1941-03-13

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk) presented the first report of the special committee on war expenditures, as follows:
Your committee recommends:
1.	That it be empowered to appoint subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees as it may appoint from time to time any of the matters referred to the committee, and that any subcommittee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses; to sit while the house is sitting; and to report from time to time to the committee.
2.	That it be given permission to sit wdiile the house is sitting.
3.	That eight members of the committee constitute a quorum and that standing order 65 (3) be suspended in relation thereto.
4.	That the committee have power to fix the quorum of the subcommittees it may deem expedient to appoint from time to time.
5.	That the committee he empowered to print, as it may determine from time to time, five hundred copies in English and two hundred copies in French of its minutes of proceedings and evidence and that standing order 64 he suspended in relation thereto.
Your committee, realizing the desirability of securing the utmost cooperation from all members of the house, has authorized its chairman to address a letter to each member of the house requesting suggestions as to any subject matter that might usefully be inquired into by the committee.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) moved that dlhe second report of the special Committee on ithe Pension Act and the War

Questions
Veterans Allowance Act, presented to the house on Tuesday, March 11, 1941, be concurred in.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I did not see it. Could it stand until to-morrow, until I look at it?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. ROY
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Certain newspapers, more particularly L'Action Catholique of Quebec, have misinterpreted the statements I made in this house in my speech of March 10th.
On that occasion I declared myself totally and categorically opposed to the establishment of a union or national government, or its equivalent.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: It did not appear so.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I repeat that I am opposed to the establishment of any form of national or union government, no matter where the proposal may come from, as I stated quite clearly in my speech.


Pierre Gauthier: It did not appear so.



CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN POSITIONS FOR PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
, That the report of the civil service commission classifying certain positions to which employees on the temporary staff of the House of Commons are to be appointed on a permanent basis, laid on the table of the house on March 5, 1941, be now approved.
Richard Burpee Hanson: When the report was laid on the table I gave some study to .it, not with a view of criticizing it but in order to have one paragraph clarified. I had a very pleasant interview with the clerk of the house and I understood that one paragraph, I think near the end of the report, was to be redrafted so as to make certain things clear which otherwise might be open to misinterpretation. I have not heard that that has been done. If this is the same report that was first brought down I should like to be reassured on this point, namely, that the paragraph to which I refer has been clarified.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am informed that the matter has been clarified in accordance with the wishes of my hon. friend and that the report as now presented meets with his approval.
14873-94*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In justice to the clerk I wish to say that I find he communicated with my office, and in the pressure of work the matter was not brought to my attention. There has just been a little slip there.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department retire all postmasters at the age of seventy ?
2.	Are any postmasters given extension?
3.	If so, how many postmasters, now in the service, are over the age of seventy years?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	(a) Staff Post Offices: Postmasters paid from parliamentary appropriation are retired at the age of 65 except in special circumstances where postmasters may be retained up to the age of 70. This is in accordance with order in council P.C. 1/1561 approved the 31st July, 1933, and order in council P.C. 23/2388, dated the 23rd November, 1933.
(b) Revenue Post Offices: In the case of revenue post offices where postmasters are paid put of revenue, consideration is given to the retirement of such postmasters who are of advanced age as cases come before the department.
2.	(a) Staff Post Offices:	Occasionally
granted beyond 65 years of age but not beyond 70.
(b) Revenue Post Offices: Extensions in those cases which have been brought to the attention of the department are granted beyond 70 only where there are special or extenuating circumstances.
3.	(a) Staff Post Offices: None.
(b) Revenue Post Offices:	There are
approximately 1,000 revenue postmasters over 70 who are still in the service.
MAVEEi Sj UOAR JCKODUCTS


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the total value of maple sugar products produced in Canada in the years 1938 1939 and 1940?
2.	What was the value of exports of maple sugar products in the same years to (a) the United States; (b) the United Kingdom?
Questions

Mr, MacKINNON (Edmonton West):
1.	Gross farm value of maple products in
Canada, 1938 to 1940. Maple sugar
1938		$370,500
1939		 420,700
1940		 530,000
Maple
syrup	Total
$3,479,400	$3,849,900
3,023,200	3,443,900
3,679,300	4,209,300
2.	Canadian exports of maple products to the United Kingdom and United States during the years 1938 to 1940.
Maple syrup	Maple sugar
United	United	United	UnitedKingdom	States	Kingdom	States1938.... $7,826	$ 10,465	$3,587	$1,190,7661939.... 7,653	236,269	4,294	1,193,4111940.... 4,072	444,341	1,451	432,044


*WAR REVENUE TAX-COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES
[Stage Direction]
of the deed of sale was duly served on the R.C.M. Police on the same day; said deed of sale made the same monthly rental of $200 payable to Mr. Joseph N. Roy from the 1st of March, 1940. The building was rented anew from Mr. Joseph N. Roy from the 1st of April, 1940, the same monthly rental of $200 being paid to Mr. Roy.
(3)	Answered by the above.
(4)	Answered by the above.

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Prom whom and upon what terms did the government purchase lumber required on the construction of the wharf at Baie des Sables, Matane county? Was the sum of $14,332.50, representing 50 per cent of the value of the lumber, paid? If so, to whom?
2.	What quantity of lumber was purchased?
3.	What was the total amount paid for this lumber, less the amount so allowed?


Mr. ROY:: 1.	How are reserves and working capital of agricultural societies, as well as the cash surpluses of cooperative agricultural societies affected by the war revenue tax?
2.	Will the government consider the advisability of exempting such societies from this taxation ?


Mr. GIBSON:: The question in its present form is too indefinite to permit of an answer being given. I would suggest that the hon. member amend his question, specifying the tax to which he refers, and giving particulars as to the societies referred to. As it stands the question is too indefinite for me to answer.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let it stand and he will amend it.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Mr. HOWE:: 1. (a) From Bertrand & Brother; (b) At actual cost to contractors; (c) Yes; (d) Bertrand & Brother.
2.739,110 fb.m. 10" x 10" B.C. fir
at $42.00 per M	$31,042.62
11,456 f.b.m. 4" to 9" wide spruce
deals at $26.50 per	M....	303.58
19,000 f.b.m. 10" x 10" spruce at
$40.00 per M	 760.00
22,656 f.b.m. 4" diameter x 7' to 15' long spruce at $27.00
per M	 611.71
5 spruce piles, 12" diameter
17' long, at $4.00	each.. ..	20.00

3.	$18,405.41.


WAR SERVICES-DOLLAR-A-YEAR MEN ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-OFFICES IN QUEBEC CITY
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have offices at No. 596 St. Jean street, Quebec, before April 1, 1940, and since 1937?
2.	If so, who was the owner and what was the monthly or annual rental?
3.	Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police paid any money for rental purposes at Quebec, or any cash whatever?
4.	If so, what sums were paid to whom and for what?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: (1)	Yes.
(2)	The owner was Mr. Louis-Philippe Picard, of 220 Grande Allee, Quebec City, P.Q., and the monthly rental was $200 until the 8th of March, 1940, when Mr. Louis-Philippe Picard sold the property to Mr. Joseph N. Roy, 271 St. Peter St., Quebec City; notice


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Did the Department of National War Services ask for volunteers to serve in the department on the basis of one dollar a year?
2.	If so, who are engaged on this basis in the said department?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	See No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: What was the total amount of contracts awarded in British Columbia, by the Department of Munitions and Supply, since January 1, 1939, to date, as follows: (a) seaplane^ bases, including purchase of property; (b) airplane

Business of the House
bases, including purchase of property; (c) shipbuilding and repairs; (d) shells and ammunition of all kinds; (e) tools and accessories; (f) minerals and mineral products; (g) lumber and forest_ products; (h) provisions of all kinds, including canned and fresh fish; (i) shoes and clothing, and (j) any other contracts?



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-TURNER VALLEY CRUDE OIL

[Stage Direction]
Mr, HOBLITZELL;
1.	Is the Department of Munitions and Supply satisfied that the maximum production of crude oil is being made available from Turner valley and elsewhere in western Canada to all the refineries of western Canada?
2.	If not, what steps have the department taken to see that the maximum production of crude oil in western Canada is being used in the refineries there?
3.	Why is it necessary to import crude oil into the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba when there is an abundant supply in Turner valley or in storage?
4.	What quantities of crude oil were imported into western Canada: (a) for months of February, March, April, May and June, 1940; (b) for months of July, August, September, October, November and December, 1940?

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: At page 1371 of Hansard for March 10, 1941, when the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was discussing the MacMillan report, which appears in Votes and Proceedings of February 27 in relation to shipbuilding, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) made this statement:
I wish Mr. MacMillan would be a little more consistent, because I have a report on my desk from him to-day declaring that labour cannot be found to operate the shipyards to anything like capacity.
This statement indicates clearly that Mr. MacMillan made a second report to the minister, which was delivered to him on March 10. Will the minister lay that second report on the table of the house?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Under the rules of the house a report by one of my officers is privileged, and I do not intend to make a practice of laying Mr. MacMillan's reports on the table of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On t)he orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: In view of the very important statements made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), will the government give the house an early opportunity of discussing this all-important question of the general policy of marketing our wheat crop, I Would suggest not later than Monday next? Also, while I am on my feet, I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture whether any legislation will be introduced to carry into effect ibhe policy announced yesterday, and when we may expect such legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking for the government I would say that we regard: the war appropriation bill as the most important measure to be brought before the house, and we intend to continue with a consideration of that measure until it is passed, after which other legislation will be taken up. As to Whether or not there will be legislation based upon the statements made yesterday, as my hon. friend knows the intention of 'the government in these matters will be made known when the legislation itself is brought down.
I should like to make clear to my hon. friend and to other members of the house [DOT]that the government naturally is anxious as far as possible to oblige hon. members with respect to the order of proceedings, as well as all else; but I should like the house to know why the government is anxious to dispose of this war appropriation measure as quickly as possible. I do not think I need say anything other 'than to remind hon. members of the situation with which the world may be faced at any moment. I would point out that the ministers who are particularly concerned with the war appropriation measure are the ones who are most responsible for the measures to be taken at a time of war, and that all of them are obliged to be continuously in the house While this measure is under discussion. The ministers include the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence for Air, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National War Services. All these hon. gentlemen head: departments which are immediately concerned with matters pertaining to the war, and except for the forenoon, when they are also obliged for part of the morning to attend meetings of the cabinet, they have no opportunity to discuss matters with itheir own officials. Moreover, they are all members of the war committee of the cabinet and are obliged to give their time to its proceedings as well.
Business oj the House

The purpose of the government to continue the discussion on this measure until it is completed, without having discussion upon any other measure intervene, is actuated by our belief that the debate will conclude more quickly if we do not interrupt it to bring in otiher subjects for discussion, but ratlher 001m tinue the present discussion until the measure is passed. Then the members of the government I have mentioned will enjoy a little more freedom, and- will be able to give the attention which is very necessary alt this time to various matters in the departments with which they are immediately concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make an
observation with respect to the statement just made by the Prime Minister. It is apparent, I think, that the war appropriation measure is the most important measure on the agenda for this session. But may I point out to the Prime Minister and to the house that this measure is for 'the succeeding fiscal year. We 'have 'been told by the Minister of Finance that supplementary appropriations will have to be made for the current fiscal year. I am astonished that that w>as not 'brought in before this measure was introduced.
There can be no immediate need for the passage of 'this resolution and the bill to be based on it, because in any event it would not be available until after the first of April. May I point out to the Prime Minister that a suggestion was made to one of his colleagues that if the government would facilitate the discussion on agriculture it would have the probable effect of facilitating the passage of this resolution. I am advised that that offer was rejected. I think that is quite apparent, because the 'action of 'the minister has been to insist upon the passage of this resolution. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to members of the government, and ask them to take the suggestion into consideration, that if they will facilitate the discussion of the important matter of agriculture they will go a long way toward forwarding their own position with respect to this war appropriation resolution.
We cannot compel that. We ask it, as a matter of public convenience to members on this side of the bouse, as well as members on the other side of the bouse. There is not the pressing necessity for the passage of this war appropriation resolution that there was at the last session. It will be recalled that at the last session the resolution covering $700,000,000 was passed with little or no discussion. We did everything we could to facilitate it. That could not happen again, having regard to public opinion in this country. We would

be derelict in our duty if we did not investigate the manner in which the money has been expended under that bill, and the moneys that are to be spent under this resolution. I suggest to the ministry that this is a world of give and take. We have facilitated the government's war measures on every occasion. We 'have arrived at the position now where the government say the opposition has no rights in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the opposition has missed altogether, the purport of my remarks. It is not a question of when the money will be needed under this appropriation measure. That is not the question with which the government is concerned at this time. What we are concerned with is that the house enable the ministers of defence, the Minister of Finance and others I have mentioned, and who are obliged to be here while this measure is being discussed, to reach as soon as possible a point where their minds may be free of the measure, and where they can devote their time to other very pressing matters.
We have been discussing this measure for a couple of weeks. To break the discussion at this point, have a debate on agriculture and then return to this debate would mean that in all probability we would have the same series of questions asked over again as are being asked in the present debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It must be
apparent that the members of the government I have mentioned have very exacting duties in their departments, and they naturally wish to be as free as they possibly can to give their time to those very pressing matters just as soon as possible.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition says, if I correctly understood the significance of his words, that unless we do this he is not going to do that. If that is the position he takes, then I can only say that the government must the more carefully consider its responsibility of deciding the order in which the business of the house is to be conducted. If under that responsibility we feel it necessary to get the measure through as soon as we possibly can, and my hon. friend is going to obstruct this measure, which is the most important-*


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, now, that is quite unnecessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -then he and his friends must take the responsibility for the obstruction which they make.

Business oj the House


Richard Burpee Hanson: I object to the term "obstruction".


Mr. HOMUTH:: So does everybody else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I leave it to the house itself to say whether the word I have used was or was not fair. I am not saying the hon. member is obstructing. We will judge the significance of his words by the action of himself and his followers in connection with the measure itself.
But what I would wish to point out to my hon. friend is this, that I do not believe he has any right, any more than I have, to seek to control actual discussion in this house ' on any matter. And when he says that he will undertake-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister has already taken that right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When he undertakes to say that the debate on agriculture is going to be restricted, I hope he has the authority of hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit groups-


Mr. COLDWELL:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to say that they are prepared to restrict the time to be given to that discussion. Unless he is in a position to speak for the whole house, then what he has said now is wholly devoid of merit.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, certainly there has been no consultation with the group I represent in regard to this matter. But I should like to say this, if I may, while I am on my feet, that I believe to a large extent the government itself is responsible for this situation. Had the debate been organized in a different manner the ministers might have been relieved of constant attendance in this chamber. Had we had a 'break-down of the amounts of moneys to be appropriated, by departments, and gone into the amounts by departments, all the ministers w'ould not have found it necessary to remain here continuously.
Let me say that in these days I sympathize with the ministers; I think it is just too bad that they have to sit in this chamber-all of them-each afternoon. I suggest that the Prime Minister again consider the system followed in the British House of Commons, that of having under-secretaries who may take the places of the ministers in dealing with matters such as these.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I do not believe the house would be satisfied with answers from under-secretaries with respect to questions in
connection with this measure. May I say further to him that from the point of view of the minister's time, and the giving of information to the house which the house wishes to have in an authoritative way, the minister is in a much better position to do this himself than he would be by trying to indicate to another member of the house what he should say in reply to the different questions which may be asked.


