannot be less sacrificial in its attitude toward the war. ..."
I wish to make the strongest protest of which I am capable against the practice of this government in arrogating to itself dictatorial powers and, through its ever-growing habit of legislating by order in council, destroying the rights and privileges of parliament, obtained only after centuries of strife. The last and most flagrant example is the enactment by order in council of control of prices and wages -the most revolutionary change in our economic system that has ever been made in a democratic country-and this on the very eve of the assembling of parliament. I was not

The War-Mr. Gillis
impressed by the reasons advanced last evening by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) for not submitting this important matter to parliament, namely, that secrecy had to be observed in respect to the fixing of prices of commodities lest advantage might be taken to do some improper thing, presumably the boosting of prices. But that same argument could be used to pass the budget by order in council, and up to the present time that has not been done. Whether or not, however, we agree with the method used or with the wisdom of what has been done, I wish to congratulate the minister upon the lucid and informative presentation he made of the subject yesterday.
We are given no opportunity of discussing any of the provisions of this control of prices and wages legislation, but, instead, we are told that, after listening to the reports from some of the ministers, we shall be permitted to ask questions, and then adjourn to reassemble late in January, because there is no legislation ready. This means that for a period of seven months parliament will not have functioned as a legislative body. Was it not the same disregard of the rights of parliament which called for the protest from the British House of Commons to King James I, on December 18, 1621, in the following terms:
That the liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the state and defence of the realm and the maintenance and making of laws are proper matter of debate in parliament and that in the handling of these businesses every member of the house of parliament hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to treat of these matters in such order as in their judgment shall seem fit.
We may, perhaps, be permitted to appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, from the successful politician to the sound parliamentarian, from the prime minister who destroyed the rights of parliament to the private member who once used to defend its dignity in such ringing terms as these:
Mr. Speaker, there should be an end to government by order in council. Government must be by parliament and through parliament; it must not be by the diplomacy of cabinet^ councils carried on by cabinet ministers in their secret chambers, but by the free discussions and questionings of the ministry in this house in regard to public affairs.
Mr. Chairman, no words of mine could express more exactly the conviction held by every true parliamentarian and the indignation we feel, than those words spoken more than twenty years ago in this chamber by the then hon. member for North York, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He should be congratulated upon them. It is given to few statesmen to denounce with such
accuracy and eloquence in 1920 the crimes against freedom his ministry was going to commit in 1941. I use the word "crimes" advisedly and in all gravity. As I read history, it records few betrayals more callous or deliberate than the betrayal of the parliamentary liberty enshrined in this house by one who knew the place, and who has been for years its most ardent protagonist.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. This afternoon the acting leader of this group endeavoured to place before the house a matter which was of some considerable importance and requested specifically from the Prime Minister the privilege of discussing first the Minister of Labour's report; but, on account of the fact that a certain arrangement had been made, the Prime Minister's decision was that consideration should be given to the reports of the ministers in the order in which they reported. Our understanding was that the report of the Minister of Munitions and Supply would be considered specifically at this time. That minister is in his seat and prepared to discuss matters pertaining to his department. The speeches which have been made to-day are very good, but in my opinion are valueless unless the ministers who will answer the criticisms made are in their places for that purpose. I just want to draw that to the attention of the chairman. If it is the intention now to ignore the ruling made this afternoon, it seems to this group as though there is rank discrimination in that respect. We were held definitely to that rule. Up to the present the speakers who have taken the floor have made absolutely no reference to the department of the minister who is in his seat for the purpose of answering questions that may be raised with regard to his report. I bring that to the attention of the Chair because we desire to discuss some matters pertaining to the report of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and to carry on as we are doing is a waste of time and, certainly, not constructive.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: My hon. friend who has just spoken is perfectly correct in his interpretation of the understanding that was reached. I believe that last evening the Prime Minister, in deference to a request made by the leader of the opposition, agreed that there would be one or two speeches this afternoon before we proceeded in committee with questions of the various ministers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But may I say that at the moment, I believe, these speeches are exhausted, so we shall be able to go on.
The War-Mr. Hansell


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Since the Minister of Munitions and Supply is in his seat, may I say a few words which do have some bearing upon his department.
During the summer, when the special committee on war expenditures met, I gradually became increasingly aware that perhaps the departments of government in their war effort were not as properly coordinating their efforts as they might do. I did not, however, raise any serious objection, or put forth any definite proposals. I thought that perhaps I might be mistaken. But this suspicion gradually grew upon me until, towards the end of the summer, I had occasion to inquire of one department of government upon a certain matter. In relating this, I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply a few questions.
This particular incident occurred when I received a request from a certain quarter in my constituency with respect to a proposed air training school to be built in a certain section of the country. We are all aware that when the empire air training scheme was first mooted, the Department of Transport immediately sent out their engineers to survey certain properties and make recommendations so that the best possible places might be secured for those air training schools. At that time I received numerous inquiries, as a consequence of engineers coming into certain sections, whether an air training school would be built here or there. I made inquiries at that time and discovered that for the time being the air training scheme had reached certain proportions and it was not anticipated that any more schools would be built. A very few months after that other schools were built. Now this summer comes another inquiry and naturally I thought, "Well now in my part of the country we have a good many air training schools and perhaps this is another false alarm." I got in touch with an office which comes under the Department of Munitions and Supply and asked whether or not there was to be an air training school in this particular part of the country. I wish to read a part of my letter to the official to whom I wrote. One paragraph will suffice:
Recently I have had numerous inquiries in respect to a proposed air training school being established near the town of Vulcan, Alberta, on what is known as the Galbraith property. The Trans-Canada Air Lines already have a landing field on this property.
There is no mistake about where this training school was expected to be built, but the answer I received was:
This will acknowledge your letter of August 21, relative to the proposed air training school being established near the town of Vulcan, Alberta.

For your information, we have made extensive inquiries but no one seems to know anything about an air training school to be constructed at this point.
I immediately mailed an air mail letter to my inquirer. Four days afterwards, perhaps five, I arrived home-and perhaps the story is a little humorous at this point. When I arrived home my boy came bouncing in. "Hello, dad", he said, "glad to see you home. Say, dad, did you write to So-and-So and tell them that there was not going to be any air training school out here?" I said, "Yes." "Hal ha! They are all laughing at you now," he said. "Well," I said, "that is all right; I am not very much concerned. It won't be the first time that people have laughed at me. What's on your mind?" He said, "The machinery is already out there ploughing up the runways and they are already putting in the school." I must confess that I felt a little bit embarrassed when I walked down town the next day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you object to the
school being built?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not object, and let me say this in answer to my hon. friend. I must say in fairness to those who have selected these sites that I believe they have selected them because they were the best they could select, irrespective of the constituencies in which they might be located.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Why are you finding fault with it?