Major James William Coldwell: Then the debate, I submit, ought to be organized in a different manner-if I may make that suggestion.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: With respect to what has been said as to the organization of the debate, may I point this out to the house. When the Minister of Finance introduced the resolution, immediately speeches started on aircraft production and continued for about a week and a half. In fact, the Minister of National War Services fairly had to force himself into the debate in order to make a statement as to the activities of his department. I had about the same thing the other day, in response to the speech made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough. It was not a matter of organization at all. It has been a matter of the ministers having come on as rapidly as they could. And then, even after the statement from my department had been made, there was a reversion to the matter of aircraft production. I suggest that the members of the committee themselves are the ones responsible for the course the debate has taken.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): In view of what the Prime Minister has just said, may I ask him if it would not be possible, when ministers rise in the committee to explain the activities of their departments, to break diown the expenditures which have been allotted to them in the appropriation bill? Only yesterday the Minister of Labour spoke; there is an amount 'here of over $4,000,000 for the Department of Labour, yet not one explanation was given the house as to why that money is needed. Certainly when ministers rise in their places they ought to give us a break-down showing what the moneys are wanted for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
I cannot answer my hon. friend's question as to what each individual minister will do. I have no doubt that all my colleagues will be anxious to oblige both the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and other hon. gentlemen.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why not do it voluntarily?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I want to add just a word about the matter
Business of the House

of the introduction of a supplementary to the appropriation bill. The leader of the opposition said he was very much surprised that it had not been introduced before this. The amount to be 'asked for in the bill will be substantial, and' the nearer to the end of the fiscal year the bill is introduced, the more accurate the amount will be. It is for that reason that the introduction of the supplementary war appropriation bill for the current fiscal year is being left until we have disposed of this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a statement with respect to this matter which he made on Wednesday, February 26. We had been discussing the war appropriation measure, and at the end of the day I asked what would be the business for the day following, that is Thursday, February 27. The Prime Minister said:
To-morrow Mr. Speaker leaves the chair without question put on going into committee of supply, so we will take up supply, I hope at an early stage in the proceedings, the supply being that of the Minister of Justice and later that of the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	Will we not
go on with this discussion to-morrow?
Mr. Mackenzie King: No, I think we have had enough of this for a short time.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): I thought this was very urgent.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Well, perhaps it is
less urgent than it was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. May I say to my hon. friend that I gathered from conversation with him that there would not be a disposition to prolong unduly the discussion on the war appropriation measure. My hon. friend speaks of what I said on February 26, but this is March 13 and from that date until to-day we have been dealing exclusively with this war appropriation measure, which had also been discussed some time ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have been in supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been very little supply. A day or two ago I asked the house if it would permit us to go into supply -for a few minutes in order to call items in one or two departments so as to enable some other ministers to take up supply on Thursday or Friday and relieve my colleagues who are engaged on war duties for those days. What was the attitude of the opposition to that request? It was to move a

motion on going into supply in the nature of an amendment. An amendment to the motion to go into supply is in the nature of a vote of want of confidence in the government. That would certainly occasion a prolonged debate. What my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is asking us to do is to set aside an important war measure and allow the opposition to say that it has no confidence in the administration, to introduce a vote of want of confidence motion in the house at this time. When it comes to a matter of precedence, I need scarcely say we are not going to give precedence to any measure that has to do with want of confidence in the administration.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 12, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $1,300,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.

Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: On March 10, I placed on Hansard, page 1363, a statement of the estimated war expenditures by departments for the fiscal year 1940-41, with actual expenditures to January 31, 1941. On March 7, I placed on Hansard, page 1352, a statement of the estimates for the year 194142, by departments, the amounts being those submitted to January 31, 1941. That statement was later corrected and appears on Hansard at page 1362.
Two or three nights ago the leader of the opposition asked me to give break-downs, first, of the estimates for the year 1941-42 and, second, of the actual expenditures to January 31, 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As far
up as it can be given.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What I propose to do to-day is, first, to place upon Hansard a breakdown of the estimates for the year 1941-42 by departments and services, with the exception of the three defence departments and the departments headed by my colleagues, the Minister of National War Services and Agriculture, and the Minister of Munitions and

War Appropriation Bill
Supply. After I have finished, these ministers will themselves place on Hansard the breakdowns for their departments. I have not had an opportunity of consulting with my colleagues, but I believe they will wish this done. Their estimates are short and I can give to the committee the figures they have given to me, but perhaps hon. members would like to question these ministers about their estimates, and they would be able to answer questions which I do not think I could do. I think it would make it more convenient for everyone if I covered all departments except the defence departments and the two others I have mentioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
understood that we shall have some time to study them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In connection with the breakdown I am giving all I can, and I think the leader of the opposition will find that it is adequate. Is it desired that I read this statement?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it is necessary, unless the committee wants it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the committee does not insist on its being read, I shall simply place it on Hansard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would save a lot of time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The total is $23,814,511. To that there will be added the amounts to be given to the committee by the other ministers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that for the coming year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is for the coming year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For the
non-war departments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With the exception of what will be given by my colleague the Minister of National War Services and Agriculture. He is in charge of two departments and there is no reason why I should give one part of his figures and not the other, although part might be considered non-war. The term "nonwar" is not quite correct. Certain matters may not be concerned directly with fighting, but they are concerned indirectly with the war. These amounts are proper charges against the vote provided by the war appropriation bill This is the statement:
War Appropriation
Estimates for 1941-42 by departments and services Auditor General's Office-
Auditing and checking war accounts	 $	72,000 00
Civil Service Commission-[DOT]
Supply of personnel for war services
126,822 50
External Affairs-[DOT]
Administrative and passport offices	$	198,000 00Representation abroad	
25,000	00Evacuation of staff	
5,000	00Evacuation of offices	
5,000	00Greenland-supplies and	maintenance	
5,500	00Miscellaneous-to cover items	not	specified in 1941-42	
50,000	00
Finance-
Comptroller of the Treasury	$	1,967,212 50
Royal Canadian Mint	 67,300 00
Fisheries-
Marketing of canned lobster	$	600,000 00
Wartime Fisheries Advisory Committee	 3,000 00
Justice-
Expenses in connection with the Prize Court	$	50,000 00
Expenses in connection with administration of the Defence of
Canada Regulations	 25,000 00
Administration	 4,260 00
288,500 00
2,034,512 50
603,000 00

79,260 00
War Appropriation Bill

War Appropriation-Continued
Labour-
Estimates for 1941-42 by departments and services-Continued
Expenses in connection with the Wartime Prices and Trade
Board	$
National Labour Supply Council	
Assistance to necessitous dependents of persons detained under
the Defence of Canada Regulations	
Cost of living commission, district 18 United Mine Workers of
America	
Payments to provinces on account of each trainee completing a course in aircraft mechanics or aircraft wireless operations who enlists in the R.C.A.F. or completes a course in wireless
operations and enlists in any of the Empire Forces	
Payments to provinces for the training of individuals for skilled
or semi-skilled occupations connected with war work	
Expenses of inter-departmental committee on labour coordination	
Mines and Resources-*
Mines and Geology Branch-
Enforcement of wartime regulations governing the sale of explosives	$
Lands, Parks and Forests Branch-
Internment operations	
Forest products laboratories	
Immigration Branch-
Expenses re British evacuee children	
For expenditures in connection with looking after Canadian
interests in Germany and German-controlled territories...
For expenditures in connection with looking after Canadian interests abroad, apart from Germany or German-controlled
territories	
Detention of alien seamen who refuse to perform their regular
duties	
General expenditures in Canada and the British Isles	
298,704	00
32,000	00
150,000	00
6,000	00
480,000	00
3,885,000	00
26,700	00
17,120	00
25,350	00
24,150	00
244,800	00
150,000	00
25,000	00
147,000	00
23,825	00
National Revenue-
To provide for censorship of newspapers and other publications
4,878,404 00
657,245 00 5,600 00
Pensions and National Health-
Treatment and pension examinations, members and ex-members,
defence forces (present war)	$	2,500,000 00Treatment-R.C.M.P	
120,000	00Pensions-defence forces, fishermen and seamen	
500,000	00Air raid precautions	
250,000	00Investigations-Dependents' Allowance Board	
60,000	00Inspection of industrial plants	
10,000	00Treatment of Canadian fishermen and seamen	
5/100	00Laboratory of hygiene-bacteriological and biological-assistance to Department of National Defence	
15,000 00
Public health engineering

inspection of camps and airports re
sanitation and water supply	 10,000	00
Food and drugs-examination of supplies for Department of
National Defence	
5,000	00Quarantine service	
40,000	00Hire of boats-Halifax harbour	
14,400	00Committee on demobilization	
20,000	00Veterans' welfare division	
112'500	00Processing, storage and distribution of blood for transfusion..	14o'o00	00Immigration medical inspection overseas division-evacuation from England	
3,000	00
Post Office-
Postal censorship	$	343,835 00
Canadian postal corps	 151,250 00
Privy Council Office-
Registrar of orders in council
3,804,900 00
495,085 00 6,380 00

War Appropriation Bill
War Appropriation-Concluded
Estimates for 1941-42 by departments and services-Concluded
Public Works-
Chief Architect's Branch

Ottawa-Jackson building taxes	$	33,000 00
Toronto-completion of city delivery building	 200,000 00
Furniture, etc., for new employees	 500,000 00
Repairs, alterations, operation and maintenance of new
buildings	
500,000	00Rental of newr premises	
400,000	00New construction	
2,000,000	00
Chief Engineer's Branch-
Champlain dry dock-hoisting equipment, additional operating
cost	
113,000	00Lome dry dock-additional operating cost	
9,500	00Esquimalt dry dock-additional operating cost	
27,600	00New construction and dredging	
300,000	00Contingencies (telephone service and unforeseen)	
100,000	00
Prime Minister's Office-
Additional expenditure due to the war	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Increased activities of the force due to the war
Secretary of State-
Internment operations	 $	102,879 00
Voluntary service registration bureau	 9,800 00
Press censorship	 98,455 00
Department generally		10,000 00
Commission-re naturalization certificates	 10,000 00
Trade and Commerce

The Canadian Shipping Board	 $	30,000 00
National Research Council	 278,015 00
Transport-
Departmental administration	
Transport Controller's Office	
Air service-radio broadcasting censorship	 $ 25,000 00
Special radio interception and monitoring services, weather observation and teletype services and extra airport control systems	 587,420 00
Canals Service-[DOT]
Welland canals-utilization of surplus water in
the production of electricity	$ 50,000 00
Canals generally-fencing, floodlighting, etc., as
protection against, sabotage	 20,000 00
Marine Service-
Marine service steamers-including ice breakers.?
Aids to navigation	i..,...,	
Nautical Services-Advisory boards and ship
licensing committee	
To provide payment of compensation to ships' crews for loss of personal effects due to
enemy action	
Administration of pilotage-additional cost of operation and maintenance of pilotage vessel at Father Point	
25.000	00
50.000	00
27,650 00
10.000	00
27,000 00
6,292 00 60,000 00
612,420 00
70,000 00
139,650 00
Government owned enterprises-
Loan to Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited	?	100,000 00
National Harbours Board	 995,000 00
4,183,100 00 11,500 00
4,045,690 55
231,134 00 308,015 00
888,362 00 1,095,000 00
Total of items to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance...

War Appropriation Bill

The second statement I have gives the actual war expenditures to January 31, 1941. These amounits are not accurate to the dollar. Some of them were estimated1 in the latter part of January and the odd figures are not given. But I think they are quite close to the proper amounts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
understood.


James Lorimer Ilsley: These are the amounts I
obtained from the comptroller of the treasury up to January 31, 1941. The statement follows:
Actual War Expenditures to January 31at, 1941
Auditor General's Office	 $	36 000 00
Chief Electoral Officer	 5,000 00
Civil Service Commission	
External Affairs

1.	Departmental administration, passport office and office of
the Prime Minister	
2.	Repatriation of members of crews of requisitioned French
merchant vessels	
3.	Representation abroad	
4.	Expenses re Permanent Joint Board on Defence	
5.	Expenses in connection with evacuation of offices	
6.	Sundry	
123,000 00
78,000 00
7.000	00
2.000	00
4.000	00
4.000	00
Finance-
Comptroller of the Treasury, Dependents' Allowance Office and
outside establishments	$
Royal Canadian Mint	
Dominion-Provincial Conference	
1,128,000 00 83,000 00 7,000 00
Fisheries-
Canned Lobster Control
79,000 00
218,000 00
1,218,000 00 158,000 00
Justice-
Prize Court	$	10,000 00
Defence of Canada Regulations	 11,000 00
War Measures Act	 3,000 00
Labour-
Wartime Prices and Trade Board	$	125,000 00
Assistance to- dependents of detained persons	 22,000 00
Payments to the provinces for enlisted trainees under Youth
Training Act	
116,000	00Industrial training	for war work	
368,000	00Sundry	
14,000	00
Mines and Resources-
Government of the Northwest Territories-Greenland expedition	$	27,000 00Dominion forest service-internment operations	
13,000	00British evacuee children	
37,000	00Relief of distressed Canadians in Germany,	etc	
111,000	00Relief of distressed Canadians not resident	in Germany	
3,000	00Detention of alien seamen	
8,000	00Sundries	
8,000	00
National Harbours Board-
Saint John

dredging-Courtenay Bay
National Research Council-
Scientific and technical work	$	261,000 00
Additional facilities-new -annex laboratories	 41,000 00
National Revenue

Censorship of publications
24,000 00
645,000 00
207.000	00
200.000	00
302,000 00 4,000 00

War Appropriation Bill
Actual War Expenditures to January 31st, 1941-Concluded
Pensions and National Health-
Treatment-members and ex-members defence forces	$	1,462,000 00Treatment-Royal Canadian Mounted Police	
56,000	00Pensions-defence forces	
118,000	00Air raid precautions	
107,000	00Investigations-dependents' allowances	
15,000	00Additional hospital accommodation	
473,000	00Connaught laboratories	
10,000	00Quarantine service	
11,000	00Laboratory of hygiene	
5,000	00Hire of boat-Halifax	
10,000	06Sundries	
13,000	00
Post Office-
Postal censorship	$	121,000 00
Base and field post offices	 34,000 00
Privy Council-
Office of the registrar of orders in council	
Public Works-
Halifax, N.S.-Ordnance depot	$	91,000 00Montreal-Craig St., drill hall	
i04,000	00Rock Island, Que.-Armoury	
7,000	00Ix>ndon, Ont.-Westminster Hospital	
185,000	00Ottawa, Ont.-Temporary buildings	
410,000	00Ottawa, Ont.-Temporary buildings-No. 3	
277.000	00Ottawa, Ont.-Temporary buildings-National registration....	91,000	00Ottawa, Ont.-On purchase of Jackson Building	
760,000	00Vancouver, B.C.-Hospital for Pensions and National Health..	434,000	00Furniture, etc., for new employees	
417,000	00Repairs, alterations, etc., of buildings	
322,000	00Rental of new premises	
262,000	00Halifax, N.S.-H.M.C. Dockyard	
66,000	00Sydney, N.S.-Harrington wharf-Site	
4,000	00Sydney, N.S.-Harrington wharf-Repairs	
9,000	00Sydney, N.S.-New warehouse	
44,000	00Saint John, N.B.-Partridge Island	
37,000	00Quebec, Que.-Champlain graving dock	
35,000	00Midland, Ont.-Dredging	
1,000	00Esquimalt, B.C.-Graving dock	
191,000	00Contingencies	
52,000	00
Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Land services-incidental to the war	
Secretary of State-
Internment operations	$	57,000 00Voluntary Service Registration Bureau	
6,000	00Press censorship	
58,000	00Department generally-War Measures Act	
1,000	00Commission re revocation of naturalization certificates	
1,000	00
Trade and Commerce- Canadian Shipping Board
Transport-
Air Service-
Meteorological	$	66,000 00
Radio monitoring and interception	 150,000 00
Extra airport control systems	 89,000 00
Canals Service-
Welland canals	
1,000	00Canals generally	
14,000	00St. Lawrence ship canal	
1,000	00
Marine Service-
Marine service steamers	
15,000	00Nautical service-temporary employees	and sundries	
10,000	00Aids to navigation-gas buoy, etc	
58,000	00To pay war claims of ships crews, etc	
1,000	00St. Lawrence ship channel operations -and maintenance	35,000	00Pilotage-repairs, etc., to C.G.S. Jalobert	,....	23,000 00
Miscellaneous-
Departmental -administration	 4,000 00
Office of the transport controller	 30,000 00
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio censorship	 7,000 00
2,280,000 00
155,000 00 4,000 00
3.799.000	00
2.023.000	00
123,000 00 18,000 00
504,000 00
Total of items to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: The figures the minister is now placing on the record do not include the commitments for the balance of the present fiscal] year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The estimated total expenditure on war for the present fiscal year is 8875,000,000. These figures amount to $536,000,000. I want to make it clear, when we talk about expenditures, that this $536,000,000 is expenditure actually made-that is, the money has actually been paid out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
payments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Payments, yes. I find to my surprise that "expenditures" is an ambiguous term. Some officials in the service consider expenditures as payments not yet made. But I mean that the actual payments up to the end of January, 1941, are about $536,000,000.
I think perhaps now the other ministers can speak for their departments. The Minister of National Defence pretty well covered his the other day so I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more, but if the leader of the opposition finds when he looks at Hansard that there is something more he requires, we will get it for him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair enough.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps the other ministers will now speak in turn.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Chairman, with respect to air, the estimate of money to tbe expended in 1941-42, that is the total amount to be asked for, is $421,136,185, But from that must be deducted $35,000,000, representing payments to be made under the joint air training plan by Australia and New Zealand, which brings the total estimate to $386,136,185. In addition there is a supplementary of $483,163, making a total estimate of $386,619,348. These figures are broken down as follows:	overseas, $15,838,916; home war,
$154,683,960; joint empire training plan, $250,613^309.
I have here in two different columns the expenditures made up to January 31, 1941, on each one of these accounts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the second category?


Charles Gavan Power: No, the expenditures under these same three headings-overseas, home war, and joint air training plan. In the words of my colleague the Minister of Finance, this is money actually paid out by cheque, money actually gone. That is shown in one

column, and another column shows the amount which we expect will actually be paid before the 31st of March, 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the payments, but the commitments?


Charles Gavan Power: It is not quite commitments; I make a distinction which the Minister of Finance perhaps will not agree with. I do not call it expenditure when the money is actually paid. That is payment, not expenditure. I call it expenditure when we have ordered the stuff and it is delivered. I call it commitments when material has been ordered to be paid for at a future date and it is not yet delivered. I make three categories. Will the leader of the opposition agree with me?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
not do iit (that way myself, but I understand1 it.


Charles Gavan Power: So there are payments,
expenditures and commitments. Up to the 31st of January last, that is payments gone. Up to the 31st of March, all of this it is expected' will be paid before March 31. Commitments iare another thing altogether. They come into the next year's estimate. The expenditure up to January 31, 1941 for Overseas is $772,496; for home war, $40,415,363; for joint air training plan, $97,833,758, a total of $139,021,617. We have received from our partners in the air training plan during that time $11,540,161, making a total outgo of payments of $127,481,456, which covers up to January 31.
Between January 31 and March 31, 1941, we expect to make payments to 'an amount as follows for overseas, -and this is in addition to the $772,496 which I gave as 'having been spent up to January 31. We expect to spend, before March 31, $7,001,470, making a total expenditure for the fiscal year 1940-41 of $7,773,966. For home war, in addition to the $40,415,363 spenlt to January 31, we expect to spend $24,551,142, making a total for home war of $64,966,505 up to March 31. On the joint training plan, in addition to the $97,833,758 spent to January 31, we expect to spend $53,911,614, making a total for the year of $151,745,372.
The total expenditure in the three categories up to March- 31, 1941, is $224,485,843, from which is to 'be deducted $26,800,000 which we shall receive, making a total final expenditure for the Department of National Defence for Air for the year 1940-41 of $197,685,843.

War Appropriation Bill
Horn. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on the record the break-down, as it is called, of the naval estimates for the coming fiscal year. The total amount to be 'asked for naval services as announced by the Minister of Finance is $169,640,304. That amount is made up of about fifteen main items which I shall now give to the committee:
War Appropriation-Naval Services Breakdown, by Objects of Expenditure
Estimates for
Class of Expenditure	year 1941-42
Salaries and wages	 $	1,317,210
Pay and allowances	 33,609,000
Travel and transport	 33,609,000
Operating expenses	 400,000
Acquisition and construction of
vessels	 56,017,000
Repair and upkeep of vessels		4,902,700
Charter of vessels	 699,141
Preparation of plans	 100,000
Construction and repair of buildings	 19,846,837
Allowance in lieu of stores	 1,719,600
Victualling stores	 7,821,003
Naval stores	 14,284,818
Armament stores	 14,549,000
Fuel	 7,846,930
Miscellaneous stores	 687,550
Printing and stationery	 681,060
Harbour defences	 1,840,294
Purchase and rent of buildings and
lands	 414,361
Sundries	 1,547,800
Total	 $169,640,304


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the item of harbour defences, would the minister explain just what that is? I do not understand that that would come under his department.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Without particularizing, it deals with such things as anti-submarine nets.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Actual expenditures.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that is the estimate for next year.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Unfortunately the officials preparing this, in their endeavour to bring it up to date so far as possible, began to work out the actual expenditures to the end of February. I understand it would have been sufficient if we had got the expenditures to the end of January, but, with only twelve days since the end of the month, the work was naturally a little more
difficult. However, I will place the figures on Hansard. The break-down of expenditures is as follows:
War Appropriation

Naval Services Breakdown, by Objects of Expenditure
Expenditure
Class of expenditure	to Jan. 31/41
Salaries and wages	$	573,934
Pay and allowances	 5,860,057
Travel and transport	 473,742
Operating expenses	 144,685
Acquisition and construction of vessels 28,525,293
Repair and upkeep of vessels	 " """ """
Charter of vessels	
Preparation of plans	
Construction and repair of buildings.
Allowances in lieu of stores	
Victualling stores	
Naval stores	
Armament stores	
Fuel	
Miscellaneous stores	
Printing and stationery	
Harbour defences	
Purchase and rent of buildings and
lands	
Naval equipment division	
Sundries	
Various advance accounts	
Various suspense accounts


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before submitting the estimates of my department, perhaps I should explain to the committee how they are made up.
As hon. members know, the Department of Munitions and Supply is the purchasing branch for the three service departments. We may receive an order for, we will say, a submarine net. We do not in our estimates provide the money to install that submarine net, but when the order is placed the appropriation is transferred by the department that has made provision for the net; in other words a financial encumbrance is raised to provide for the payment which we incur in arranging for the construction of the net.
Similarly with regard to an airport. We make the survey for the airport, and a recommendation; that is, we submit the facts. The choice is made by the Department of National Defence for Air, and if one site is approved we then receive a letter of instructions to proceed with the building of an airport, and we also receive a financial encumbrance which will provide the money to pay for the airport.
Similarly, if we have a cable from Great Britain to purchase an order of Bren guns, the British treasury here is instructed to issue cheques in payment as the guns are
2,1 ro,u^o
168,982
50,605
3,198,082
300,186
2,811,960
2,752,476
1,015,163
605,092
340,253
205,581
1,677,378
144,799
31,748
99,956
2,350,197
4,157,803
War Appropriation Bill

delivered. Therefore we do not include in our own estimates any item to pay for purchases of that nature.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, for requisitions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For requisitions, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the right principle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do, however, provide certain sums for establishing facilities to produce the purchases required by the service departments. In other words, if it is necessary to build and equip a factory to supply a service department, in many cases, in fact in most eases, we go to the treasury direct for the capital sum involved in establishing that facility. Similarly, if a factory is built and requites working capital, we go to the treasury for an accountable advance in the nature of working capital, in effect a loan from the treasury and repayable as the operation proceeds.
With that explanation, I may say that our estimates for the fiscal year 1941-42 are as follows:
Administration of the departmentsalaries and operating expenses..? 2,300,000 Capital assistance to government-
*' operated companies	 37,534,000
Capital assistance to private con..! .tractors	 103,813,000
' As 'regards direct expenditures, that is for iteMh; purchased direct by the department- 'hituhly''cloth, I think-we have made it a Tabit;1 in order to coordinate the manufacture qf 'uhiforins By enabling the mills to operate at full Capacity, to buy cloth by direct expenditure from the department, and we do not recover that outlay by financial encumbrances from the Department of National Defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The cost of the cloth for uniforms has not been included in the army, the navy and the air expenditures? The minister says they pay for the cloth of which he is now speaking. Is that item not included in the cost of the army, under the Minister of National Defence, the cost of the navy, under the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and the cost of the air force, under the Minister of 
National Defence for Air? Is that in addition to what they have given us here as the break-up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I was wrong (there. The army, the navy and the air force give us financial encumbrances for the full coat of 'the uniforms, but we do buy supplies, such as cloth, in advance of a^ financial encumbrance, and so keep the mills running for a certain time. When they are set up ibo make *a certain type of cloth, we keep them running on that cloth in anticipation of future orders. That is what is meant by direct payments in this ease. As a matter of fact we purchase other things than cloth.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you
are ultimately reimbursed for those moneys?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The treasury is, yes. There
is no way of getting it back into our estimates: if we spend the money it does not come back into our estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to know if there is duplication in this matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, there is. I have
pointed out, and I think the Minister of Finance agrees with me, that there is bound to be >a great deal of duplication. It arises in several ways. The Department of Munitions and Supply will raise a financial encumbrance on what they think is a reasonable price for a gun. After we build the facility, have the plant in operation, it is very probable we will produce that gun for a good deal less than its current market price. For that reason there is probably a duplication; in other words if we (had not built 'the plant we would have paid more for the gun 'and the full amount of 'the appropriation would have been required. Because we built the plant we get the gun cheaper, therefore the cost of the plant is amortized in the lower cost of the material.
The Minister of Finance and I have (talked this matter over. I have expressed (the opinion to him, and I think he more or less agrees, that perhaps fifty per cent of this estimate is a duplication-well, he does not think it is as much 'as that; nevertheless we must have certain funds 'at our disposal to meet current expenditures, and in most cases our expenditure for capital account reduces the drain for the purchase of supplies.
I will place on Hansard the complete statement of which I have already given a portion:

War Appropriation Bill
Estimated cash requirementsfiscal year 1940-41
Administration	 $ 2,300,000
Capital assistance to G.O.	companies	37,534,000
Capital assistance to private
contractors	 103,813,000
Direct expenditures	 3,300,000
Expenditure to January 31 $ 1,529,000
16.703.000
42.297.000 647,000
Expenditure to February 28 $ 1,727,165 22,218,268
53,979,453
814,793
Estimated to March 31 $ 2,300,000 28,218,000
65,979,000
1,814,000
Total
$146,947,000	$ 61,176,000
$ 78,739,679	$ 98,311,000
Notes: Column 1 represents an estimate made up in October, 1940, based on information supplied by contractors and companies, and it is evident they over-estimated requirements for the different projects for this year.
(b) Column 2 represents figures submitted to the House of Commons by the Hon. Mr. llsley, having been submitted to him by the Comptroller of the Treasury.
fc) Column 3 is the total of expenditures submitted to us to date of 28/2/41 by Mr. A. V. Franklin, Chief Treasury Officer.
(d) Column 4 represents our estimates as to the amounts that will be paid out up to 31st March, 1941, but we have no way of submitting this with any degree of accuracy. It should' be mentioned that on 27th January last we advised treasury board that we anticipated our cash payments would be $119,820,849 for the current year, but it is obvious that we will not put out this amount.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
totals only 8146,947,000. The estimate is $180,000,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the estimated requirement for the current fiscal year. The actual expenditure to January 31 was $61,176,000 and to February 28, $78,739,000; and the estimated expenditure to March 31 is $98,311,000. These are the draft estimates for 1941-42 for the Department of Munitions and Supply:
Capital assistance to private
companies	$ 71,083,421 49
Capital assistance to governmentowned companies	 29,376,000 00
Direct expenditures by the government through the Department of Munitions and Supply 16,290,000 00 Dominion arsenals-Lindsay and
Quebec	
16,560,000	00Administration	expenses	
3,500,000	00
Working capital in connection with production (Canadian
production)	 41,049,000	00
Working capital in connection
with aircraft	production		2,600,000	00

A list of projects covered by these items was placed on Hansard by myself two or three weeks ago.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I placed on Hansard some days ago the break-down for the Department of National War Services. I now have breakdown of the expenditures for the Department of Agriculture this year out of this appropriation. The total is $3,498,773.70. The items are as follows:
War .appropriation, 1940-41 Department of Agriculture Expenditures, April 1, 1940, to January 31, 1941
Actual
expenditure
Disposal of Canadian apples, 1939
crop	$1,503,108	89
Disposal of British Columbia
apples, 1940 crop	 616,450	17
Disposal of Nova Scotia apples,
1940 crop	
1,172,820	79Advertising of apples	
49,704	40
Purchase, storage and distribution
of fibre flax seed	
77,687	34Bacon Board, administration	
33,618	38Dairy Products Board, administration	
5,434	08Soenens turbine scutchers	
6,525	00Purchase seed potatoes	
9,818	37Agricultural Supplies Board, administration	
23,576	28Root vegetable seeds	
30	00

The estimates for the Department of Agriculture are as follows:
War Appropriation Estimates, 1941-42 Department of Agriculture
Agricultural supplies board-
Administration	$	34 000
Programmes to encourage production of essential war supplies... 100,000 i urchase, storage and distribution
of agricultural supplies	 1,000,000
.	$1,131,000
Commodity boards	 50 000
Bacon board	 71300
Dairy products	board	'	14'950
To provide assistance in disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by war	 6,610,300

War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: The	committee will
remember that what I gave was an attempt to indicate by functions, as they call it in my department, the various items; that is, how much for overseas, how much for Canada and so on, having regard to the particular duties to be performed. I have here a tabulation made up in another way, under what they call objects of expenditure-that is, the aggregate amount estimated for travelling expenses, for clothing, etc., for all the formations and activities; the whole estimated expenditure by the army for each of the items shown. This might be useful to the committee. Some of my colleagues have been giving statements in that form. The committee will remember that the total amount of the break-down applicable to army services was some $666,000,000, as stated by my colleague the Minister of Finance. That amount is made up, in the estimates which have been made by the officers of my department, as follows:
Department of National Defence Estimates 1941-42 Army Services
War appropriation-Summary of estimate by objects of expenditure Salaries and wages-civilian personnel	 $ 2,330,000
Travel and transportation	 40,607,906
Operating expenses of properties...	31,314,830
Mechanical and water transport, including upkeep	 21,246,843
Supplies-food, forage; medical and
dental stores and services		46,705,213
Construction and repairs	 15,549,170
Ordnance stores	 247.277,741
Pay and allowances-all ranks		253.029,972
Printing and stationer}'	 5,338,854
Sundries *- Telephones, telegrams, postage and other miscellaneous expenses not specially detailed ...	3,024,130
Training equipment not provided elsewhere	 150,000

I wish to emphasize again what I said before with regard to the whole item, that these are the 'beat estimates my officers have been able to put forward, having regard' to the -possibilities which oan be foreseen. Of course not only 'the -total but also the allotments among the various items may be changed considerably as the year goes by, depending on exigencies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said the other day it was on an if, as and when basis, and we understand that.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister completed his statement?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister retires from the scene I should like him to bring down and place on Hansard as soon as convenient a statement, in as much detail as possible and under suitable headings, with respect to the Debert military camp, giving: (a) total payments made, to as late a date as possible; (b) commitments made but not paid up to the same date, and
(c)	probable expenditures to complete, and also the same information with respect to the airport at Debert. On February 21 the minister gave an estimate of five and a half million dollars-


James Layton Ralston: That was not the airport.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; the minister misunderstood me. I have asked for these details with respect to the military camp under three different classifications: payments, commitments and probable expenditures, and I have asked for the same information with relation to the airport. Then I was going on to say that on February 21, as reported at page 906 of Hansard, the minister said:
. . . from the information I get the Debert camp may cost $5,500,000.
The minister -made it quite clear that this figure did not include the airport. On the same page the Minister of National Defence for Air is reported as stating:
The estimated sum required for the buildings at Debert is $829,517. I have not the figure in connection with the runways, but I would say they would cost probably another $150,000 or $200,000.
On those figures the total cost of the airport will be in excess of a million dollars, and the total cost at Debert will exceed six and a half million dollars. I should like to have the figures with respect to the camp itself and those with respect to the airport, under suitable headings, if the minister will be good enough to give them.


James Layton Ralston: I have had in my desk for some time information on that point. I think I can give it to my hon friend readily in the form he desires, either to-night or to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very good. I am not asking for it immediately.


James Layton Ralston: It must be remembered that the figure of $5,500,000 was not even an estimate; it was given in response to the hon. member for Cumberland. I think I intimated to the hon. member that I could try to make a guess, which I hoped would be an intelligent one, and I think the amount is about right, excluding the land. I understand that there have been taken on land options amounting so far to something like $75,000. There are

War Appropriation Bill
forty-seven lots on which options have been taken, and it is possible that, in all, the land may amount to $200,000; that is, apart from the airport.


Mr. McNIVEN:: The Minister of National Defence quoted the figure of $253,000,000 for pay and allowances. Has he a break-down of that figure by provinces or by military districts?


James Layton Ralston: I think that is one of the break-downs I could give by districts. I believe the payrolls are made up by districts, and I shall be glad to get that information.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Would the minister be able to give that break-down for the fiscal year 1940-41?


James Layton Ralston: I think so.