Ernest George Hansell: I am not finding fault
with the selection of the sites. My point to start with was that there should be a coordination of the work of the departments of government. When I made the inquiry I was told by letter that the department had made extensive inquiries and no one knew about an air training school being built at that point; yet the machinery was on the ground and the school was being built. Somebody slipped up-and I did not write to the office boy, either. I will not say to whom I wrote; I do not want to embarrass any government official. It was not the minister. I immediately wrote back and asked for an explanation. Let me read a paragraph from the reply. It seems that the Department of Transport selects the site -the minister can correct me if I am wrong- and the same department also lets the contract for the building of the runways. The Department of National Defence for Air has nothing to do with it. The Department of Munitions and Supply, on top of that, and apart from the Department of Transport, lets the contract for the erection of the

The War-Mr. Hansell
buildings on the site. Here we have the Department of Transport doing one thing, and the Department of Munitions and Supply doing another, both working separately for an entirely different department, which is the Department of National Defence for Air. The paragraph giving the explanation reads:
When we made our reply to your letter we made inquiries of the R.C.A.F. and of this department and found that as yet no authority has been established to construct the school, and it is on this basis that your reply was made.
It does seem to me that when a certain project is to be erected or a certain objective is to be attained, all who are interested in that objective should be brought into consultation. That is what I would consider a proper coordination of effort. I have explained that I tried not to embarrass the government, but I must say that it has the appearance of withholding information-I am not saying that it does-until certain contracts are let, so that a certain amount of patronage can be effected. I am not saying that was done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I discuss that statement before the hon. member gets on to something else?


Ernest George Hansell: I shall be through in a moment. At any rate, that would be the impression people would get, that the information was not given so that there could be a certain amount of patronage. I might give an illustration. Certain people came to that town from an outside place. Nobody knew them. They proceeded to rent a small building to put in a coffee shop. Some of those who knew this building said to them, "Are you sure you will make good on this coffee shop?-because there have been one or two in this town that have gone broke." They replied, "We will make good." They were asked what made them so sure and they replied, "Why, an air training school is to be built out here."
Nobody in that town knew anything about it. I repeat that I am not saying that the information was withheld for purposes of patronage, but it has all the appearance of it. Either that or you have to come .to the conclusion that there is not proper coordination. Here is one department which evidently did not know there was to be an air training school at this point when at the time the machinery was ploughing up the runways. Could the minister give us some statement on that, because other hon. members may find similar occurrences. We do not want these embarrassments. In this time of war, even though we may be members of the opposition
we are not going out to brand the government as this, that and the other thing. We have to attend Red Cross meetings, salvage meetings, all kinds of meetings; we are called on to explain this and that, and we want to help the war effort as much as possible. Therefore let us get some of these things cleaned up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend considers this matter fairly I think he will see that the fault is entirely with himself in having addressed his letter to the wrong person. He did not say to whom he addressed it, but obviously the right person is the minister in charge of the department. I get dozens of such letters every day and I can either give the answer, if it is in my department, or send the letter to my colleague in the proper department, who answers directly and advises me. I dare say my hon. friend wrote to an official thinking to save my time.


Ernest George Hansell: Exactly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have private secretaries who are trained in that sort of work. Naturally if I sign a letter on a matter of the kind I must be sure the information is correct-or reasonably sure; I suppose nothing is infallible. Had that letter come to me my hon. friend would have received his answer. He may have written to someone in the Department of Munitions and Supply who would know nothing about it, because the air branch of the Department of Transport, while it reports to me as Minister of Munitions and Supply, is not a part of the Department of Munitions and Supply. He may have written to an officer of the air force, who would naturally look up the financial encumbrances of the air force and, finding that no financial encumbrances had got back to his file, would therefore assume that no such thing had taken place.
I would ask my hon. friend to address letters of that kind to a responsible minister, in which case the government will take the responsibility for the reply. I dare say the man who answered the letter did so in the best of good faith and to the best of his knowledge, but he would not have the knowledge which the minister would have.
The responsibility for spending any money for a war department rests with the Department of Munitions and Supply. It was placed there by the munitions and supply act passed by parliament. The only exception, apart from small sums which are spent by a department by arrangement with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, is that as a matter of convenience the Department of Munitions and Supply segregated to itself the air services division of the Department of Transport, because there was in the former department
The War-Mr. Hansell

a staff highly skilled in selecting and improving airports. It was felt that to duplicate that staff would be a waste of effort. It would be impossible to duplicate this skilled staff in this very highly technical operation. The selection of an airport is not an easy task. The skill with which it is done depends greatly upon the experience of the men doing it, men who know both topography and problems of aviation, because there must be a relation between the two in the selection of an airport. It is true that surveys for airports are made by the air services division of the Department of Transport. The preparation of plans and specifications and the awarding of contracts is carried out by the air services division of the Department of Transport, and the work of building the runways and developing the field is supervised by the air services division of the Department of Transport. The selection of the sites is a matter for the user. The user in this case is the Department of National Defence for Air. The need for a site is determined by that department. The air services division of the Department of Transport is communicated with, told that a site is needed in a certain area, and asked to bring forward surveys. The division tries to anticipate those requests and makes many surveys of sites without a requisition. In this way information is had in advance as to where sites are available so that prompt service could be given to the air force. The air services division submits plans and estimates of cost of development usually on three or four alternative sites. These are placed before a special technical committee, and the choice of a site is made with one or two technical men from the air services division sitting in. I can say with full knowledge that they are invariably made on the basis of merit. I never concern myself with the selection of any site for an airport, and I know that my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air is in exactly the same position. We decided when we undertook our work that the selection of sites, the location of air training schools, was a technical matter which we would leave entirely to our technical men, and that policy has been carried out.
I do not know whether I have covered the field; if not perhaps my hon. friend will ask a supplementary question.


Ernest George Hansell: I think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves the matter of selection of airports will he tell the house if there have been sites selected for airports which have been promoted, shall I say, on local considerations, condemned as being improper locations

and subsequently taken up? I have in mind now the Pennfield airport. I think it was discussed in this house in the first session of this parliament. I know I had the opinion that Pennfield would be a good location for an airport in the maritime provinces. During and after the discussion that took place in this house the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hill), who was very much interested in the proposition, who knew as much as or perhaps more about it than I did, urged it and ventured to stake his reputation as an engineer-and he has some reputation-on the usefulness of this site, but it was condemned out of hand by the technical officers of the minister's department. The present deputy minister came to see me; his assistant, I think a Mr. McLean, came along with him, and they convinced me with the superior knowledge they had that they were right. I was therefore astonished when in the following year Pennfield was decided upon for development as an airport for the British trainees, and millions, I was going to say, have now been spent upon it. Perhaps the minister does not know about that situation, but it is one of which I have some knowledge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know nothing about it. Of course airports are required for various purposes. At first we were selecting ports suitable for Trans-Canada Air Lines. Then at the same time ports were being 'chosen which were considered suitable as operational ports. The number of training schools has been steadily increased. We had a programme to start with that called for certain airports. We have since had a number of calls to provide additional airports. I believe the British schools required some thirty airports that were never dreamed of when the original programme was drawn up. Naturally the best airports are selected first. We have conducted surveys of locations; I know there are at present dozens of these surveys on file in the Department of Transport. As I say, the best, those that were cheapest and obviously most satisfactorily located, were chosen first. As those were taken up, the next most satisfactory had their turn, so it is quite possible that an airport might have been passed over when the first choice was being made, but that the time would come when it would be the best of those still available.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the
process of elimination.