Mr. CHURCH:: We have heard a great deal about break-downs this afternoon. I am afraid that Britain is going to break down unless we act before it is too late. Let us think about Britain a little more. If she is waiting for Canada to act she will break down. Let us not forget that the whole future of the human race depends upon the battle being fought in Britain now, and we sit here carrying on in this way, with long government statements issued almost every day of the week. I fear for the health of the ministers with all these break-downs. I believe there is a large body of public opinion in this country that is not altogether satisfied with the war policy we are pursuing here, not only the policy of the government but also at times that of the opposition, the alternative government, because as I have said in the past the opposition is also responsible for what goes on in this house, unless it fulfils its functions, as our constitution provides.
I would refer to what happened on July 12 last. Many of us in this house celebrate March 17 and July 12 as the days of two patron saints. Last year we were told that the National Resources Mobilization Act would not be considered on July 12 while we were away, and over fifty soldier members went to Quebec for the week-end. But in the absence of many hon. members the measure was taken up and passed on a Friday, in a very short time. That is how the cumbersome mobilization act came in.
The most important thing in this country to-day is man-power, but as I said a year ago, it is almost as hard for a man to get into the army, the navy or the air force, as it is to get into the exclusive Rideau club. Recruiting is on again, off again and on again, but here we sit hearing essays by ministers, break-downs and all that sort of thing. There have been break-downs all along the line,
and we have been too late in everything. Here we have a total of fifty-four men killed on the highways on account of the lack of free fares, because of the break-down of our railway systems, on which this country has spent hundreds of millions of dollars.
I said yesterday I intended to make only one speech while we are in committee on this matter, and I will conclude in a very few minutes what I have to say to-day. When I mentioned the situation at Camp Borden last week, I had reference to the last war, to 1917.1 admitted that a great many improvements had been made at Borden, but I said I still did not agree with the general camp policy of the government, and this one as a winter camp. But neither then nor at any other time have I cast any reflections on any of the overworked officials or heads of these camps, or members of the cabinet. I realize that they are a government of Canadians in Canada and that it is our duty to cooperate with them to the best of our ability, as long as they are the government, if they get on with the war.
Just here I should like to pay tribute to the permanent officials of the government. I have had a great deal of experience in many spheres of activity, and since coming here in 1921 I have found that the success of any public enterprise and of federal administration depends very largely upon the courteous, able, painstaking, * loyal, sincere but overworked public officials, who d-o their duty splendidly here, and often have to work long hours of overtime. During this war some of them have passed on unwept, unhonoured and unsung, and I wish to pay tribute to the great work being done by these splendid public officials.
Here we have estimates amounting to $1,460,000,000, yet we cannot find a quarter of a million dollars to provide free railway transportation for the soldiers. Here we are proposing to spend $4,000,000 a day on the war, and surely we should be able to devote two and a half hours of that cost, or over $400,000 to this objective of free fares. These boys are risking all; they may be sent to Europe or to Greenland's icy mountains, or as members of the R.C.A.F. they may be killed over Britain or over Berlin. Some of them will never come back, and we have a duty to perform on their behalf. Private members, as well as members of the government have their duties to perform. The only consolation a public man can have, in my view-and I have been in public life a long time-is the comfort in his own conscience that he has done his duty as he saw it to be. I do not want any thanks. As long as I have been a member of parliament I have endeavoured to do my duty, and in doing so I
War Appropriation Bill

have tried never to offend anyone knowingly. Since I have been a member of the House of Commons I have stood for the principles and maintenance of liberties, and I shall continue to do so for the time in the future I may happen to be here.
To-day we are facing the greatest war in the history of the world. I support in this war and the last the cause of those patriots, the private soldiers and men in all ranks, who are doing their duty for their country in this conflict. While I wear the party uniform, I will never wear its plush. I will do my duty in the ranks, but it will as in the past be as a volunteer, not as a conscript. In the past, prior to this war, I have had many differences of opinion with leaders regarding imperial and foreign affairs and defence policies. I am an imperialist. It was said that I was the only one in the house, because I believed that the future freedom, liberty and welfare of the world was in the hands of Great Britain, and depended upon the mother county, on those two little islands on the edge of Europe. The struggle for freedom, liberty and civilization has been made by them, and by them almost alone since France failed, save for the dominions and Greece. Up to this time they have paid on a cash-and-carry basis for all the munitions they have received.
Last year we were dependent upon that glorious country, France, which in the first great war did so much for civilization and freedom. We depended to a great extent upon that great nation and upon the patriotism of the people of France in that war and this. It was with deep regret to the people of the world that France went under. A year ago we were depending upon France to hold the Maginot line until Britain got an army and munitions, and until the dominions could give support with their armies and food and munitions. We found that poor France depended upon us against the dictators in vain. Help did not come in time, through no fault of the mother country. Neither country was ready for war owing to disarmament.
Out on the Pacific coast we are depending upon the United States to protect our western seaboard. We rejoice that they are with us, but I hope their help will not come too late. I have grave doubts about it myself. I fear help is not coming quickly enough. I do not believe the people of 'Canada realize the gravity of the situation, or know to whom this country will belong at the end of 1941. They do not seem to realize that when the war started we had no army, no navy and no air force. We were back to where we were in 1812, a condition of complete dependence upon the mother country for all the freedom of civilization and defence and protection we enjoy.

I should like to make three or four further observations on the subject I was discussing last night at the adjournment. I notice the responsible minister is in his seat to-day, and I am glad to see him because of an editorial which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. It is headed, "Help the Soldier Hiker", and states:
But the soldier's uniform is his credential. He is in the king's service; offering his life if necessary for a cause. Military regulations are rigid. Discipline must be maintained. The man who enlists voluntarily in the defence of his country knows all this and soon becomes imbued with the esprit de corps that makes army life a happy memory. Such men do not want to thumb their way along the roads; and they should not fall under the suspicion with which	habitual civilian hitch-hikers	are
regarded.
Then there is an appeal to the citizens to give these men a lift. That is all well and good, and is a good omen.
I may say, however, that on August 6 last I received from the Minister of National Defence a letter in which he uttered the same sentiments. He had a great deal of sympathy for the forces, and replied to me in part in this way in a letter dated August 6:
If occurs to me that in connection with both of these matters there is scope for the activities of our many citizens who want to help in connection with war work, either by means of radio appeals to citizens who are out motoring to give a lift to men in uniform or by means of some arrangement for providing motors at camps or headquarters at certain times, the transportation being in charge of, perhaps, some of our service organizations.
I think myself that this is a worthwhile suggestion, and that it might well be taken up by our citizens if it were brought to their attention. I know .that people are most anxious to help and all they want as suggestion and direction.
I believe if the minister were good enough to let this matter go before the special committee, a programme might be worked out. The railways are making a great deal of money out of 'the war. This programme would involve only 'a small item of expenditure, and I believe the public who would harm to make the payments would be prepared to do so.
Last October 12 to 15, which was the Thanksgiving week-end, I was on the highways. As a result of the condition which obtained at that time, the following editorial appeared on October 15 in 'the Evening Telegram of Toronto;
Motorists travelling south from Barrie and Allandale last Friday and Saturday regretted that Premier King and his ministers could not see the hundreds of soldiers on leave from Camp Borden for the Thanksgiving week-end lining the highway and thumbing their way to their homes in Toronto and elsewhere. The sight of these boys who have volunteered to fight for their country begging rides might

War Appropriation Bill
have awakened the most stolid cabinet member from his complacency and convinced him of the necessity for providing decent, safe and free transportation for soldiers to the larger centres of population.
Even though soldiers can now travel round trip at single trip rates, the railway and bus fares are still beyond the purse of men who are earning only $1.30 a day and assigning part of it to their families. Between Toronto and Barrie the round trip fare for a soldier is $1.95. It is no cheaper for him travelling one way. Consequently he thumbs his way.
This is a cruel situation which might be rectified by a little generosity on the part of the government and some cooperation by the railways who must have idle railway coaches suitable for the short journeys between the military camps and the main transportation transfer points. From these latter the soldiers might be given transportation on the regular schedule trains. Whatever the costs arising from such arrangements they would be infinitesimal in comparison with the enormous expenditures which are now being assumed by the country.
The men in khaki have as good a right to free transportation on the railways as the *thousands of other people who daily ride "dead head" on the trains. The government should give renewed consideration to this question of free transportation for soldiers on leave, not forgetting that the trains are operated anyway, most of them only one-third or one-half full. Railway passes for the soldiers would be an indication that their country appreciates the sacrifices which they are making for it.
I shall conclude what I have to say on this point by reading a telegram I received from Petawawa camp. I do not know why the soldiers write to me, because I do not know as many of them as I used to. Many members from Ontario, travelling on the trains from Ottawa to Toronto, two-t'hirds of whom are government supporters, have an opportunity to speak to soldiers who have been at the Petawawa camp. At the time of the great war an artillery camp was established at that point. It has always been my contention that a camp at Petawawa should not be operative in the winter months.
Here is the telegram which was sent to me yesterday, 'and which I shall be pleased to send to the minister:
Small group Petawawa troops arrested for false railway tickets being used for furloughs and leave. Canadian Pacific Railway pressing charges but only using few soldiers out of hundreds in camp as sole blame same being unfair owing to large scale of sources issuing tickets. Though investigation should strengthen your proposal of free transportation for troops and soldiers. Friend we are in dire need of legal assistance and advice. Can you represent us or assist. Answer collect.
I might say that I sent a return message saying that I was not in a position to appear for them. During the first great war, as the head of the greatest soldier city in Canada, I did appear for them on many occasions.
That is the city to which even to-day they are coming from points as far away as Quebec and sometimes from the west and the maritime provinces to enlist and recruit soldiers and take them out of Toronto. They sent recruits to all parts of this dominion; yet when they asked the minister a year ago to set out the list of Toronto recruits, he could not do it. I wrote asking the number of men enlisted in Toronto, but, no, I could not get that information; it was not listed. I suggest that the department ought to have a proper index filing system which would show the soldier contribution from every municipality in Canada.
In the last war, when the Conservative government was in power, wounded soldiers were arriving in Toronto, and there was a scarcity of hospital accommodation for them or homes to go to. In the dark fall of 1917, during October and November, several hundred soldiers died of the awful flu epidemic, I remember several from Winnipeg and the west who died. I remember one who had been secretary to the late Sir George Bury, who joined the air force. The pool then was at the Jesse Ketchum school in Toronto. Where a man could join the Royal Air Force and be out of the pool in three or four days, now it takes one, two, three or four months as the case may be, at manning pool. This man arrived on Wednesday and he was dead in a week from the flu epidemic.
Having seen this lack of hospital accommodation, I insisted upon a coroner's inquest into this matter and into other cases. This was held and it showed that the government *of the day had not made any arrangements for proper or adequate hospitalization. The suggestion was made that 'the old base hospital on Gerrard street, Toronto, the old Toronto general hospital, should be used. This was closed as not considered fit for civilians, 'but they wanted to turn the key in the door and open it up for soldiers. As a result of that inquest the government spent a large sum of money in providing proper hospitals in every military district. I use this as an illustration of what coroners' inquests can do to get action.
I urge the same thing in connection with soldier fares and this Petawawa case. 1 believe we should do this. I appealed to the attorney general of the province, Mr. Conant, to provide these young men with counsel so that the evidence might be brought out and we might have all the facts, but the attorney general replied that he could not do it because it was only done in capital oases. I suppose they all follow the parliamentarians'
War Appropriation Bill

religion of following the line of leiast resistance. I understand that these men are first offenders. It costs a soldier at Petawawa almost two weeks' pay to buy his fare and berth and meals to make a trip home to Toronto and back. I plead with the minister to consider 'this matter. He has been very sympathetic as I discovered when I first went to see him at his office on his first day as Minister of National Defence. He treated me most courteously. I urge him to have this matter taken up by the select committee which is to consider these expenditures. I believe they could arrive at a reasonable settlement of the question.
Another matter I wish to mention is in connection with guarding city property. I know the Minister of Munitions and Supply will appreciate the problem. Unless we have continuous current and power, these war industries will not be able to work full shifts and production will not be carried on. I believe the government of the day should pay for guarding public property, the same as was done in the last war. They should assume the responsibility of guarding federal, provincial and municipal property. The government is now assuming the responsibility of guarding the power plants at Niagara and other provincial properties and the same thing should be done for the municipalities.
We had a good example of what might happen with the storm of last Tuesday. This storm struck the industrial centres in central Ontario and many power plants were forced temporarily to shut down. For a time elevators were stopped, street-cars could not run and many other activities were shut down for a time because of the storm. The same thing could happen from other causes. The municipalities are not responsible for the war, nor is it their duty to maintain armed forces. In 1940 it cost the city of Toronto $325,000 to guard power plants and other public property. The government has agreed to protect provincial property, so why not municipal property? The municipalities have no more right to pay for the guarding of public property than they have to pay the militia for the defence of Canada. Under the British North America Act matters concerning militia and defence are exclusively within federal jurisdiction. There is no necessity for the government to act the part of what judges and lawyers refer to as dead-beats so far as the municipalities are concerned, in paying for guards to protect power plants which supply current to munition plants.
If these power plants are shut down; if power fails, even for a few hours, it will be impossible to turn out munitions. Why do the government not adopt the same principle

for the municipalities as they have adopted in connection with the provinces? During the last war the munition plants of Ontario at one time turned out fifty-five per cent of the shells, owing to cheap hydro power, yet the dominion most unjustly and unpatriotically made the hydro pay over $1,500,000 in customs duties on factory and generator equipment for the building of the Chippawa plant, which took three years to build. To supply power for munitions, Ottawa should do its duty. At least some part of this appropriation should be spent in protecting these public plants. That would be far better than spending $378,000 upon our legations the world over, and $125,000 upon the League of Nations, when nobody knows where it is. It has been lost, strayed or stolen.
One power plant, the hydro-electric distribution system in Toronto, supplies all the munitions plants in the district with power. An interruption in supply of power from any one of the vital generating plants or transmission facilities will cut off a major block of power and shut down for many months essential industries engaged in the manufacture of war materials. The dominion government is already providing military protection to transportation w'orks and to a large number of private industries. It would not only be more economical but just and necessary to extend this same military protection to the power plants and distribution systems which provide and will continue to provide if protected, electrical energy to those industries manufacturing war munitions and war materials so vital to Canada's best contribution in this present war.
I view with alarm the present extremely costly and inefficient methods of providing civilian protection to electrical plants, which duty has been forced upon the municipalities and the province of Ontario. I feel that more effective means of guarding these vital facilities can be effected by the dominion government using the militia now in training without any additional expense to the taxpayers, and with the added advantage of giving valuable practical experience to the militia. That would be far better than having sixty men guarding the Royal Canadian Air Force property at the foot of Yonge street. These men are on guard twenty-four hours a day, in all kinds of weather. Yet there is already triple protection for this property, by the city police, by the harbour commission and by the contractor. Anyone who is travelling on a train leaving Toronto can see this long row of buildings and realize that it would be far better to have only five or six guards.
The hydro commission respectfully urges that the dominion government immediately take over and supply all necessary protection

War Appropriation Bill
for all vital hydro electric and public utility plants and power distribution systems in the saipe way as they were guarded during the great war and as is now being done in many cases for private industry. This is a splendid statement from the local municipal system.
There is another matter I should like to bring up, one which I do not think has been mentioned before in this debate. How does it come that everything is as usual in this country? If this committee would visit some of the large cities during the week-ends, they would see that everything is going on as usual. A visit to department stores or various places of entertainment in any city will show no evidence that Canada is at war. All that can be seen is a few soldiers on the streets, otherwise everything is just as usual, in this country. How are we going to fight Hitler that way? Why are we always talking about break-downs and all that kind of thing? Let us admit now that unless we give more urgent aid to Britain, it is possible that Britain may break down. I hope the committee will visit different centres of population and see for themselves that everything is as usual.
I want to turn now to the question of national soldiers' insurance. This country has money to provide insurance for those civilians who stay at home, but it proposes to do nothing in the way of providing insurance for those who are prepared to give their lives in defence of this country. To them it gives $1.30 a day, and orit of that they have to find their own pocket-money and fares. I appreciate the hard work which the war ministers and the leader of the opposition are doing. I have always found them courteous in replying to a private member of parliament and they are willing to give freely of their time when a member writes to them. I am glad to pay this tribute to them and the leader of the opposition. But I do say that when this country can pay to insure those who stay at home, it should be able to insure those who are risking their lives for civilization.
During the great war the city of Toronto insured every one of its soldiers for $1,000. I have here the report of George Wilson, commissioner of finance, dealing with the matter. He says:
In November, 1914, the city decided to purchase-at its own cost-insurance coverage for all citizens of Toronto who enlisted for overseas service. Under such plan, 9,609 $1,000 insurance policies were purchased during the period November, 1914, to May. 1915, at a premium cost to the city of $1,247,261. As the city in May, 1915, was unable to obtain further insurance cover from local insurance companies, provincial legislation was applied for and granted, under which the city itself became
the insurer of all citizens who thereafter enlisted for active service. In all cases, whether the citizens were insured by companies or by the city under the legislation referred to, the city was appointed beneficiary with power to administer the losses under such policy. Under the plan, which became effective in 1915. approximately 35,400 citizens enlisted for active service overseas; all claims under such insurance scheme being paid by the city. The total number of death claims paid by the city was 4.904-which cost the city $4,378,020.
To be eligible for the insurance, a soldier had to have lived in the city two years, and a great many had not lived there that long and therefore did not qualify for the insurance. Another qualification was that they had to have someone dependent upon them. The report goes on to say:
The cost of guards for protection of city properties, that is, water works pumping stations, sewage disposal plants, et cetera, during the war 1914-1918 totalled $442,000. No contribution to such cost was made by the federal government.
Re protection of city properties since war was declared September 3, 1939. The expenditures from September 3 last to date-approximately 12 weeks-has cost the city approximately $88,000.
In this connection let me point out that if they had not enlisted for this tvar many of our soldiers who have been killed on the highways would have been alive to-day, and they get no pension at all when they are killed in an accident, even though they have a pass from Camp Borden and are on military duty. A moral responsibility rests on the nation to insure the soldier against road accidents. Insurance could be taken out for 25 cents a week. Some of the insurance companies in this country are trying to push the sale of insurance to soldiers, using as an argument that they may be disabled and prevented from purchasing insurance on their return from the war. After the last war insurance was made available to our soldiers, and I think the government should make a statement of its policy in this regard. Mr. Finlayson, superintendent of insurance, in a letter to me said with reference to my proposal for government insurance of enlisted men:
Our conclusion is that the government's obligation to returning men and to the dependents of men dying in the service can best be discharged through the provisions of the Pension Act, which deals with the claims of soldiers or dependents in accordance with the need and the facts of the particular case. Government schemes of insurance are necessarily of general application and result in unnecessary insurance in some cases and entirely inadequate amounts in others. The result is that, notwithstanding such insurance, the pension problem remains in practically undiminished importance and, since the needs must be met in part by the pension provision, it is preferable to deal with the whole problem in that way. The further arguments which
War Appropriation Bill

have seemed to us to inevitably lead to this conclusion need not be stated here, but I shall be glad to discuss them with you after you arrive in Ottawa, if you so desire.
We should have a national scheme of insurance for soldiers which would also provide for the soldier when he comes back from the war, provide against lack of employment, reconstruction days, disability and many other hazards. It would effect an economy.
The United States had a system of soldier insurance during the great war. I think the amount of the insurance was $5,000, and with the premium charge that was made for it, this scheme was found to effect a great economy in their pension bill. I have a letter here from Mr. Stimson, Secretary for War in the United States, enclosing a copy of their new national insurance scheme for soldiers. I have received a great many applications for copies of it and I would ask the minister to allow it to be placed on the record; it is only three or four short pages long. It shows the present national scheme of insurance for soldiers in the United States. Have the ministers any objection to allowing the members to see this national scheme of insurance? It is contained in circular No. 125 from the War Department, Washington, approved by the president, dated October 31, 1940.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that long documents of that kind should be placed on Hansard. If the hon. gentleman thinks he would like to have the members of the committee see it, I would have no objection to having it appear in Votes and Proceedings. Why not have it mimeographed for circulation among the members?