Clarence Decatur Howe: By the process of elimination, and it is also possible that further information, not available at first, might have something to do with the matter. I think the first objection to Pennfield was that it was fog-

The War-Oil Situation
bound. Then I believe accurate records were kept, and it was found that it was not so fog-bound, or perhaps it is; I do not know. In any event the technical officers came to their own conclusions, though I should be glad to look up the file if my hon. friend is especially interested. I think that is the explanation. I believe the first choice was Moncton; the second choice was somewhere up in the north, and then Pennfield seemed to be the next best place available.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not desire to prolong the discussion, but I should not like it to be thought that I am complaining about the selection of these fields. I am not. I believe the government have selected them because their engineers have considered those selected to be in the proper places. I know this, that if you drive from the southern part of Alberta north to Edmonton, which is in the central part of that province, you pass from ten to a dozen air training schools. I believe these were located in that part of the country because the prairie is flat, the air is clear, the altitude is high, the sun shines, it is near the mountains, and the climate is healthy. I am sure the engineers took all these matters into consideration. With regard to writing the minister let me say, in connection with the complaint I made a short time ago, that I really thought I was doing the minister a tremendous favour by not bothering him, so I wrote to what I would consider a rather high official of his department. I thank the minister, however, for his suggestion that I write him personally in future.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that phase of this matter is out of the way, I understand that some of the minister's officials have been waiting here for an hour or more; and, since I believe their time is valuable, it might be well if the minister, at this stage, would make the statement which I requested of him with respect to the whole gasoline situation, and in particular with respect to the charges made against the controller, or whoever they were made against, by the Joy Oil company. I should like to say this, that I have no idea in the world who the Joy Oil company are, or what they represent, or what they are, or whether they are right or wrong. I have never been approached by anyone in this connection; I do not know what their case is, beyond the contents of the paid advertisement which I saw in the newspaper.
But I should like to have the gasoline position clarified; if we are not saving enough gasoline in this country for war purposes, then I suggest to the minister that he exercise the power which he possesses, and I am sure the Canadian people will cooperate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to place before the committee a rather complete statement of the oil situation. I feel that the situation has been misunderstood; the cooperation extended to the department when we asked for the conservation of oil was very willingly given, but the statement made by the Joy Oil company has shaken the confidence of the people. Therefore I feel it is only fair, both to those who have been cooperating and to those who have not, to state the position as a matter of record. Accordingly I will give the oil position in Canada, with statistics which we have regarded as confidential but which I have ascertained can be placed on record here.
As nearly as we can anticipate war demands upon us, there appears to be no doubt that our requirements for crude oil and finished products without conservation in the coming year will be at least 64,000,000 barrels, an increase of approximately 10,000,000 barrels over the year 1940. This total requirement must be provided for in the following refinery areas:
Barrels
Maritimes	 10,500,000
Quebec	 16,000,000
Ontario	 20,500,000
Prairies	 9,500,000
British Columbia	 7,500,000
Total	 64,000,000
It is difficult to estimate at this time what the Canadian production will be over the coming twelve months, but it is doubtful if it will exceed in volume that of the year 1941, namely, 9,500,000 barrels. Thus 54,500,000 barrels must be brought in from the outside. Having regard to our tanker position and the importance of getting along with the minimum of ocean tanker tonnage, the pipeline into Sarnia and tankers on the inland waterway must be operated to capacity. The plan proposed is as follows:
Barrels
Import via the Sarnia pipeline.. 10,700,000
Import by lake tanker	 13,800,000
Import by ocean tanker	 30,000,000
Imports by the Sarnia pipeline amount to the full capacity of that line, while imports
The War-Oil Situation

by lake tanker come from other points on the great lakes which are supplied by pipeline, such as Buffalo, Toledo, and one or two other points.
Having regard to the geographical locations of refineries in relation to available sources of supply, there appears to be no alternative plan but the following:
Refining area	Canadian production Barrels	Via pipeline (Sarnia) Barrels	Via lake tankers Barrels	Via ocean tankers (including via Portland-Montreal pipeline) Barrels 10,500,000 12,000,000	Total Barrels 10.500.000 16,000,000 20.500.000 9.500.000 7.500.000
			4,000,000 9,800,000		
		10,700,000			
		 9,500,000				
				7,500,000	
					
Total	
9,500,000	10,700,000	13,800,000	30,000,000	64,000,000Percentage	
14-8	16-7	21-5	47	100
The Sarnia pipeline is the only pipeline feeding Canadian refineries direct from United States crude-producing areas, namely the midcontinent and Illinois fields. This pipeline operating to capacity is capable of handling the 10,700,000 barrels hereinbefore referred to. This pipeline serves the Sarnia refinery only, yet it has not sufficient capacity to take care of the entire needs of this refinery. The remaining requirements of the Sarnia refinery, as well as the requirements of the other refineries in Ontario total 9,800,000 barrels, which must be brought in by lake tankers. In addition to this movement of crude, it is planned to move 4,000,000 barrels of crude
from Toledo to Montreal by lake tankers, to save ocean tanker movement. Thus we shall have a total contemplated movement of crude by lake tanker to the extent of 13,800,000 barrels.
With regard to the question of lake tankers, it must not be overlooked that these same vessels back-haul to various marine terminals over 20,000,000 barrels of finished petroleum products. In order to bring in the 30,000,000 barrels to the refinery areas where this product is needed, we will require the equivalent of 16'8 ocean tankers with a capacity of
100,000	barrels each. The ocean tanker capacity required for this movement is as follows:
Tanker No. of Tankers Crude	capacity 100,000 bbls.
required	required	each
Bbls.	Bbls.
Halifax	
10,500,000	680,000	6-8Montreal refineries	
12,000,000	750,000	7'5British Columbia	
7,500,000	250,000	2-5Total	
30,000,000	1,680,000	16-8
We have available to-day eight Canadian-flag and six Norwegian-flag Canadian chartered ocean tankers having an average capacity of approximately 95,000 barrels each, or the equivalent of 13-3 vessels of 100,000 barrel capacity each. Therefore, the total ocean tanker capacity at present under Canadian control amounts to 1,330,000 barrels. Assuming that we shall be able to hold all these vessels, particularly the Norwegian, and experience no sinkings, we are short ocean tanker capacity of 350,000 barrels, or 3-5 vessels of 100,000 barrel capacity each.
As before stated, it is planned to move
4,000,000 barrels of crude from Toledo to Montreal by lake tanker in order to relieve the pressure on ocean tankers. In order to do this we will require 10-2 additional lake

tankers of 21,000 barrel capacity each over and above the lake tankers owned or controlled in the Canadian service. It is possible that by an exchange of products the refiners may be able to reduce the requirements of 10-2 lake tankers to 7-2 lake tankers. If the American flag lake tanker tonnage now on the great lakes and available to Canadian companies in the past remains available in the future, it may be possible to overcome this lake tanker tonnage by chartering American vessels. The fact, however, remains that we are short 3-5 ocean vessels having a capacity of 100,000 barrels each, and at least 7-2 lake tankers over and above those owned or at present controlled in the Canadian service in order to bring in the 43,800,000 barrels which must be provided by ocean or lake transportation.