Thomas Langton Church: I have about concluded what I had to say. I want to refer in closing to some economies that could and should be effected in view of the large war appropriation that is now before the committee. First, I think a considerable economy could be effected by transferring some of the war staffs to accommodation available in Hamilton, Toronto and other cities. I raised this matter last year on two or three occasions.
I would also ask the Minister of Finance to consider a national moratorium under the War Measures Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I might interrupt the hon. gentleman, I think upon further consideration that to have the document he referred to printed in the records of the house is not the proper thing to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It cannot be done in committee anyway.
fMr. Church.]


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman could, perhaps, have it mimeographed and circulated among the members. I think that is the best thing. I do not like to have a precedent created of having substantial documents like that included, unread, in the official records of the house. If we once started to do it, there would be no end to it.


Thomas Langton Church: I could give the Minister of Finance the letter which I got, the rules and regulations, and the whole proceedings, and probably he could have it published for the. benefit of hon. members, apart from this speech altogether, if necessary, or move that it be (printed, under the rules of the house. I have no help to do it myself. I do not want to ask any favours. I have never in my life asked for a favour except one, which was refused, and I said I would never ask for another. Others, even ministers, place pages on Hansard, and essays have been placed on Hansard to-day. I repeat that I do not want any favours, and if letting hon. members know what is done elsewhere is a favour I say no; I would rather not have it. I have no time to read it or help to print it myself.
As I was saying, I believe that the principle of the War Measures Act has been extended to rents. It should be extended to cover shark small loan companies, and their rates curtailed. The other day I was in a building where there were a number of soldiers, poor women and children complaining that this act had not been enforced. It should be enforced, and there should be a national moratorium all along the line on interest mortgage rates, as I proposed last June, to five per cent.
One other matter. I understand that the Minister of Munitions and Supply has established a national industrial commission, with offices and staff, no doubt, at a large cost. I should like to find out what are their functions and duties, and the estimated cost of the commission. Does it aim at decentralization of industry, and how, or regulation of location? Who is asking for such a board, and on whose advice has it been decided to establish it? Will all letters, correspondence and other data relating thereto be tabled? What are the factors which determine a proper plant location? Has the minister or have his officials passed any rules or regulations in this respect, and, if so, what are they? From the experience I have had, I may say that there are more than adequate sources of information and advice in this country to assist any competitive industry which seeks a location. Decentralization is a meaningless term as applied to industry. It has been proved in

War Appropriation Bill
the United States and in Canada that the simple laws of supply and demand of labour, materials and markets are constantly adjusting the location of competitive industry to its most advantageous area. When these laws are interfered with, nothing but trouble results.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would remind the hon. gentleman that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has not gone past his time. He has been interrupted, and under the rules he is entitled to that time.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to read just two short sentences.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member has not been interrupted at all. Nobody has said a word. He asked a question of the minister. There is no reason why he should not go on, but do not say that he has been interrupted.


Thomas Langton Church: I will add only one sentence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly.


Thomas Langton Church: A competitive industry which is mal-located can only exist through subsidy, and the problem of calculating that subsidy is so complex that it cannot be done accurately. If this organization plans to "direct" industry to certain localities, I may say that I do not believe in it. Anyone who has spent any time in this kind of work will testify that the factors which decide a proper plant location are so numerous and vary to such a degree between industries that wide practical experience is needed before even an intelligent opinion can be given.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I want to say a very few words in reply to the criticism by the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) of certain statements made by me in this chamber on Monday last. But before doing that, I will make two observations. First, I wish to tell the minister that in raising the points which I put forward on Monday I had no other thought than to help to promote the greatest cooperation among the various forces in the country, in order that victory may crown our efforts. Second, I wish to tell the minister that I did not by any means exhaust the resources I could draw upon to establish more firmly, if necessary, the points I raised on that occasion.
I think the minister's criticism of yesterday was exceedingly weak. The first point he raised was that I had proposed or suggested the amalgamation of the Department of Labour
with the Department of Munitions and Supply.
I did nothing of the kind. What I did suggest was that the Department of Munitions and Supply should keep its hands off the affairs of the Department of Labour, and I told the Minister of Labour that he ought to be master in his own house. If the information I have from various labour organizations is correct, it is there that the chief difficulty between the Department of Labour and labour organizations at the present time exists. If the minister had taken note of the criticism made in this regard at the trades and labour congress convention at Vancouver in September last, he would realize, as I believe he does, that strong exception is taken by organized labour throughout the country to the interference by the Department of Munitions and Supply in matters which are purely within the province of the Department of Labour.
The minister indicated a number of ways in which, in his opinion, the government is cooperating with labour. He first mentioned that the government had set up the war-time prices and trade board. What connection has that with cooperation with labour? We all know the purposes of the establishment of that board, and certainly it was not created just to benefit the labour movement.
He then referred to the number of positions given to labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Surely that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. The posts which were allotted to labour under that act represented merely the division of the administrative positions as between employers and labour. That is definitely provided for in the act; it was in the act of 1935; and it is irrelevant for the minister to bring up the matter at this time in order to try to throw discredit on the points I raised.
Then he went on to say that Tom Moore, president of the trades and labour congress, would be offered the chairmanship of the national employment committee which is to be created by the unemployment insurance commission. I am sure that I am as pleased as is the minister that such an appointment is intended for Mr. Moore, because I do not know of any man more capable than he is to discharge the duties of that office, and I hope he can see his way clear to take it. But it is a matter which has nothing to do with the questions I raised on Monday.
He then referred to order in council No. 2685, passed in June, in which the government laid down the principles which it maintained should obtain as between employers and employed. The position which labour takes in this matter is that employers do not pay any attention whatever to those principles, and even the government itself, when doing certain
War Appropriation Bill

works, forgets that it passed the order. As a matter of fact, last summer the government abrogated the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act on a certain work after passing this order and without consulting in any way with the labour supply council. I pointed that out in the house last November. Last Monday I quoted from the Canadian Congress Journal, showing that what I was saying was not merely my own opinion but the opinion of those who were in a position to speak for labour. Let me read the last paragraph of an editorial in which reference to the national labour supply council is made. This is from the Canadian Congress Journal of February, 1941:
The weakness of the national labour supply council is that it has not been allowed to function as a planning body, but instead, merely called upon to give an advisory opinion, many times at extremely short notice, on measures already prepared by others. To be of real use, workers' representatives should be placed in a position where they can contribute from their experience toward the shaping of policies and not be called into consultation only after the course of action has been decided upon.


Mr. McLARTY:: Would the hon. member permit a question? How does he reconcile that statement with the fact that the national labour supply council on its own initiative and of its own volition called a meeting of the construction industry in Canada early in February of this year, if it is not a planning body?


Angus MacInnis: First, this is not my statement. Second, I would assume that the Canadian Congress Journal would know what it was talking about when it made this statement. If there has been a solitary case of consultation on their owu initiative, the exception only proves the rule. I have been watching the relations between the government and the national labour supply council ever since it was set up; I have been more or less in touch with some of those who are on it, and if I may be allowed to use a homely simile to express what I think of it, the relation seems to me something like a number of gentiles inviting a Jew to lunch and giving him pork chops. He has to do the best he can in the circumstances; he has to cut off the fat and other things to make them as palatable as possible to his psychological stomach and then either eat them or throw them out of the window. That is the position of labour in fifty per cent of the cases with the national labour supply council. As the editorial states, they are called into consultation only after the course of action has been decided upon.
I have in my hand an article by A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, on the government's wage policy.

This article appeared in the Canadian Unionist of January, 1941. There was so much criticism of order in council 7440, that the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour decided it was necessary to reply and show the position that labour was really in. He stated:
I feel therefore that it would be desirable to explain why the order in council was approved, and why I believe that if properly applied it will be helpful rather than harmful to the interests of the workers. We should all realize that very great pressure is being used by certain interests in Canada at the present time to rob organized labour of its hard-won rights and to prevent it from extending its organization. It is therefore possible-
I ask hon. members to note this.
-that had not this order in council been approved, something very much more severe and harmful to the interests of the workers might have been passed.
In other words, A. R. Mosher, who, I believe, is a member of the national labour supply council, was handed the pork chop and he realized that if he did not eat it he might be given dog.
Then reference was made to the question of the turnover at the Malton plant. I gave certain figures, the result of an investigation,- not official-made of conditions in the Malton plant. I am sure that if I read even half of that report, it would create a furore throughout the country. The point is, however, it is admitted that labour conditions in the Malton plant are such that they are interfering with production. That is something that the minister cannot gloss over. Speaking in this committee on February 28, the Minister of Munitions and Supply made some reference to the Malton plant, and he was asked these questions, as reported on page 1137 of Hansard:
Mr. Coldwell: Does the minister not think that the big labour turnover in Malton is a factor ?
Mr. Howe: Certainly it is. It is a reflection on something.
Mr. Coldwell: Can the minister tell us why there is such a large turnover?
Mr. Howe: I cannot. We have been trying without success to find out the reason. In 1936, there was practically no aeroplane industry in Canada; I suppose it was employing less than one thousand men; to#-day it is employing twenty thousand.
Mr. Maclnnis: Did the minister approach the employees at Malton to try to get their point of view?
Mr. Howe:	No, I have enough trouble
approaching the management.
That, as I said the other day, gives an insight into this whole matter of employer-labour relations as far as the government's attitude is concerned. When the Minister of Labour wanted to get further information, he merely asked the company what the turnover was and they said so much per cent, but only for the last six months.

War Appropriation Bill


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is what the hon. member referred to, the turnover in the last, six months.


Angus MacInnis: I beg pardon; I did not say the last six months.
Then the minister referred to the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment company and my criticism of conditions at this plant. I pointed out that the employees had a number of grievances, regarding sanitary conditions, the seven-day week and the eight-hour day with only fifteen minutes off for lunch, the question of intimidation of workers because of trade union activities


Norman Alexander McLarty: In connection with the hon. member's statement that he did not refer to the last six months, I refer to Hansard, page 1364. If he is not correctly reported he should correct it in Hansard. He is reported as saying:
The dissatisfaction in the Malton plant, where in six months there was a labour turnover of from seventy-five to ninety per cent, is not exceptional, but for the turnover figures.
It is a specific reference to the six months, to which, in my reply, I in turn referred.


Angus MacInnis: I said "in six months".


Norman Alexander McLarty: I took that to be the last six months.


Angus MacInnis: The minister knows there is quite a difference; he would not let a thing like that stand against him for a moment in a court of law. There is quite a difference between "in six months" and "in the last six months."


Norman Alexander McLarty: Is the hon. member
referring to another six months, rather than the last six months?


Angus MacInnis: I was referring to the
information I had at the time. As a matter of fact, I had it before the house met in November, but the whole position was so serious that, in view of the situation, we decided to leave the matter for the time being, in the hope that perhaps it could be approached in some other way.
Then there was the question of the company entirely disregarding the regulations of the government re wages. The minister adroitly sidestepped all the major issues; he referred to the matter of sanitary conditions and said that that was under provincial jurisdiction, and of course this government could not do anything about it. I am getting rather tired of this buck passing with regard to what the government may or may not do. I wish to tell the minister and the government that they have complete control and complete power in the matter of war contracts and
government contracts generally. They give a contract; they can stipulate the conditions and wages which must be observed under that contract. In the United States they are imposing upon industrial organizations as a condition of getting any contract, that the company concerned must live up to the provisions of the Wagner labour act. Just recently the Henry Ford company was refused a contract to supply $10,000,000 worth of equipment until such time as it would agree to respect the conditions imposed in the Wagner act.
Then the minister referred to the matter of finger-printing at the Fairchild plant. I have letters from employees in this plant, but I am not going to take time to place them on record because the matter has already been discussed. The minister said that the finger-printing had been done, all right, but that it was voluntary. Surely he is not so naive as to think anything remains voluntary when a man has to have a job in order to live. Just supposing that the minister and I, if we were capable of doing that sort of work, went to the Fairchild plant, filled out application forms, were accepted and told to go to work; then the person taking our application said, "Well, Mr. McLarty, Miss Jones will take your fingerprints."
Mr. MeLARTY: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman again, but perhaps his remark is made as the result of a misunderstanding for which I do not blame him, because the report in Hansard was not one as complete as that I intended to give. The purpose of the finger-printing at the Fairchild plant, I am informed by the manager and I have not gone into it further, was that in the event of sabotage or accident, in connection with men badly injured or perhaps killed, this was the best method of their identification. Let me be fair about it. I do not think the hon. member would draw that deduction from my remarks as reported in Hansard, and in that event perhaps it is my fault; but finger-printing is for that purpose. It is not for any policing purpose; it is a purely voluntary undertaking, providing a convenient method of identification in the event of injury or death as the result of sabotage. I do not, however, blame my hon. friend for taking the meaning that he has taken.


Angus MacInnis: I am quite willing to
accept the minister's explanation; and, although usually I do not like to see people hard-boiled, I am glad he did not take the other point of view. But suppose it is for that purpose; why have a voluntary fingerprinting policy or system? If it is to be of

War Appropriation Bill

any value at all, it should be compulsory. After all, in the case of sabotage the man who intended to commit sabotage would refuse to have his finger-prints taken, while the man who did not care, the man whose heart and mind were open, would say, "I am quite willing to have my finger-prints taken; it does not matter." The voluntary idea does not really stand at all.
Then there was the matter of the application for the board at the plant of the National Steel Car Corporation. I am quite aware of the circumstances mentioned yesterday by the minister, and I believe and know that his department has done and is doing excellent work in settling difficulties that arise between employers and their working staffs. There is not the slightest doubt in the world that this is so. I think under the late Mr. Rogers great advances were made in that direction, and I hope and believe that the work done by him is being carried on under the present minister. But in order to support my point I should like to quote again from the memorandum presented to this government by the Canadian Congress of Labour on February 14, 1941. Under the heading "The Right of Association," section 5 of the memorandum states:
The congress desires to commend the government for its action in setting forth in order in council P.C. 2685 a statement of principles for the regulation of labour conditions during the war. . . .
I am not completing that sentence; the remainder is not important. I want to point this out, however, so that I may not be accused of taking something from its context. That is perfectly satisfactory, and I am in agreement with it. Then the memorandum goes on:
It is pointed out, however, that many employers, including those who have obtained huge war orders from the government, are refusing to respect these principles, and are using every means in their power to prevent the workers from being organized. They are unwilling to meet committees representing their employees, and endeavour in many instances to set up so-called "company unions" under tlieir control, in direct contravention of the principles quoted above. At its convention in September last, the congress approved a resolution that the government be asked to use its authority under the War Measures Act to ensure that its labour policy be observed by all employers in their relationships with their workers.
Then section 7 goes on:
The difficulties involved in enforcing the principles enunciated by the government upon recalcitrant employers are recognized, but so long as no action is taken to insist upon their acceptance, the order in council is of little or no value to the workers, who are themselves carefully observing it. The congress urges especially that the government enforce these principles in all government-controlled plants,
FMr. Maclnnis.l
and under all government contracts. It is obviously inconsistent that plants or industries which are controlled by the government should be permitted openly to disregard the order in council, and that contracts are awarded to notorious anti-labour firms.
There the minister has the attitude of organized labour with regard to the matters with which I dealt. This does not imply that there are not decent employers. I have worked for employers myself, not very many, and I never worked for one who did not treat me decently. But, as the minister knows, the manager of the National Steel Car Corporation used every means within his power to make the appointment of a board impossible. The minister said, when he was speaking yesterday, that even when I spoke on Monday the board had made the appointment. Let me draw to his attention the debate which took place on Monday, March 10, part of which is reported at page 1369 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. McLarty:	That is not correct. The
management did not refuse. The machinery for taking the vote could not be set up in time to take it on Saturday.
Mr. Maclnnis: Well, according to my information, he was there at eleven o'clock in the morning.
I was referring to the representative from the Department of Labour.
Mr. McLarty: Yes, but they had to prepare the lists.
Mr. Maclnnis: They had to get the lists, but Mr. Hart was insisting on the lists of the employees who had come into the plant since February 3.
Mr. McLarty: Yes, there was some dispute about that.
The fact .of the matter was that Mr. Hart would not allow the vote to be taken inside the plant.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps I ought to clear up that point. What the hon. member has said, and his quotation of my observations, are quite correct. I believe it was about noon on Monday when the company waived the taking of the vote, and when the registrar ordered the setting up of the board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. There was a complete waiver; no vote whatsoever was taken. I cannot give the exact moment, but my recollection is that it was about noon.


Angus MacInnis: It is not of great importance whether or not the company had waived the taking of the vote at that particular time. But I spoke in the house about 3.30 p.m. on Monday, and at 6 p.m. of the same day the representative of the employees of the National Steel Car company was advised that the board was to be set up. On Monday morning the labour representative on the board

War Appropriation Bill
was advised of his appointment as one of the members of the board. Those facts I believe speak for themselves.
The minister then referred to the personnel application form which I had placed before the house on Monday. Surely that was something of sufficient importance to bring to the attention of the house and the country, to show the people of Canada what employers of labour were asking their employees to sign. As a matter of fact, they were asked almost to sign their lives away. The minister read his letter to the Richardson company-


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; to International Metal Industries, Limited.


Angus MacInnis: The minister is a kindly man, and I assure him I appreciate that fact. But I wish he had been a little more harsh when he wrote to these people. I should like to have seen him address them as he did me yesterday. Had he done so, I believe he would have met the situation very well. I should like to read the last paragraph of his letter to the company which was asking its employees if they believed in the competitive system, to what political parties they belonged, and whether or not they were socialists. This is what the minister wrote:
By order in council 2685 of June 19, 1940, copy enclosed, the government laid down certain principles designed to establish and maintain good relations between firms engaged in the execution of war contracts, and their work people. Whether a firm is engaged partly, exclusively, or not at all on war contracts, it cannot but be detrimental to the war effort as a whole if the principles laid down are disregarded as has been the case in connection with the use of the "personnel record" form referred to above. I hope you will see fit to amend this form and expunge that part of it which is provocative in character.
I suppose I ought to cultivate that kindly spirit which the minister exhibits; but when he addresses a company which would place an application form of the kind I have described before its intended or present employees, then I say he should say something more definite and direct than "I hope you will see fit", and that he should tell them in no uncertain way that as far as he was concerned, as a member of the cabinet he would use his utmost endeavours to see that a contract would not go to a company which treated its employees in that way.
The minister suggested that the points I raised could have been discussed directly with the Department of Labour. There are times- and I take advantage of them-when matters can best be taken up with the departments. But there are other times when grievances must be raised in this house, and this is one of those times. If another such grievance should come to my attention, I shall place it before
the house. The minister complained that 1 had not cooperated with him. He knows that if he brings to the house anything of a constructive nature, anything which will benefit the workers or the people of Canada, I will, as in the past, cooperate with him to the utmost limit.
I believe that is all I have to say. I am convinced employers in Canada are riding for trouble, unless they come to understand that the working class must have a definite part, an equal part, in the economic affairs of the country. Can they not see that the safety of the nation, the maintaining of democracy, depends upon the spreading of control and administration over as large a proportion of the people as possible.
A shattering revolution took place in Russia in 1917. That revolution came almost entirely because of the suppression of the common people in that country, the suppression of generations of peasants and workers by successive governments. In France the large employers of labour were hostile to their employees; the result w'as that communism was much more general in labour unions in that country than it was in Great Britain, where for generations labour organizations have been recognized. If we are going to have orderly political and economic development in this country-remember the world is moving and we have to move with it-then we must spread the administration and control of government from those at the top to the lowest person in the land. That is what I am interested in and that is what I am advocating in this house.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two general observations on the military situation as it exists to-day in Canada. In doing so, I find myself in a rather delicate position. Some of the information in my possession is of a semi-official or official nature, but I believe it my duty as a member of this house to bring it to the attention of the country. Furthermore, as a member of the opposition I believe I have a specific duty to perform. I should like, therefore, to deal briefly with the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on March 11. The proposed method of training and the organization and establishment of the Canadian army for this year, 1941, have found almost universal support in the army. As far as I am concerned, the support is complete. I should like to mention one or two specific things which the army considers to be of advantage.
I shall deal, first, with the matter of training in training centres rather than in battalions. In a training centre it is much easier to give
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: If the
hon. member will permit me, I made a statement yesterday with reference to the very thing he now mentions, but we could not get money voted through parliament to do those very things and that was the bottle-neck we were up against.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But these offers were
made in November and December, 1939. after war was declared. War was declared in September, and it was two months afterwards that these offers were made. We realized then that we were at war and certainly the Americans realized it, although there was still a tendency in the United States at that time to talk about a phoney war. But that was not our attitude in Canada.


William Alexander Fraser: I dealt
with that point yesterday, too, and said that at that time we were confronted with the insistency by the British air ministry that they would supply the engines for Canadian planes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Australians went ahead and did it themselves. If I have heard it said once in this chamber I have heard it practically every day, that we are a nation, a self-governing dominion. If we are, let us look after our own supplies. That is what we should have done before. We have talked about it, but that is all we have done. If we are going to be a nation let us be a nation, let us stand on our own feet and produce ourselves the things we want. I know it is difficult, but it should have been done then, and it must be done in the future.
I come to one further subject with regard to aircraft. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) mentioned a difficulty in the production of aircraft, namely, the number of changes which are made in certain types of planes. I believe he said that four hundred changes were made in the Bolingbroke bomber.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: I said, in one type of plane.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Any hon. member who has experience of industrial production knows that the first and most essential thing in any production line, whether the product be aircraft or mouse-traps, is continuous flow; that you must not have changes in models and type alterations in the assembly line. I understand that just the other day there was a case where the Royal Canadian Air Force officers said they wanted to add three and a half inches to the surface of a plane; I believe it was part of
War Appropriation Bill

the tail assembly. They had no idea of the difficulties which would be involved in that change.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They wanted to put nine pounds in there, too.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad that the hon. member is talking about the same thing. They have no idea what that means. I make this suggestion, and I should like to have the permission of the committee to put on Hansard a little chart to illustrate it. Before we can get substantial aircraft production in Canada, we must divorce production from operation. I suggest that there be created a director or minister of aircraft production. The man would have to be given authority. He could be made an air marshal and a brass hat put
in his room or the necessary stripes pinned on his door, but he would have to be given authority in the air force over the testing officers. On the operations side, there is the Minister of National Defence for Air, my hon. friend who is sitting on the government benches now. I make the specific suggestion that Mr. Ralph Bell be appointed director of aircraft production, and that under him be a production and an engineering branch, the latter including acceptance and testing by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Under the Minister of National Defence for Air should be the joint aircraft training plan, and the active service branch. On the production side the aircraft are produced, and when they are produced they are handed over to the operations branch to operate. The chart follows:



PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
Production	Engineering, including
Acceptance and Testing by R.C.A.F.

[Stage Direction]
Active
Service


[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation Bill
What the operations branch must do is to advise the production branch, "We want so *many aircraft; we want them of this type, and we want them to do this. You are the production branch, go ahead and produce them"-and leave it at that. Do not, halfway through the assembly line or part way through the maintenance say, "We want nine pounds more in the tail plane." Make your decision first, and produce that type of aircraft. The one really satisfactory unit of aircraft production that we have in Canada, the Canadian Car and Foundry company, are manufacturing aircraft for the British government. They were told, "We want this plane; you go and produce it," and they are producing it. We have not done that, and I suggest to the minister that production has lagged because of these changes and alterations in the course of manufacture; when production has got part way down the line the manufacturers are told that alterations are necessary, that something else is wanted.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I come now to a condition of expenditure. In my riding the largest industrial plant is the Anaconda American Brass company. They are, or were until a very short time ago, the largest and practically the only manufacturers of brass in Canada. Some time during the latter part of last year the Department of Munitions and Supply asked for tenders on a plant to produce 100 million pounds of brass sheet and rod a year. On this tender there were two bids, one from the Anaconda company and one from the Canada Wire and Cable company in Montreal. When the contracts were let, it turned out that the- Anaconda company had made a bid of $1,500,000 less than the bid actually accepted. There is now a discrepancy of S2.300.000 because, after the original contract was let, the demand for brass increased to such an extent that the government had to ask the Anaconda company to build a plant of the same size as it originally intended to build.
The Anaconda American Brass company have offered to run this government plant entirely and absolutely without fee. I understand from the information I have received that the Canada Wire and Cable company is charging a fee for the operation of their plant. Further than that, the Canada Wire and Cable company had never made brass 14873-96
sheets and rods before. They had to go to the Anaconda company in New Toronto and ask them, first, to help them with their layout of plant, and, further, to train men in their private plant-not in the government plant-in the manufacture of brass sheets and rods.
When this information was presented to me I naturally investigated the matter, because this concern is in my riding, a company that is vitally important to the welfare of York West, and one on whose lists there are to-day the names of some four thousand men wishing for employment. Therefore I assumed with my constituents who are members of this organization that the reason why the contract was given to the Canada Wire and Cable company could not be lack of labour in York West, because there is plenty of labour available there. Then I said, perhaps there is a power shortage in York West, so I inquired of the Ontario HydroElectric commission and officials of the company and found that ample power was available. But one of the members of the company said to me: "Yes, we had lots of power, but I understand that the Canada Wire and Cable company were guaranteed power and that the deal was put through by a Mr. Henry"-I think the name was-"who said there would be opportunity to get plenty of power from the Beauharnois company, they had a surplus of power, and that they could build their plant in Montreal."
The questions being asked in my riding to-day are these: Here you have a plant in Ontario that makes an original bid $1,500,000 lower than the bid which was accepted; you have a company that offers to operate the government-owned plant without fee, and that, a company which knows the business. My constituents come to me and ask, "Is the government getting value for the money in this matter?"
Here is a discrepancy; when Anaconda company were asked to build a plant which they say will produce 120 million pounds of brass sheets and rods, they were held to their original contract, whereas the Montreal plant, I find in the minister's statement, bid for a plant of 100 million pounds capacity and are charging $2,300,000 more for approximately the same size plant.
This is a serious matter, and one which this committee and the special committee which is set up to investigate war expenditures should investigate. But another matter has been brought to my attention. The suggestion was made to a very high official of the Anaconda American Brass company that he should increase the price one cent a pound so that

War Appropriation Bill

the Canada Wire and Cable company would be able, or the government would be able, to write off this plant in Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is making
serious allegations. Is he able to prove what he is saying?


Agar Rodney Adamson: This is a matter that has been given to me-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I trust my hon. friend will be prepared to repeat his allegations before the committee he mentions. I will see that he is called personally.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I shall be prepared. The information was given to me by a person whose name I am not prepared to reveal to this committee.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member does
not have to, either.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend made a suggestion as to who gave him the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; he
said he had the information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He mentioned the source.


Agar Rodney Adamson: My constituents, many
of whom are employed at this plant-


Clarence Decatur Howe: From my intimate knowledge of the whole situation I would say that the facts and information given by the hon. member are erroneous, and his innuendo about the Beauharnois company is wholly false.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is interesting, but it is not the information I have received from sources which I believe to be entirely reliable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member mentioned that he got the information from the Anaconda company, did he not?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am not speaking for the Anaconda company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will communicate with the Anaconda company to-morrow and see just how much information my hon. friend got from it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I shall be very glad if the minister does so, and I should be interested to see the reply he gets.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say this with regard to our war effort. At the present time we are in complete agreement with the British war office, which is a very happy state of affairs. Had we shown this same cooperation in the past, there is no doubt now what the results would have been.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I must say that this report by Mr. H. R. MacMillan contains a tremendous amount of meat and should give the Department of Munitions and Supply a great deal to think about. I wonder what has been done to implement this report up to the present time.
I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser) yesterday afternoon. He suggested, as did the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), that it would be a good thing if members of this house visited some of the plants engaged in war work. I have visited several of these plants, but I have an idea just how much information an ordinary member would get, and how difficult he would find it to ascertain whether or not the plant was operating properly, whether or not it was doing its best, and so on. He would have a great deal of difficulty in finding out these things, I believe, unless he was given the information by the management, and in many of these plants the management is rather diffident about giving out such information. Hon. members here have to depend upon information which they receive from various people interested in certain industries.
To-night I should like to say a few more words about the aircraft industry, to the early difficulties of w'hieh the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, referred yesterday. He felt that the industry was entitled to some sort of defence, and I agree. When we consider the difficulties with which aircraft production in Canada has been faced; when we consider all that is necessary in order to produce aeroplanes, some of which have fifty thousand parts, the aeroplane manufacturers of this country are to be commended for what they have achieved. They should be praised also for their initiative and foresight in connection with various enterprises. We all know that this is a mushroom industry, with very little background, as the United States: expert said, although some of these plants did have some experience.
Two or three matters come to mind in connection with the production of aeroplanes in Canada. We must give credit to Associated Aircraft for the vision, foresight and perseverance they showed as far back as 1938. We also know that the industry has been hampered because of difficulties in securing certain secret processes and patents and designs. I know that in 1937 one concern, having in mind that at some future time it might become difficult to obtain a certain alloy which was essential in the manufacture of aeroplanes, put experts to work and discovered

War Appropriation Bill
the composition, of this alloy. To-day the whole industry is reaping the benefit of the work done by that company. I mention this incident in order to show that some firms in Canada have at least some little background along this line. Certainly they all have more background and more experience than Federal Aircraft. Considering everything, I believe these older firms have done fairly well, and it might be a good idea for the government to have a few conferences with them and follow some of their recommendations.
Most of us are greatly disappointed because the production of aeroplanes in this country has not been up to schedule, but there have been many difficulties in connection with designs, in getting parts, in obtaining machine tools, and so on. The minister said that in some instances the output of finished planes was very disappointing indeed. During the course of his remarks he said he thought they should have done better, and I believe he suggested that 'in certain instances the management was not all that it should be. While there may have been some faults on the part of the management, I do not think the minister has been quite fair. Is it not a fact that there is a multiplicity of control over supplies, over inspection and over the delivery of component parts, matters which are beyond the jurisdiction of the contractors themselves? It is directly the responsibility of some department of government to see that these things are delivered. Those are matters which are beyond the control of the contractors.
There are three separate authorities in the administration of aircraft construction. There are three separate authorities interested in checking costs. There were two separate gov-erment inspection organizations; I do not know whether that has been changed. There are three separate groups active in obtaining materials and equipment. All of the above are in addition to the organization of the contractor who, under any circumstances, must operate under each of the above sections.
I have in my hand a partial list of aircraft contracts in progress in Canada. This partial list illustrates clearly the question of control, and I should like to place it on Hansard. The list of aircraft, and the comments, are shown in the accompanying table.
It will be noted that in respect of the Noorduyn Aviation Company Limited, Mr. MacMillan said, in his report, that the manufacturing technique of that plant is the farthest advanced of any plant in Canada, and that unless they are held up by the nonreceipt of ordered material or components, they will complete their contract. He gives them a good record. However, the multiplicity of control with respect to some of the M873-96}
others is easily seen in the list I have placed on record. It is apparent that in some instances production is not as good as it might be, and I am wondering whether that multiplicity of control has anything to do with that condition.
As I said earlier, it is at once apparent that where there was simple control there was good progress, but where control was complicated the progress was not as good. Is it not fundamental that the only service required from the aircraft industry is the reasonably economic production of aircraft, with all possible speed? Normal activities are necessarily divided into two main requirements: (1) the operation of aircraft production plants involving the fabrication of raw materials and their assembly with aircraft equipment and accessories into complete aircraft, by the use of labour and (2) an assured flow of all supplies required by the production plants. These supplies comprise raw materials, aircraft equipment and accessories, production equipment and labour sufficiently trained to be readily absorbed in the work. Then, to operate under wartime emergency conditions, a third requirement becomes essential, namely, the coordination of the industry to form a unit of production, in order to obtain and make possible efficiency in output.
Under normal conditions a contractor undertakes, as his function of management, the fulfilment of the first two requirements. But with the present demand for very rapid expansion if the contractor-management is permitted free access to the various markets involved, the industry will suffer from uneconomical distribution of supplies, leading directly to decreased gross production and increased gross cost. Also, a general scramble for contracts instead of allocation of work means overloading of the successful scramblers, and something less than full use of other facilities. The function of management can be fulfilled most efficiently by the operation of each plant on productive work for which it is best suited, and if the supply problem is undertaken by the government, the full energy of management can be concentrated on plant operation and supervision of labour.
With the present congestion of markets for all aircraft materials and production equipment, efficient operation is possible only by authoritative coordination and allocation of the available supplies, while training of labour can best be centralized and controlled by direct governmental action. It will be clear that a vigorous reorganization of the control of the aircraft industry is badly needed.