The War-Oil Situation
It must also be borne in mind that six of the Canadian chartered tankers are Norwegian flag. By arrangement between the sovereign government of Norway and the government of Great Britain, all Norwegian tanker tonnage is earmarked for the battle zone. Two Norwegian tankers which were in the Canadian service earlier this year were taken at the time Norwegian tanker tonnage was turned over by the United States government. Should sinkings again become excessive and/or should Britain require additional tanker tonnage over that which she now has, there is every likelihood that these six Norwegian tankers would be taken. In any event there is no certainty that they can be held in the Canadian trade for the duration of the war.
It must be noted that the refinery operations and supplies required at Halifax are almost entirely war effort. The refinery at Halifax is being operated to capacity on a heavy crude in order to produce the maximum yield of heavy oil. Strange as it may seem, gasoline is a by-product. Although operating this refinery to capacity, it will be necessary to bring in at least 800,000 barrels of diesel oil as such to meet our war demands.
It must also not be overlooked that a substantial part of our requirements on the Pacific coast are also war effort. The storage on the Pacific coast must at all times be filled to capacity, and as the fuel oil is drawn from the storage it must be replaced without delay. In addition to the requirements on the Pacific coast for war effort, our railways must have at least 2,6t)0,000 barrels of fuel oil in order to provide the service expected of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the building of the pipeline from Portland to Montreal change the position? Perhaps the minister intended to deal with this later.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it does affect the position in that its use will cut down the required number of tankers. I believe it saves about two tankers by shortening the distance from the source of the crude to the end of the pipeline. Of course, without this pipeline we would be in a most serious position indeed.
The following table gives Canada's inventory position as of October 1, 1941, as compared with October 1, 1940; following also is Canada's inventory position as at July 1, 1941, as compared with July 1, 1940, in barrels:
INVENTORY DIFFERENCES Between October 1st, 1940 and October 1st, 1941
Refinery inventories-	Maritimes Quebec Ontario	B.C.	TotalCrude oil	
265,262	588,927	476,404* *	58,138	435,923Unfinished products	
460*	246,662	27,843	130,731*	143,314Aviation gasoline	
53,487*	57,896*	58,498*	4,335*	174,216*Other gasoline	
21,265	104,416	533,076	50,128*	608,629Light fuel	
21,661*	102,720*	129,217	55,231	60,067Heavy fuel	
33,172*	112,419	44,875	224,882	349,004177,747	891,808	200,109	153,057	1,422,721
Marketing inventories-
All gasoline	
88,853	6,000*	348,164*	18,422	246,889*Light fuel	
15,002*	1,865*	22,771*	2,145*	41,783*Heavy fuel	
28,646*	18,461	84,636*	33,467*	128,288*Total deficiencies	
222,952	902,404	255,462*	135,867	1,005,761
* Indicates increase in inventory; other figures are decreases.
INVENTORY DIFFERENCES Between July 1st, 1940, and July 1st, 1941
Refinery inventories-	Maritimes Quebec Ontario	B.C.	TotalCrude oil	
416	189,084	473,041*	98,838*	382,379*Unfinished products	
13,832*	47,642	78,931	31,761*	80,980Aviation gasoline	
80,878*	25,089*	22,163*	904*	129,034*Other gasoline	
49,533	238,614	608,571	46,267*	850,451Light fuel	
48,504*	84,828	34,653	18,536	89,513Heavy fuel	
10,714*	176,431	73,824*	271,025	362,918103,979*	711,510	153,127	111,791	872,449
Marketing inventories-
All gasoline	
56,000	30,000	456,241*	20,000*	390,241*Light fuel	
15,567*	24,444*	85,456*	20,785	104,682*Heavy fuel	
7,981*	23,219*	59,679	91,619*	63,140*Total deficiencies	
71,527*	693,847	328,891*	20,957	314,386* Indicates increase in inventory; other figures are decreases. 14873-264	revised edition
The War-Oil Situation

One of the net results is that we are over in aviation gasoline. For obvious reasons we are using aviation gasoline at a much greater rate than ever before and we must have stocks in excess of stocks carried in previous years. For the period October 1, 1941, as compared with October 1, 1940, the refinery inventories
Maritimes	
Quebec	
Ontario	
British Columbia
* Indicates decrease.
It is interesting to note that refinery inventories in the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia as of October 1, 1941, are 1,422,721 barrels less than they were on October 1, 1940, and that total refinery and marketing inventories in the same areas are 1,005,761 barrels less than they were on October 1, 1940, notwithstanding the fact that refineries in the three months ending October 1, 1941, received 1,129,688 barrels more than they received during the same three months of 1940.
While the shortage of supplies is more pronounced in the Quebec area-in fact in comparison the inventories are down 902,404 barrels-the fact remains that the Portland-Montreal pipeline will be in operation within a few days. While this pipeline will not be operating to capacity until next spring there should be no doubt about our being able to take care of the needed demands with the assistance of supplies from Ontario refineries.
I should like to go back for a moment to Canadian production. The production of crude petroleum in Alberta in the year 1940 amounted to approximately 8,700,000 barrels. This production fell substantially short of the consumption in the prairie provinces, and necessitated importations as follows:
Barrels
Crude oil, as such imported from the
United States	 682,707
White products, as such, imported
from the United States	 198,520
White products, brought up the lakes by lake tanker in the summer time and stored at the head of the lakes (refined in eastern Canada from imported crude)	 842,622
In other words, the production in the west fell short of supplying the consumption to the end that refiners in the west imported 682,707 barrels of crude as such, and marketers and wholesalers imported in addition 1,041,142 barrels of white products.
The comsumption hereinbefore referred to relates to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the western edge of the province of Ontario and the eastern fringe

are down 1,422,721 barrels and for the period July 1, 1941, as compared with July 1, 1940, we are down 872,449 barrels. There was a great drop in inventory after July 1. During the months of July, August and September, there were the following imports by Canadian refineries, exclusive of the prairies, in barrels:
Crude receipts, July, August, September
1940	1941	Increase1,651,374	1,930,055	278,6816,087,135	6,266,093	178,9584,895,970	5,756,710	860,7401,574,495	1,385,804	*188,69114,208,974	15,338,662	1,129,688
of the province of Bristish Columbia, all of which territory is within the economic orbit of Alberta production.
In October, 1940, all refineries in the west were required to make their nominations for the coming year in advance, that is, from 1st November, 1940, until 31st October, 1941. Further, the refineries were requested to build storage at their plants in order to take care of their requirements on a week to week basis. This they did. Further the producers responded to the call for new wells. Fortunately we had a healthy drilling programme. Fortunately we got some good wells. On 30th September, 1941, we had 167 producing wells. On September 30, 1940, we had 126. In the yearly period referred to, forty-one new wells were brought in, and since that time there have been one or two more. In the period January 1 to September 30, 1941, production in Turner Valley field, as the result of new wells and the day to day regular operation, shows an increase of 20-7 per cent over the same period of last year. From January 1 to September 30,	1940, the production amounted to
5,869,648 barrels, and from January to September, 1941-the same relative period-it amounted to 7,084,910 barrels. In the 1940 period, production averaged 21,422 barrels per day, and in the 1941 period it averaged 25,952 barrels per day. It would appear that we are assured a total production of 9,500,000 barrels this calendar year.
This year there have been importations of gasoline from the United States in the same manner as before. Substantial quantities of refined products have been sent up the lakes for distribution in Manitoba and further west. Having regard, however, to the increased production of crude, practically no crude imports have been in evidence this year.
We have had the largest exploratory programme this year in the history of the west. Many structures have been seismographed. There is no question that drilling in new areas will be in evidence next year. There is no doubt also that further new areas will be explored.
- i 3