Partial List of Aircraft Construction Contracts in Progress in Canada
October 14, 1940
Company
Canadian Car & Foundry
Contract
Administration of contract by
Contract subject to costs cheek by
Inspection
jurisdiction
Materials and equipment obtained by
Anson-(English conversion) ....
Ottawa Car & Aircraft
Limited	Anson
Hampden
Harvard	. D.M. & 8	. D.M. & S	R.C.A.F	Contractor and D.M. & S.Hurricane	. B.A.P.M	.. BA.P.M	A.I.D. (British)....	. Contractor and B.A.P.M.Hampden	. C.A.A	.. B.A.P.M	A.I.D. (British)....	C.A.A.Anson	. Federal	. Federal & D.M.	& S.	R.C.A.F	Contractor, Federal & D.M. & S.Stranraer 	. D.M. & S	.. DM. & S	R.C.A.F	. Contractor and D.M. & S.Hampden	. C.A.A	.. B.A.P.M	A.I.D. (British) ....	. C.A.A.Anson	. Federal.	.. Federal & D.M.	& 8.	R.C.A.F	. Contractor.Bolingbroke	. DM. & S. 	.. D.M. & S	R.C.A.F	. Contractor and DM. & S.Hampden	. C.A.A	.. BA.P.M	A.I.D. (British)	. C.A.A.Tiger Moth	. D.M. & S	.. DM. & S	R.C.A.F	. Contractor and D.M. & S.Anson	. Federal-	.. Federal & D.M.	& 8.	R.C.A.F	. Contractor, Federal & D.M. & S..	. D.M. & S	.. DM. & S	R.C.A.F	. Contractor and D.M. & S.Hampden 	. C.A.A	.. B.A.P.M	A.I.D. (British)....	. C.A.A.Anson	. Federal	& 8.	R.C.A.F	. Contractor, Federal & D.M. & S.Fleet 	..D.M. & S	.. DM. & S	R.C.A.F	. Contractor and D.M. & S.Hampden 	.. C.A.A	. .B.A.P.M	A.I.D. (British) . ...	. C.A.A.t Anson-Canadian ..	. Federal-	.. Federal & DM.	& S.	R.C.A.F	. Contractor, Federal & D.M. & S.
D.M. & S. ..
D.M. & S.
, R.C.A.F.
, Contractor and D.M. & S.
, Federal	Federal & D.M. & S.. R.C.A.F	
, C.A.A	B.A.P.M	A.I.D. (British) .
. Contractor, Federal & D.M. & S. . C.A.A.
a



w
Abbreviations used above are:
D.M. & S.-Department of Munitions and Supply.
B.	A.P.M.-British Air Purchasing Mission.
C.	A.A.-Canadian Associated Aircraft Limited.
A.I.D. (British)

Aircraft Inspection Detachment, British. Federal-Federal Aircraft Limited.
War Appropriation Bill

War Appropriation Bill
There should be one strong central authority, such as a minister of aircraft production, to replace the various existing authorities. While I am on that point, if we are going to look into the future of Canada's aircraft production, now is the time to set up what I here recommend. From what I know of Mr. R. P. Bell, and what I have heard from the industry, I have the highest regard for him, and I believe him to be a very fine chap. He is well thought of by the industry in general and he probably would make a good man. I certainly think we should have something of this kind. This would result in the elimination of the Canadian Associated Aircraft Limited and Federal Aircraft Limited in their presently constituted forms. I do not think it would require any great change. It would probably involve moving the engineering division of the Department of National Defence for Air to the new ministry. I think we can easily understand the delay which has been caused by the Department of National Defence for Air. They want to have everything up to the last minute. As the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) said a few moments ago, sometimes these changes may mean restressing the plane from head to tail. The closest coordination should exist in that respect.
Whet do we need most in Canada to-day? Pilots are what we want. Planes are what we need to produce them. The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) is quoted by the Globe and Mail of February 5, as saying:
We know exactly how many thousands we want and we know exactly when we want them, so we ask them to come forward and be assured they will be told when they are required.
He said that in some training schools three advanced training planes were doing the work of four because there had been delays in the Canadian production of these planes. The minister then went on to say:
Unfortunately I do not know why it has not been possible to produce these planes on schedule and I am not in a position to judge the delays, but one exasperated officer did tell me the other day that there are some manufacturers who were either damn fools or damn liars.
Why was that statement made? The minister wanted to impress the people of Canada with the necessity for airmen. Then in his speech he warned the people against complacency. But this is the part I do not like- he tried to throw the blame for the lack of aeroplanes upon the shoulders of the manufacturers. The industry did not promise, or
if they did they made the promise under certain conditions-they wanted an adequate supply of material and component parts.
What type of plane is it most necessary to have in Canada? Should we build fighters or advanced trainers? What is the necessity in this country at the present time? What is the policy? How can it be arrived at,.. unless by having some form of ministry such as I have just outlined? There should' be some central control to study this problem from time to time. I am told that a great many of the delays which have taken place in the past are on account of the failure of government agencies to do their part. It is this failure which has caused so much anxiety in the industry, and which caused them to make the recommendations they did on January 7, at the request of the acting minister (Mr. Macdonald). It seems to me that drawings for the Anson should be prepared by now. They have had a long time to prepare them. It seems to me that some parts should be under way.
When the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) returned from England he sent out to the industry a letter of which we all have heard. That letter contained three questions which it was absolutely impossible for the industry to answer fully in a letter. The only way those questions could be answered properly was in a conference, and they so stated. The first question was:
Will the taking of steps recommended in your opinion accelerate the production of Ansons in Canada and if so, to what extent?
They replied in the only way they possibly could by saying:
Our opinion is as expressed in our recommendations of January 7, that the Anson production can be expedited in the manner outlined.
As to the degree of acceleration which would take place, they said:
We have not sufficient information before us to answer this question with a proper degree of accuracy and-
Mark these words:
-further, complete study of the present production plans of Federal Aircraft Limited and the de Havilland Aircraft Limited would be necessary before the tempo of this acceleration could be ascertained.
They said there would be acceleration, but they could not forecast as to the tempo without a conference. It must be remembered that these men in the industry who replied in this manner were practical manufacturers who had been engaged in the industry for a considerable time. They were not representing a new company like the Federal Aircraft
War Appropriation Bill

That company was never intended to do anything but design, and it had not done that job at the time. I notice the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) carefully skated around the question which was asked by my leader last night as to whether he approved of Federal Aircraft. Much to my surprise he said that he did not know anything about it, and therefore he would not talk about it. How could a man who made the speech he made last night and who was in the industry not know more about it than he did? I am sure he did.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member cannot challenge the veracity of a statement made by another hon. member.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not intend to challenge any statement, and I beg the hon. member's pardon.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, said that he did not know and the hon. gentleman now says that he knows that the hon. gentleman knew. That is challenging the accuracy of a statement made by an hon. gentleman.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not intend to challenge the statement, and I apologize. As I said before, these men asked that a complete study be made. Was anything ever done toward having a complete study made? The third question was as follows:
As one of the contractors holding a subcontract for this production, what guarantee can you and your group give as to a date when substantial deliveries of Anson planes will he made, provided your recommendations are adopted?
How could they answer otherwise than they did? No guarantee of delivery dates could be given by the contractors because no schedule had been supplied by Federal Aircraft Limited to show when raw materials, A.G.S. parts, proprietary articles, castings, forgings and finished parts which were to be supplied by Federal would be available. How could they reply otherwise? The minister is reported on page 1128 of Hansard as follows:
. . . " it depends on a lot of things." Well, so it does, but at least in connection with Federal we know on what it depends; we know the situation; we know what we can do. We have had an expert look at it, and certainly he did not recommend upsetting Federal. Nor did our own men, who were charged with the duty of investigating the matter, recommend that the contract be taken away from Federal. Certainly I would have acted on very slender information if at that time I had proceeded, on the opinion of five firms, all subcontractors of Federal, to suspend Federal and put ourselves in the hands of these subcontractors.
Did the minister not stand on slender ground when he did not take the opportunity of having these round-table conferences for a

full discussion of the whole matter and take, as a matter of fact, the advice of the people who were in Federal and see the difficulties as they appeared to them? Certainly the minister should have had confidence in them. He said he was not going to be ganged-up on by his subcontractors, that he had never allowed that before and would not now. But subcontractors can sometimes be of great assistance to any contractor, as I think the minister knows. These men knew what they were up against. They knew the difficulties they were experiencing. They were clear-thinking, far-sighted men who were anxious to speed up the air training plan, and I am sure there was absolutely no intention of effronter}' on their part. Even at this late date I think the minister should call a conference of these men and get to the bottom of the matter.
The one thing that upsets us is that up to now performance has been bad. Can it be any better? Certainly that question should be looked into. I have been informed that there are certain parts of the Anson plane which are 10 or 15 per cent manufactured and possibly more, awaiting further plans, specifications and material. I am informed that certain plans go forward to the contractors, with a list of materials ordered for the construction of the parts. The contractors go over the list and find that many of the materials required have not been ordered. They write back asking for information as to whether these parts have been ordered and what delay may be expected. Sometimes they have not even received a reply to their letters, and in other instances they have been told, when they asked when they might expect delivery, "When you get it." That is a situation which must be corrected'.
Another difficulty is that there is a lack of technicians. Why not utilize the experience and the facilities of people who have been doing this work for so long? The main criticism has not been lack of production of a great many planes. The main criticism has been by the industry itself as to the prospect of producing Ansons.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply has a great deal on his shoulders. He has. as I said last fall in this house, altogether too much on his shoulders. He has tried to do too many things. He is the cabinet's liaison minister. He is general manager, minister and policy-maker in the most gigantic industrial programme Canada has ever undertaken. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is responsible for this situation continuing. The Prime Minister himself should take hold of this situation and insist that a great deal of the weight be taken off the shoulders of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I am

War Appropriation Bill
not the only one who thinks this should be done, and the blame lies both with the minister himself for trying to do as much as he is doing, and also with the Prime Minister for not taking action in this matter.


Mr. BRUCE:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the refusal of the Minister of Munitions and Supply to accede to the request of the leader of the opposition this afternoon to lay on the table of the house the MacMillan report to which he referred on March 10, I venture to make a few observations.
In his report appearing in Votes and Proceedings of February 27, Mr. MacMillan, under the heading of "Ships", and speaking of the progress being made in the production of ships, says:
Progress henceforth will depend upon (a) organization of expanded facilities, which can be done.
When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred to this matter in the house as reported in Hansard at page 1371, and challenged the minister with regard to this statement of Mr. MacMillan's, the minister replied:
I wish Mr. MacMillan would be a little more consistent, because I have a report on my desk from him to-day declaring that labour cannot be found to operate the shipyards to anything like capacity.
In view of the minister's statement and in spite of what he said this afternoon, I submit that, in fairness to Mr. MacMillan, and in order to allay public apprehension with regard to the unfair attitude of the minister, it is only proper that the report which Mr. MacMillan made to the minister on March 10 be laid on the table. Mr. MacMillan is accused of having made contradictory statements in reports submitted on January 27 and March 10 respectively. As the same time he is refused an opportunity either of defending himself or of having all of his reports made public.
May I suggest, with all respect, that it is the minister's duty to defend his own staff, who, by their oath of secrecy when a conflict of opinion arises, are not in a position to defend themselves. When the minister publicly chastises one of his chief executives in the person of Mr. MacMillan, chairman of the war-time requirements board, for inconsistency in reports which he has submitted to him-


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did I do that?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -the minister is raising in the public mind the suspicion that all is not well in the relationship between himself and Mr. MacMillan. One year ago the public were totally ignorant of the government's
intentions with regard to Canada's war effort. But to-day the public are aware not only of the issues involved but also of the fact that the government has fallen down badly in meeting the requirements of a total war effort. In addition, the result of the activities of the past year in relation to the vast sums of money expended and contracts let, has created a great deal of disappointment in the public mind. Is it any wonder, then, that there is widespread doubt and scepticism with regard to the efficiency of direction and the general effectiveness of the government's efforts?
The minister has raised the question of shortage of labour. May I call his attention to the fact that the present government was in power during the time when labour was rusting and rotting through lack of facilities which the government ought to have provided to enable these men to remain efficient. These men were not only unemployed, but forced by the complacency and lack of constructive measures of this government to become unemployables. Returned veterans in their forties and fifties are not the least among those compelled to remain idle during that period, and are now numbered among those who are termed "unemployable".
During this long period the government were lacking not only in inclination but also in vision, and made no effort, or no effective effort, to grapple with this problem. They contented themselves with providing mere sustenance for those hundreds of thousands who, through no fault of their own, were forced to accept charity, instead of the work they were eagerly seeking. The minister of munitions is now an apologist for the utter neglect of these unemployables by his own government during the three years before the war.
Now that they are looking for skilled men, the government have created machinery in the form of an unemployment insurance commission, having as its object the care of the unemployed during the period wherein there is an actual scarcity of skilled labour. May I recall the fact that a similar measure was enacted by the Bennett government in 1935. The present government, however, preferred to fight this act in the courts, even up to the privy council, to prove that it was unconstitutional, rather than do the obvious and proper thing which they should have done if they were sincerely interested in the welfare of the working man, namely, secure the consent of the provinces and the British government to make this act constitutional. At that time of unprecedented unemployment a measure such as this would have been of the
War Appropriation Bill

greatest value. In other words, the government are at least six years behind schedule- and we have heard a lot about "schedule" in this chamber.
There was also the problem of young men leaving school, for whom there was no vocational training adequate to fit them for a job requiring skill. What did the government do during this long period for these young men but allow them to walk the streets and become a social responsibility? I grant you, Mr. Chairman, that a slight effort was made in the youth training programme.
Does the national registration, recently taken at a cost of nearly one million dollars, give any assistance to the minister of munitions in his quest for persons who have had experience in shipbuilding? The national registration was taken after we had been at war for nearly a year.


Mr. GOLDING:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member what he is reading from?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am using some notes which I prepared myself.


James Layton Ralston: Since this afternoon.


Thomas Vien: The rule is well known that no speeches can be read to the house.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am not reading a speech; I am following my notes connectedly and consecutively.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is singing it.


Thomas Vien: I should, however, like to point out that great latitude has been allowed hon. members, and I think that, unless a point of order is raised, I will allow the hon. gentleman to continue.


William Henry Golding: So long as we know what he is reading from.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A piece of paper.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am reading from pieces of paper on which I have jotted down certain notes which I am following fairly closely so as not to waste the time of the committee.
I was speaking of the securing, through national registration, of the names of those who were capable of assisting at shipbuilding. Would this not be more important to us at this time than to have the names of those who can milk cows? I think it will be readily agreed as to which would be the more important.
In view of the great shortage of labour, what effort is the minister making to take care of this situation? Should steps not have been taken months ago to have young men trained for this purpose? Even now should
rMr. Bruce.]
not schools-technical schools-be opened where young men could be trained in shipbuilding and various other things, in connection with the manufacture of munitions, to qualify them in a few months time to take their proper place in war-time industry?
In its latest report, the dominion bureau of statistics gives a survey of education in Canada for 1938-40. According to that report there are sixteen degree-giving universities. In 1939, there were 35,087 men and 13,118 women students, or a total of 48,205 proceeding to a degree. The total number of students in 1939, however, including those taking fulltime, part-time, short courses, and evening courses, was 79,143 men and 37,599 women, or a total of 116,742. Surely the government should see the necessity of speedily providing facilities for the technical training of as many as possible of these young men and women, and as many as are needed to make up the deficiency in labour for munition plants. I believe I can confidently assure the government of the cooperation of the universities in giving their laboratories and other facilities for this purpose. I would suggest to the government that they ask the universities to advance their examinations this spring by one month so that these young men and women would be available by the first of April; and then, if conditions are so serious as to require their services in the autumn when the universities open, that they ask the universities not to open until this crisis passes. To my mind it is much more important that these young men and young women should be employed to the fullest extent in industry connected with the war than that they should be proceeding to a degree.
There is another class of students in the high schools and collegiate institutes, boys and girls over fifteen years of age. I have not been able to secure the total number of these students.