The War-Oil Situation
We must bear in mind that an oil well is a depleting asset and that we must have new wells and we must find a new Turner Valley. Every effort has been put forward to find this new field.
Many do not realize the extent to which the war effort makes demands upon petroleum supplies.
It is estimated, in any event, the oil controller has been asked to cause refiners to provide for war uses at least 110,000,000 gallons of aviation gasoline over the next twelve months, more than one-tenth of our normal consumption of gasoline. The possibility of obtaining this aviation gasoline outside of Canada has been carefully surveyed and studied. Having regard to the demands on the United States by all countries at war, and the possibility of our not being able to obtain aviation gasoline in the event of any change in war conditions or a further crisis, it is absolutely necessary that we provide for our own aviation gasoline requirements. In
order to do this we first must take a cut for this purpose out of the crude that we refine. While we have not as yet taken a cut out of all of the crude produced in the west, it is quite likely that we will have to do so before a great while. After we take a cut for aviation gasoline, we then must provide for heavy and light fuel oil, our next if not equally important war demand. A careful estimate of the present market for fuel oil has been made. A survey has also been made as to ways and means to meet this demand. As you are aware, our industrial war effort, to say nothing about our requirements on the two coasts, depends upon an ample supply, particularly of heavy oil. When the market demand and the available supply is balanced, there is no surplus.
I shall now place on Hansard, if I may, the petroleum inventories of the various refining districts for different periods, showing the shortages that have been built up over the last several months, in barrels:
PETROLEUM INVENTORIES July 1st, 1940 and 1941
1940	Maritime
Crude oil	 467,456
Unfinished	 78,950
Aviation	 7190
Other gas	332^409
Light fuel	 121,126
Heavy fuel	 278,251
Marketing	1,285,382
Gas	 436,000
Light fuel	 86,138
Heavy fuel	 59,300
1,866,820
1941	'-
Crude oil	 467,040
Unfinished	 92,782
Aviation	 88,068
Other gas	 282,876
Light fuel	 169,630
Heavy fuel	 288,965
Marketing	1,389,361
Gas	 380,000
Light fuel	 101,705
Heavy fuel	 67,281
1,938,347
Short
Crude oil	 416
Unfinished	 -13,832
Aviation	 -80,878
Other gas	 49.533
Light fuel	 -48,504
Heavy fuel	 -10,714
Marketing	103,979
Gas	 56,000
Light fuel	 -15,567
Heavy	fuel	 -7,981
14873-2641	-71,527
Quebec	Ontario	B.C.	Total1,638,051	1,097,364	283,417	3,486,288593,705	672,688	188,323	1,533,666119,442	30,693	2,908	160,233926,987	1,293,646	184,545	2,737,587315,019	307.315	96,759	840,219582,577	192,171	359,869	1,412,8684,175,781	3,593,877	1,115,821	10,170,861601,000	85.845	1,200,000	159,000	2,481,845141,736	43,616 306.679	157,131	735,300218,032	233,655	364,722	875,7095,136,549	5,463,672	1,796,674	14,263,7151,448,967	1,570,405	382,255	3,868,667546,063	593,757	220,084	1,452,686144,531	52,856	3,812	289,267688,373	685.075	230,812	1,887,136230,191	272,662	78,223	750,706406,146	265,995	88,844	1,049,9503,464,271	3,440,750	1,004,030	9,298,412571,000	280,086	1,462,0001	179,000	2,872,086166,180	29.917	405A34J	136,346	839,982241,251	173,976	456,341	938,8494,442,702	5,792,563	1,775,717	13,949,329189,084	-473,041	-98,838	-382,37947,642	78,931	-31,761	80,980-25.089	-22,163	-904	-129,034238,614	608,571	-46.267	850,45184,828	34,653	18,536	89,513176,431	-73,824	271,025	362,918711,510	153.127	111,791	872,44930,000	-456,241	-20,000	-390,241-24,444	-85,456	20,785	-104,682-23,219	59,679	-91,619	-63,140693,847	-328, S91	20,957	314,386
41S8
The War-Oil Situation

Crude oil.. Unfinished. Aviation. . Other gas. Light fuel.. Heavy fuel
Marketing
Gas	
Light fuel.
Heavy fuel
Crude oil.. Unfinished. Aviation. . Other gas.. Light fuel. Heavy fuel
Marketing
Gasoline. . .
Light fuel.
Heavy fuel
Short
Crude oil . Unfinished. Aviation. . Other gas.. Light fuel. Heavy fuel
Marketing
Gas	
Light fuel. Heavy fuel
PETROLEUM INVENTORIES October 1, 1940 and 1941
Maritimes 512,481 118,655 7,282 165,528 95,233 283,607	Quebec 2,622,209 844,470 145,532 788,357 440,490 651,568	Ontario 1,231,887 657,861 45,435 1,101,483 485.517 349,246	B.C. 310,176 117,375 1,935 131,021 142,281 394,937	Total 4,696,753 1,718,361 200,184 2,186,389 1,163,521 1,679,3581,182,786	5,492,626	3,871,429	1,097,725	11,644,566420,853	451,000	1,418,0001 174,024	166,482	2,630,359100,998	287,490	555,731 16,972	159,850	1,121,04162,623	335,562	323,605	299,698	1,021,4881,767,260	6,566,678	6,359,761	1,723,755	16,417,454247,219	2,033,282	1,708,291	252,038	4,240,830119,115	597,808	630,018	248,106	1,595,04760,769	203,428	103,933	6,270	374,400144,263	683,941	568,407	181,149	1,577,760116,894	543,210	356,300	87,050	1,103,454316,779	539,149	304,371	170,055	1,330,3541,005,039	4,600,818	3,671,320	944,668	10,221,845332,000	457,000	1,595,0001 345,188	148,060	2,877,248116,000	289,355	560,644 34,830	161,995	1,162,82491,269	317,101	408,241	333,165	1,149,7761,544,308	5,664,274	6,615,223	1,587,888	15,411,693265,262	588,927	-476,404	58.138	435,923-460	246,662	27,843	-130,731	143,314-53,487	-57.896	-58,498	-4,335	-174,21621,265	104,410	533,076	-50,128	608,629-21,661	-102,720	129,217	55,231	60,067-33,172	112,419	44,875	224,882	349,004177,747	891,808	200,109	153,057	1,422,72188,853	-6,000	-348.164	18,422	-246,889-15,002	-1,865	-22,771	-2,145	-41,783-28,646	18,461	84,636	-33,467	-128,288222,952	902,404	-255,462	135,867	1,005,761
I now come to the advertisement of the Joy Oil company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was
not able to follow all the figures, but has the minister adequately shown that the position contemplated will be taken care of? Will he give us that assurance, or can he? Maybe he cannot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I go on with this explanation I shall show the recent developments. We were very much concerned about it in the spring. We did not know how far the demands of Britain would go. We were told the situation and asked for a certain tonnage. We suggested we could obtain replacements in the United States, but since the crisis

developed, I think last June, we have not as a matter of fact received a single tanker load of gasoline or oil products of any kind in United States bottoms. Should we be allowed to keep our present tanker space, in British and Norwegian bottoms, we would have to consider how we should get along, but we believe that with Britain's present situation and the return of certain tankers to the United States we are reasonably assured of fairly adequate supplies for the winter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
answers my question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, as I say, considering the heavy war commitments, particularly of the navy, the mercantile marine and the air

The War-Oil Situation
training schools, we must retain sufficient grip on the consumption of gasoline to enable us if shortages develop to make up these shortages from gasoline for pleasure driving and other non-essential uses, rather than have the war effort crippled.
I will now discuss the advertisement of the Joy Oil company, which I am sure everyone has read. It is regrettable that in times like the present, when it is so essential that all effort and thought be directed towards the winning of this war, those engaged in this work must find it necessary to lay aside their tasks to answer gross and calculated misstatements made to the public.
Perhaps I should first answer the question of the leader of the opposition as to what the Joy Oil company is. It is a company owned in the United States, the only officer of the company I have met, Mr. Austin, who signed the open letter in the form of an advertisement, being also a resident and citizen of the United States. The company distributes gasoline in only three areas in Canada

the Montreal area, the Toronto area, and the Sarnia area. Its total imports represent about one-tenth of one per cent of the total petroleum products brought into this country.
The Joy Oil company has no assets in this country except distributing stations and storage tanks. It has no refining equipment. It owns no tankers. It has no facilities other than those for distribution. It has been operating through the past several years by buying gasoline in any part of the world in which it can be bought, renting tanker space to bring it to Montreal, and distributing gasoline from there. In the past several years, of course, gasoline was a drug on the market, particularly in north America, and it was easy to buy gasoline as such, I dare say even at bargain rates, and very easy to rent tankers because there was then a surplus of tankers, and charter rates were low. The result was that the Joy Oil company was able to bring in gasoline and to undersell Canadian refiners who had a heavy investment in refining capacity and reliable sources of supply.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Except for the Turner
Valley their supply sources were outside of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Joy Oil company?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, other companies. I
thought the minister said importations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian refiners have
had facilities for bringing in gasoline from wells controlled by Canadians or from other sources of supply that were reliable. They had facilities for bringing in oil for refining by themselves.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I beg the minister's
pardon. Perhaps I misunderstood him. He was speaking about importations, and I interjected to ask him if the supply, for the most part, did not come from outside Canada; that is, apart from Turner Valley.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes,-entirely. It comes in as crude and is broken down into all the components we use. From the crude we get fuel oil, gasoline, heavy lubricating oils, and all the various components of crude oil, as Canadian products.
In the Joy Oil open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, as published in the form of an advertisement in certain Toronto newspapers, an attempt is evidently being made to create the impression that Canada at no time faced a shortage in petroleum products, that the shortage in ocean tank tonnage was not real, and that it was simply a scheme of major oil companies to gain their own ends. Nothing is farther from the truth.
The President of the United States, directly and indirectly through various government bodies, ordered the oil companies owning and operating tankers under charter to deliver tankers to Britain under the lease-lend arrangements. The oil companies of the United States had no alternative, and they had nothing to do with it, other than to comply with the demands which were made upon them. I have before me a copy of a memorandum in regard to a meeting held in Washington on May 14, between Sir Arthur Salter, head of the British shipping mission in the United States, and representatives of the United States maritime commission, and Mr. Wilgress of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. A. L. M. MacCallum of the Canadian shipping board, at which time the supply of tankers to Britain from the Canadian service was discussed. I have also before me a memorandum setting forth Britain's petroleum supply position and tanker position, which was left with me by Sir Arthur Salter just about the first of July. This memorandum sets forth in detail, with supporting documents, Britain's petroleum stocks, tanker losses and urgent needs. I have also in my hand a copy of a letter written by Sir Arthur Salter to the oil controller for Canada dated July 2, 1941, in which Sir Arthur on behalf of Britain requested the following:
1.	The immediate release for United Kingdom service of eight Norwegian tankers then chartered to Canadian oil companies.
2.	The release of eight Canadian flag ocean-going tankers for service as soon as the St. Lawrence was closed to navigation.
The War-Oil Situation

These sixteen tankers, I may say, were all of the tankers owned or then under charter by Canadian companies.
3.	The release to Britain of as many lake tankers as possible, said lake tankers to be used in the coastal service around Great Britain with a view to relieving ocean tanker tonnage which at the time was being employed in this coastal service.
In other words the urgent request which came at that time was for all of the tankers that Canada owned or had chartered, with a number of tankers that had never been previously operated other than on the great lakes. In fact it was suggested that arrangements might be made immediately to replace the eight Canadian-flag boats with United States-flag boats which were then in the shuttle service under the first arrangement made with the United States by Britain for the supply of tankers. We were asked immediately to change our boats for United States-flag tankers and to send all our fleet to Britain.
Following delivery of this memorandum of the facts by Sir Arthur Salter, and realizing the seriousness of the situation as far as Britain's supply of petroleum products was concerned, I immediately conferred with the oil controller, and it was decided to direct the companies having Norwegian tankers under charter to turn them over to Britain without delay. It was further agreed with Sir Arthur Salter that the eight Canadian-flag tankers could go into the United Kingdom service as soon as navigation in the St. Lawrence closed, provided of course that we would receive in return equal replacement tonnage out of the shuttle service.
As I have before stated, these sixteen tankers were all that were owned or controlled by Canadian importers. Nevertheless we figured that we could depend on replacements out of the shuttle service for our war needs.
To make the statement, therefore, or even cast the reflection that this tanker situation was the instrument of anyone other than the urgency of Britain, is an entire misrepresentation of the facts, is misleading, and damaging to our war effort.
Further, in the advertisement reference is made to the ocean and lake tanker tonnage available, that is, the Canadian-flag ocean tankers in the Canadian trade and the Canadian tanker tonnage available for ocean service. Associated with that statement is one setting out Canada's requirements, following which there is a definite statement that there is an excess of ocean tanker space over and above the requirements.

While an order in council was passed prohibiting the advertising by anyone of ships in the Canadian service, the Joy Oil company proceeds to give the information in a public statement. Neither the statement as to Canadian-flag ocean tankers nor the one in regard to small Canadian-flag lake tankers is correct. In the first place, the ocean tanker Canadalite is listed as available ocean tanker tonnage. This ship was lost in the battle zone in March of this year. Further than this, the advertisement incorrectly places the Tronto-lite. This tanker is listed with the lake tankers and is left out of the ocean figures. Even however, if the Trontolite were included in its proper category there is a discrepancy of 210,592 barrels, or the equivalent of two large ocean-going tankers. In other words, the cargo-carrying capacities of ocean tanker tonnage which remained available to us total 1,336,600 barrels and not 1,547,192 barrels as published. The figures shown in the advertisement indicate the deadweight capacity of each vessel and not the cargo carrying capacity. Fuel, water and ship's stores naturally reduce the deadweight capacity.
As regards the small Canadian-flag lake tankers referred to in the advertisement as available for ocean service, this list is not correct, neither is the tonnage correct. As before stated, it includes the Trontolite; further, however, it leaves out three small lake tankers of an aggregate capacity of approximately 56,000 barrels. The aggregate figures are wrong inasmuch as the Trontolite, which was included, has an aggregate capacity of
73,000	barrels; further, the inclusion of the Britamette as having a capacity of 21,000 barrels, when this ship's capacity is only 2,200 barrels. Regardless, however, as to the total tonnage of lake tankers available to us, it is an accepted fact that the majority of these vessels are not fit for ocean service. WThile they might be used in the Caribbean, there is grave doubt that they could be used in the north Atlantic winter run, as suggested.
Reference is made to ocean tanker requirements at 1,380,000 barrels. What period these requirements refer to is not stated. In the light, however, of the information I have already given, the statement can only be looked upon as intentionally misleading. You will recall that the tanker requirements by ocean tankers was 30,000,000 barrels. I do not know what the allusion to 1,380,000 barrels was intended to refer to.
As I have before stated, there is no excess ocean tanker space. There is a shortage, and that shortage is becoming greater every day, as was also shown in the inventory figures which I have given.

The War-Oil Situation
The letter to the Prime Minister as published states that unless the Joy Oil Company Limited can get its share of tanker space allocated to it by the government, its stations will run out of gasoline and it will be forced either to close down or to buy from the big oil companies and raise its price to the public four to five cents a gallon. It is clear from the figures I have given that there are no tankers to be made available from those in the Canadian service, unless we place the business of the Joy Oil company in three congested areas, selling motor gasoline to the motoring public, ahead of our national requirements. The Joy Oil Company Limited and/or anyone claiming to be associated with it has never been refused a permit to bring gasoline into Canada. It is free to buy gasoline wherever it wishes. If, on the other hand, gasoline is not now available at prices which will enable these companies to retail their gasoline at cheaper prices, that is no fault of ours.
That no doubt i3 a condition arising out of supplies of gasoline in the western hemisphere -in other words, arising out of war conditions.
The oil controller, or anyone associated with him, has at no time objected to the petroleum coordinator or the maritime commission of the United States supplying the Joy Oil company with tanker tonnage, excepting that the oil controller has refused to permit the requirements of the Joy Oil company in the way of tanker tonnage to take precedence over tanker tonnage which was being requested by him to take care of Canada's national war effort. The requests by the oil controller for tanker tonnage to build up reduced inventories have not as yet been satisfied, and in the light of the figures I have given the committee, it would not be otherwise than criminal to give the supply of motor fuel for the Joy Oil company precedence over that which we require in order to carry on our war effort.
Having regard to the gasoline purchased by the Joy Oil company in Trinidad, on the 24th June of this year, the office of the high commissioner for the United Kingdom in Ottawa informed the acting under-secretary of state for external affairs, by letter, that owing to a shortage of tankers it had become necessary to draw all supplies for the United Kingdom from the nearest sources, and sterling oil, which formerly came from Iran et cetera, had to be replaced by supplies from the west. I read the letter as follows:
My Dear Mr. Robertson:
The high commissioner has received a telegram from the secretary of state for dominion affairs on the following subject.
The petroleum department have stated that Trinidad Leaseholds Limited entered^ into negotiations with two Canadian companies, Austin of Joy Oil Company, and Sun Oil Company, to supply them with motor spirit from Trinidad.
Owing to the shortage of tanker tonnage it has become necessary to draw oil supplies for the United Kingdom from the nearest sources, and sterling oil, which formerly came from Iran, et cetera, has had to be replaced by supplies from the west. As a result Trinidad's former surplus of motor spirit has been absorbed and Trinidad Leaseholds Limited are now unable to implement their arrangements with the two Canadian companies.
The high commissioner has been asked to explain their position to the Canadian authorities and to stress that the offer of supplies made by Trinidad Leaseholds Limited was made in good faith, that their inability to implement it has arisen out of circumstances over which they have no control, and that they are in no way to blame for the present difficulty.
Yours sincerely,
W. C. Hankinson
One other Canadian company not negotiating with Trinidad Leaseholds Limited had arranged for their total supply of aviation base stock in Trinidad, aggregating more than eight million gallons. This supply was also cut off by the petroleum department of Great Britain.
Hon. members will therefore see that it was not the oil controller who denied the Joy Oil company the Trinidad gasoline; it was the petroleum board of Great Britain. They will see that the Joy Oil company was not the only company affected by this act. Two others operating in Canada were also affected.
Reference is also made in the advertisement to increased costs to the public and the government. I have been wholly in accord with the controller's policy to bring in our petroleum requirements even at increased costs, using every form of transportation that was available, and also in favour of the increased cost being added to the cost of the product. Had it not been for this policy, the inventory position of Canada, as I have already quoted, would not be as good as it is to-day. I approved the increase of one cent which was put on in July. This increase applied to all Canada, but as far as the prairie provinces are concerned, this increase went back to the producers of Alberta oil. In other words, in order to stimulate production, an increase of 27 cents a barrel was approved to the producers of Turner valley crude. A further increase of one cent as of October 1 last was made with the concurrence of the war-time prices and trade board. This was based on statements supplied by the distributing companies showing their increased costs. These statements were checked up by the oil controller's office.
Reference is also made in the Joy Oil letter to the loss of gasoline tax to the federal government through gasoline rationing. This cut
The War-Oil Situation

applied only to service stations and certainly did not, as suggested by the letter, cover all the gasoline sold in Canada.
Reference is also made to the loss of customs duties through excluding imports. This statement is characteristic of the whole advertisement. It is entirely misleading, because there has been no prohibition of imports that I know of.
While I am on the subject, I should like to say something about the price of gasoline. It has been suggested that every move made by the oil controller has put money into the pockets of the oil companies; that is, by stopping credit cards it was a saving to the oil companies-a fairly large saving. As I have said, there have been two increases, one in July of one cent a gallon and one in October of one cent a gallon. But I would point out that the increase on gasoline at the gulf, where all the gasoline comes from, has been more than two cents-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. The price in New York city, which is a very large retailing centre, both tank wagon price and retail price have been advanced two and a half cents a gallon. We have kept rigid control of gasoline prices since the institution of the office of the oil controller. 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. Strangely enough, the cost of obtaining oil from pipeline is considerably more than obtaining it by ocean tankers.	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: By water.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; and, of course, tank cars have had to be used to a much greater extent than formerly, which greatly increases the cost of the industry. What has been done has been to calculate carefully the additional cost as against the additional saving that has been made by the methods of the oil controller.
We have a staff of accountants engaged constantly in studying the problem. We have not granted the increases which the figures seemed to demand. We have said that the oil companies must share some of the hardships with the Canadian public, but we have insisted that the oil companies obtain crude oil from every source from which it can be obtained and in the largest volume in which it can be obtained, more or less regardless of cost; and we have tried to adjust the cost over all the users of the product.
'Mr. Howe.]
I do not think anyone can say that the oil controller's office has not been well administered. As I say, increases in cost that have been authorized have been less than those that have prevailed in the large markets to the south of us.
We have asked for the cooperation of the people in cutting down pleasure driving. The effect of that was to cut down the increase that had occurred in 1941 over 1940. Whereas the July, 1941, figu res of consumption were twenty per cent over the figures for July, 1940, the September figures, I am happy to say, were just even with the consumption for September, 1940. That much w'e have done and I think it was a great step in advance. Now, what about the future?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves that, apropos of the increase of two cents to the consumer of gasoline, and the minister's previous statement that in some areas of Canada crude for the navy and war requirements and the merchant marine was the main objective, and that gasoline had become a by-product, is he able to assure the committee and the country that, with regard to the two cents a gallon which the public are now paying for gasoline, over what they were paying, and having regard to the factor that crude is in some important centres the main requirement, the Canadian public is not being asked to assume an undue burden? How about the distribution of the increased cost as between gasoline and crude? Is it all being passed on to the Canadian consumer? If the minister had an audit, as he said, it would be some reassurance to the Canadian public that they were not being asked to bear an undue proportion of the increase in the price of gasoline. I do not know anything about it, but I am looking for light and I think the minister should give the public these figures in the form of an auditor's certificate. Has the price of crude to the navy and the merchant marine and the government of Canada, whoever is the purchaser, been kept stationary, or has that had a relative increase also? Only part of the story has been told. I have no attack to make on anyone. I think the minister has answered the charge of the Joy Oil company perhaps fully, but I think the whole story of the increase of two cents in the price of gasoline to the ordinaiy consumer has not yet been told.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every effort has been made to assess the increase in the cost of crude evenly over the products. Of course the same crude makes the fuel oil and the gasoline.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has
been the increase on the diesel fuel?

The War-Oil Situation


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been an increase;
we are, I suppose, the chief buyers of fuel oil. I am assured by my officers that it is in proportion to the yield of crude oil as against gasoline.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has been the increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. I shall be glad to place a statement on Hansard showing the increase on all by-products.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the minister proceeds, may I ask a question? The minister spoke about control over the sale of gasoline. Here is what I went through one afternoon, which I do not think should be described by the word "control." My gasoline was running low', and I drove to the first gas station I came to on St. Clair avenue in Toronto. The attendant said, "Sorry, we are out of gas." I said, "Have you no gas in your tanks?" "Oh, yes, lots of gas in the tanks, but we have sold our quota for to-da3'." I drove to the next gasoline station and was told the same thing. I drove to a third and was told the same. I asked the same question in each case, and the answer w'as, "Yes, we have lots of gasoline but we have sold our quota for the day." I drove to another station and before I had time to ask the young man said, "Shall I fill her up?" I said, "Yes, fill her up."
That is not gasoline control. Had I been on a serious errand of life or death and run out of gasoline and they had told me, "Yes, we have lots of gas but have filled our quota for the day and cannot give you any more," what would have been my position? That is not control. I should like the minister to tell us whether the rationing system has been properly surveyed. For instance, all this week my car is standing in the garage, I am not using any gasoline. When I go away for a month my car is in the garage. But *when I come back, not having used any gasoline for some time, I am told, "Yes, the tanks are full, but we cannot sell you any." That kind of control is a farce. Surely there is some sensible way of rationing gasoline.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend says it is not control, but it is one kind of control. It is control of consumption. If we cut the sale of gasoline by twenty per cent we have saved that twenty per cent. I admit at once it is a crude way, but it is a quick way; it was adopted by the United States on the eastern seaboard and was adopted* in Canada to consolidate our gains. We wanted a reduction in gasoline consumption; we achieved it in that way; it has worked from the government point of view, but perhaps not so well from the point of view of the public.
14S73-265
Now we are working towards a rationing system for gasoline. In due course it will be necessary' to have a coupon book in order to obtain gasoline. Why have we not done it before? It is a very complex problem. First you have to determine the classification of users; then you have to decide the relative amounts that should be given to this and that user. It is not easy; it took England eighteen months to put her rationing system in operation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
operating there now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, definitely, but it was a difficult problem. It was not working well when I was there; they were still making adjustments. In Canada, which is more highly mechanized, more dependent upon internal combustion engines, it is much more difficult. The mere printing of the coupon books is no small task. That work, however, is well under way. It is the only fair method. Each man is given so much gas per month, according to his needs; if he wishes to use it all in a week, that is his affair.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Could the rationing not be done through the provincial governments in connection with the licensing
system?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of fact that is what we have in mind, we hope to have the two issued concuiTently. The purpose of the control is to save gasoline and nothing else. It has been the purpose of the oil controller to bring into Canada every gallon of petroleum products he can bring in. I notice editorials are beginning to appear stating that the real reason behind this control is the saving of United States exchange. It is true that petroleum products do constitute the greatest single drain on our United States exchange. But the purpose of oil conservation has not been to save United States exchange. We have been conserving gasoline because if we give it to the pleasure driver we go short in the war effort.
The United States furnished a large number of tankers to the British government and Canada furnished its share, a fair number of our Norwegian flag tankers. The United States is getting a number of its tankers back; we are not getting any of ours back. At the moment the situation in Canada is no better, because we have no more new tanker space; our stocks to-day are lower than they have ever been since the war started.
But we have the Montreal pipeline coming into operation, which will help somewhat, and we know that as soon as the situation in the United States is squared away they will give



RE7ISED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The War-Oil Situation
us some help. We hope the situation this winter will be better. We are going to put in a flexible system of rationing, and we are going to make the rations just as liberal as our supplies of gasoline will permit. At the beginning of each month, or perhaps earlier, the oil controller will announce how many gallons of gasoline a coupon will entitle a person to obtain, and we hope it will entitle a driver to as many gallons as he will want to use. If it does not it will be because the gasoline is not available; but we shall be in a better position to deal with another shortage if one should occur. And it is very likely to occur. The submarines are out again; winter is coming on, and the prospects are not too bright. If there are sinkings in anything like the proportion of last winter, there will be another shortage in the spring. Through a system of rationing, we shall be able to distribute the gasoline not required by the war effort, to the citizens of Canada for non-war purposes as equitably as possible.
There is everything to be said for a rationing system. The public are, I think, more or less demanding it, and we believe that it is the fairest and best system to adopt. The reason why it is not in effect to-day is that it has not been found possible to organize its administration so quickly.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to hear the minister say that at last the government are becoming realistic in connection with the matter of rationing in the present gasoline situation. An ordinary member of parliament cannot visualize the difficulty of putting into effect a system of this kind, but such a system is in operation in England and it is just too bad for anyone who does not take care of his position over there. As far as I know anything about public opinion, I believe the public of Canada will welcome any decent system of rationing if it is in the interests of the war effort of this country. I do not believe there is any sacrifice the loyal people of Canada are not prepared to make, and surely this is one of the least that could be asked.
Under the system of moral suasion and appeals to save gasoline I do not think our people have taken the matter very much to heart. I heard of the case of a gentleman in the city of Toronto who put up his cars and walked. Yet one day he was confronted with the spectacle of hundreds of cars coming away from the Woodbine race track, each one with a V for victory on the windshield. That is the sort of thing that makes one sick to contemplate, the thoughtlessness of people.
(Mr. Howe.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless the saving was very considerable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree that there was a saving, but it was brought about by the conscientious people of this country rather than by those who were thoughtless, and I am not going to characterize them in any other way.
I should like to throw out this suggestion to the minister for his consideration when he comes to deal with this question of rationing. I suggest that those who are careful to keep their consumption of gasoline as far as possible under the limit might be given credit for being so careful, so that, if an emergency should arise during a succeeding month, they might be able to take advantage of what they had saved previously. What I mean is that a credit created by a non-user in this way might be stored up, to be used by that person in case of an emergency, so that the gasoline represented by the coupons not used would not be wiped off the slate at the end of the month. It may not be possible to adopt that suggestion, though I do not see why it should not; but I commend it to the minister and his advisers when they come to consider this rationing system.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What was the basis of the allotment when the supply to distributors was reduced this fall?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not remember the exact figure; it was either fifteen or twenty per cent, based on the records of the previous year.


George Hugh Castleden: For any particular month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Month by month; that is, each month was compared with the same month of the previous year.


George Hugh Castleden: It was not based on the July consumption, for instance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I think July was based on July, August on August and September on September.


George Hugh Castleden: Of the previous year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I spoke of two increases, each of one cent, in the price of gasoline. So far as the prairie provinces were concerned, there was only ene increase, for the reason that the cost there was largely local cost. The only lift in price to the refineries there was the 27 cents a barrel which brought about the first increase of one cent a gallon.

Questions


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister the figure with regard to the increase in consumption in June, 1941, as compared with June, 1940? He gave the figure for July as twenty per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is practically six o'clock now, so perhaps we might resume this discussion on Monday when all the figures will be available. Would it suit the hon. member to ask that question at three o'clock on Monday?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Is it contemplated that there will be any necessity for the rationing of gasoline used for agricultural purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. That is regarded as a war need and will be protected. Just how it will be protected I could not say, but it will be done.
The committee rose and obtained leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, November 10, 1941