Charles Gavan Power: I will give them: 119,000 for 1935-36 in the secondary schools, excluding Quebec.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Thank you. According to the Minister of National Defence for Air, we have 119,000 boys and girls who would supply an emergency labour market. They could all be given intensive technical education. I am told that the technical schools in Toronto and elsewhere have the facilities for training many more students than come to them; but they require more teachers, and these teachers could be secured by certain exemptions from taking part in the present four months training plan.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word of commendation to the Minister of Munitions

War Appropriation Bill
and Supply, and to congratulate him for having secured the services of Mr. Joseph Pigott of Hamilton as head of the new government-owned company known as War-Time Housing Limited. Mr. Pigott is president of a very large construction company and has had wide experience in building of all kinds; he has exceptional organizing ability and is a man of the highest integrity. No better man could have been found for the job. I only regret to learn from the minister that this building project will be limited to war-time requirements and will not include the low rental housing plan recommended in appendix E to the Purvis report on unemployment, as these houses are so urgently needed. I trust, however, that the government will see the necessity for implementing this report as soon as the immediate requirements of the war are satisfied.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: In addressing this committee last Monday afternoon, I undertook to set forth some of Germany's methods of financing the war. Many people throughout Canada, and particularly in my province of Alberta, have been urging strongly that we should look to Germany and adopt some of her methods. I have, therefore, undertaken an examination of Germany's methods and wish to make a few more observations on them.
At that time I pointed out that in Germany more than one-third of the revenue, nearly one-half, was being raised by taxation, and quite a large part of the revenue has been raised by borrowing. They get a great deal of revenue by selling loot from countries that they have overrun. They are printing money very freely for use outside Germany in buying goods from the small nations that are afraid to refuse to sell goods to them. Within Germany their currency is fairly stable owing to fixed prices and control.
I now wish to read from the last report made by the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance. It is dated February, 1941. In this report the governor of the bank says:
The truth is that German monetary policy has not been unusual. It has been simply an easy money policy of the sort which has been followed in many countries during the past decade. In Canada, for example, between January, 1933, and August, 1939, the total volume of money (i.e. coin, notes and bank deposits) was increased by some $750,000,000. International comparisons of the volume of money cannot be pushed too far since the velocity of circulation is an important factor, but it may be worth noting that on a per capita basis, the increase in the volume of money was about the same in Canada as it was in Germany, over the pre-war period. As for 14873-97
the period since the war began, the available information suggests that the volume of money has been increased considerably less in Germany than it has been in Canada, on a per capita comparison.
A realistic appraisal of nazi monetary policy must, of course, take account of the very complete and rigorous system of direct controls which the rulers of Germany have imposed upon their people. For example, nearly every article of consumption is rationed, wage levels and farm prices are rigidly pegged down, and the operations of private business are "supervised" in minute detail. With such controls in operation, the immediate danger involved in an unduly large increase in the volume of money would obviously be less than it would be if the controls did not exist. The fact that the nazis did not resort to issuing new money on an exaggerated scale is all the more significant in view of the margin of safety which they might have expected their elaborate direct controls to provide.
The policies which have been described above are those followed within the reich. In the occupied territories, on the other hand, the nazis have used the printing press deliberately as a means of plundering those areas. Instead of seizing goods the Germans simply bought them, paying with newly printed notes, and the people were robbed of purchasing power by soaring prices. This refined method of looting tends to hide the nazis' responsibility for resulting scarcities, and bears most heavily on sections of the population least able to endure it, thus helping to disrupt the economy and destroy the unity of the conquered people.
Hitler and his economic advisers have been most careful to avoid anything in the nature of inflation within Germany. Observers who have visited Germany tell us that Germany is fearful of another inflation; the people remember only too well the great inflation of 1923 and are fearful of a repetition of it.
Nazi war economy is based upon two factors: one being efficient exploitation of German labour and industry, achieved through crushing taxation, forced loans and ruthless regimentation of labour and capital.
The people of Canada will stand for heavy taxation; they may stand for forced loans, but I doubt very much if they would stand for the ruthless regulation of labour and capital that prevails in Germany. The Minister of Finance, in discussing this matter on November 21 last, used these words:
The whole habits of thought of the Canadian people, the dislike of intensive and general government intervention in their personal transactions and private affairs, would make a universal system of price fixing and rationing, even if it were practicable in Canada, far more odious, I am satisfied, than a system of taxation and borrowing out of savings, which is the policy of this government. Every detail of our economic life would have to be controlled by someone sitting here in Ottawa.
I do not believe the people of Canada would stand for such rigid control.

War Appropriation Bill

The other factor in nazi war economy is an equally efficient and systematic exploitation of conquered countries, achieved by confiscation of foodstuffs, military supplies, raw materials and industrial facilities by forced labour and disguised robbery practised by the circulation of worthless currency. Hitler's first method is open to us if we are prepared to make the sacrifice; but currency inflation and social credit remedies have nothing to do with Hitler's success and can contribute nothing to our effort.


Mr. KUHL:: No doubt the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat intended his remarks, the last time he spoke, particularly for the benefit of the group with which I am associated, and no doubt he is expecting some comment from this comer. I think, however, it sufficient to say that I do not believe his argument needs any comment. I believe he has done a perfect job of refuting his own argument; consequently it requires no refutation from this corner. For example, the hon. member in his speech the other day suggested that we in this comer have advocated financial methods which do not involve increased taxation and increased borrowing. Then he proceeded to prove that Germany has used practically nothing but taxation and borrowing methods, and he drew his conclusion in this sentence:
Apart from taxation, most of Germany's financing has been done by borrowing.
I think it should be obvious to anyone that the hon. gentleman has refuted his own argument, and it requires no further comment. With regard, however, to the subject of the financial methods to be used in connection with Canada's war effort, if the hon. gentleman will keep his ears open I think I can supply him with all the information he desires as to the social credit point of view.
I dislike being critical, and I wish circumstances to-day were such that I would feel obliged to present the government with one verbal bouquet after another. I have, however, sat here patiently and have listened carefully to all the criticism that has been offered with regard to government policies, not only by the opposition but by supporters of the government as well; and I must say that, as a result, from the point of view from which I wish to discuss this measure, I cannot be anything but critical of the government's policy. I say that notwithstanding what was said the other night by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) with regard to the duty of members

of parliament to develop a war spirit and morale in this country of ours. At page 1442 of Hansard the minister made this statement:
We have a lot to be thankful for in this country, and very little to grouse about after all

I agree with the minister that we have a lot to be thankful for, and we are thankful. We in the opposition are just as thankful as the minister is, and I believe that applies to the people of Canada also. We admire the British people for the courage they have shown in meeting the dangers with which they are faced, and I am sure all the people of Canada will gladly make all the necessary sacrifices they may yet be called upon to make in this great struggle. Nevertheless I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that to compare conditions in Canada with conditions in Britain certainly is no answer to the criticisms that have been offered as to government policy. To say that we ought to be satisfied with unnecessarily unsatisfactory conditions in Canada because the British people are in daily fear of their lives is, in my opinion, illogical reasoning. To say that we ought to tolerate poverty and insecurity in the presence of not only potential but actual abundance in this country appears to me to be the height of inconsistency. I should like to tell the minister candidly that I think his basis of comparison is entirely wrong. What we should be comparing is the conditions that could obtain in this country as contrasted with those that do obtain to-day. I consider this the only fair basis of comparison.
The minister spoke of developing a war spirit and strengthening the morale of both the civil and soldier population of Canada. I agree entirely that this is essential; but surely it must occur to the minister that the most effective way of creating a stronger morale and war spirit is to see that the people of this country get justice. I am satisfied that if, in Canada, every available man-hour were being used, at remunerative wages, and if conditions were such as are physically possible, there would be very, very little by way of criticism of government policy, either from the people or from the opposition in this house.
So far as government policy is concerned, I believe there are some obvious inconsistencies in the statements which have been made by the various ministers, and I should like to draw attention to statements of policy by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). On several occasions we have heard

War Appropriation Bill
the Minister of Finance state that the only limit to be imposed upon Canada's war effort was the physical, mental and moral capacity of Canadians to bear burdens. I believe that is almost exactly the statement made by the minister. Personally I agree that this is the limit of what Canada can do. On the other hand we have the Minister of Munitions and Supply saying that we are unable to do certain things because we cannot afford the cost. As reported at page 916 of Hansard, when the matter of building ships on the Pacific coast was under discussion, in replying to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the Minister of Munitions and Supply made this statement:
No one is more anxious than I am to distribute plants, but when a study of plants is made, either for British account or for Canadian account, there are certain requirements that must be taken into consideration, and one of these is power-the source and the cost of power.
I am rather at a loss to understand what the Minister of Munitions and Supply means when he suggests that one point to be taken into consideration is "the cost of power." Surely he cannot mean that we are lacking in the physical cost required to set up power plants and to develop power. Obviously he must have had reference to the financial cost.
On the one hand, the Minister of Finance contends that there is to be no limiting in the financial realm, and that the only limitations to be imposed are physical; yet, on the other, we have the Minister of Munitions and Supply stating that we cannot build ships because of the costs involved. Obviously there is an inconsistency between the statements of policy of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
If we can judge from the last words in the recent speech of the British Prime Minister, upon which occasion he concluded with a plea for the tools of war, certainly materials are needed. If those materials are needed and we in Canada can provide them physically, surely we ought to provide them, regardless of how much effort and physical material go into their production. Yet the Minister of Munitions and Supply has said that we must consider the cost. I say to the government that unless Canada is making use of every available man-hour and every ounce of material, Canada is not making her maximum war effort. I challenge any of the ministers, . including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Munitions and Supply, to refute that contention. I believe very little examination and effort is required to find that Canada 14873-97}
is falling far short of what she is capable of doing, either in her war effort or in her domestic effort.
We have corroboration from the government side of the house, as well as the opposition side, for the contention that there are thousands of man-hours available in Canada- yes, literally thousands of man-hours going: to waste. Nevertheless the government has the-effrontery through its ministers to contend in the House of Commons that Canada is making her maximum effort. Furthermore, much more training of unskilled labour could be done. If these labourers are not required in industries, certainly they should at this time be prepared to take their place in industrial occupations. If we should happen to run short of manpower, surely it would be a simple matter to obtain help from across the boundary line, where they have many thousands of idle men.
In addition, we have available an enormous number of man-hours in undeveloped water power. At a point later in my speech I shall place on Hansard some statistics to indicate our great potential resources of electrical energy which have not been put to use. In passing, however, may I point to some statements which have been made by hon. members on the government and opposition sides of the house which would indicate that we certainly can afford the real cost of making a great contribution to the war effort, and at the same time take care of our domestic requirements.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck)
is reported as follows at page 858:
It seems to me that the nervousness over this proposed appropriation arises from the fact that we are talking in terms of money instead of in terms of goods produced. That is why fear grips the hearts of many people and why we are wondering whether this effort will be successful.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) made reference to the speech of the hon. member for Trinity, and made this further observation, as reported at page 1309 of Hansard:
The war appropriation bill now before the committee of the whole contains figures so enormous that sometimes one is likely to conclude that such figures are beyond the human resources of this nation. In the early days of this debate the hon. member for Trinity explained forcefully how these figures mean very little. He pointed out that, after all, only goods and services really matter, and that it is goods and services which constitute the real wealth of this nation.
Then this point is made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), as reported at page 918 of Hansard:
I am told there is no reason why we could not be building at least fifty merchant vessels on that coast. At the present moment I believe there are contracts for eight.
War Appropriation Bill

had pursued the policy which they proclaimed to the people in 1935 they were going to adopt, an aeroplane industry could have been established at that time or even earlier without increasing debt or taxation, and I challenge any member of the government to refute that statement. There, again, was an indication that it was purely a lack of money, and not a lack of physical resources at all.
In summing up my argument, I should like to indicate briefly four reasons why I am opposed to the principle involved in this resolution. First, I want to make this comment on the principle. I am very much disappointed that so little attention has been paid to this extremely important matter of finance. I agree that the matters which have thus far been discussed, particularly those relating to the Department of Munitions and Supply, have all been important, but they have been discussed out of all proportion to the importance of the principle involved in this measure, which is the borrowing from a financial monopoly in this country, of money with which to finance the war as well as the domestic effort. This question should be discussed much more fully, and this debate should not conclude until this angle is given a thorough airing. I believe we ought to have government members as well as those on the opposition side taking part in a discussion of the principle of borrowing, and whether it is necessary. I believe that the questions which were put by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) the other night should be answered by the Minister of Finance so that we may know exactly how this money is going to be raised.
I am opposed to the principle involved in this resolution, first of all, because it still denies the government the right, which is a crown prerogative, to create in the first instance the money of the nation. I consider it, as I have stated in the past, a capital crime that a private monopoly should usurp and exercise as it is doing to-day this government prerogative. According to the statement made by the Minister of Finance in this house, the chartered banks of this country were permitted to create approximately $500,000,000 of brand new money. The money which was obtained from the chartered banks was not the people's savings. It was absolutely new money, additional supplies of money over and above what was already in existence. That, I maintain, is a usurpation of the prerogative of the crown. For that function the Bank of Canada should be

used. All of the money asked for in this resolution over and above what is raised by taxation should be obtained from the Bank of Canada at cost.
The second reason why I oppose the principle of the resolution is that it prevents the Canadian people from making the maximum contribution to Canada's war effort. The sum asked for in this resolution, if it reflected the potential possibilities of this country, should be double or treble this amount. The thing I quarrel with is not the amount asked for, but the principle under which the money will be obtained. Further, I contend that there is no relationship between the government's financial policy and the productive capacity of this country.-and there should be such a relationship. The purpose of a financial system and of a financial policy, so far as my understanding of it goes, is that the financial policy shall reflect the physical possibilities of a country to produce and consume, and the fact that we have thousands of idle people, thousands of idle man-hours, and thousands of unused tons of material, is proof that there is no relationship between the financial policy of the government and the physical facts of this country.
The third reason why I object to the principle of the resolution is that it demands of the people of Canada absolutely unnecessary sacrifices. I agree that if sacrifices are necessary to win this war we must make them; but I do not agree that we should call upon the Canadian people to make unnecessary sacrifices, and I contend that the government's policy is calling upon the people to make unnecessary sacrifices. Surely in a country which is so potentially wealthy as Canada, it is not necessary to reduce the standard of living of the people. Surely it is obvious that people can do their best only when they are at their best, when they have healthy bodies and healthy minds. We have resources enough to see to it that all our people have balanced diets and, as a consequence, are healthy in body and mind. To those who say we must sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, I say: Stand up and name the things we should deny ourselves. What articles of food, what types of clothing should we deprive ourselves of?


Mr. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East):: How about liquor?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The hon. gentleman can probably speak with more authority about that than I can.
The leader of the opposition in one of his earlier addresses said that we should pare down the estimates more. I should like to know why, and particularly why we should pare down the social service estimates. I

War Appropriation Bill
suggest that they should be increased and increased to the point where the Canadian people are able to enjoy exactly what they are able to provide in the way of physical energy and material.
Lastly, I object to the principle involved in (his resolution because it builds up a fictitious and unreal debt. The Minister of Finance has said that the policy of the government is a pay-as-you-go policy. I should like to know why, if it is a pay-as-you-go policy, there is any debt in connection with it. What do we owe and to whom do we owe it? The minister himself has said that the cost of the war is paid for substantially as the war progresses, and the statement has been made again and again that the cost of this war is blood, sweat and tears. These things certainly are provided from day to day as the war progresses. I know of no other costs that are involved, in a war. The minister himself has admitted that these costs are met from day to day as the war progresses. Then, in the name of common sense and justice, I should like to be told and the people of Canada would like to be told, "What do we owe if we have paid for the war from day to day in blood, sweat and tears, and to whom do we owe it?" That is a pertinent question, and I should like to hear some members on the government side, and particularly the minister, discuss it.
So far as banking costs are concerned, are they not in the same category as physical costs? What is the cost of operating our money system? In the main it is paper, ink, clerical work and depreciation that is involved in operating the money system. What is cheaper to run than a banking system? I challenge any of the hon. members who smile, to indicate what more there is about running a banking system. Those costs are provided each day as the money system is conducted. Therefore, all costs in connection with the war effort, banking costs as well as physical costs, are met from day to day. What will hon. members suggest we owe when the war is finished, and to whom will we owe it?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because this measure still denies the government the right to exercise the crown prerogative-


Thomas Vien: I am sorry to have to remind the hon. gentleman that he has exhausted his forty minutes.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: If the committee will permit me; I am just on my last sentence, and if I can have time to complete it I will sit down.


Thomas Vien: By unanimous consent.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I was endeavouring to say- because this measure still denies the government the exercise of the crown's prerogative;
because it does not permit a maximum war effort or domestic effort; because it demands unnecessary sacrifices; because it builds up fictitious debt, obliging the people to pay several times over financially for what they have already paid physically, I consider that the principle involved in this resolution, of borrowing our own financial credit from a money-lending monopoly to the point of national bankruptcy, is not only unpatriotic but extremely inimical to the best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. GILLIS:: I have sat here for the past two weeks listening to the measure now before the committee being discussed, and I have heard so many different financial theories advanced that, as an ordinary worker, I am left a little bit dizzy. Since the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the acting leader of this group, has placed before the committee the considered opinion of this group on the financial aspects of the measure, about all I have to say on the matter is to extend my sincere sympathy to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), whose job it is to juggle figures at the present time and run the finances of the country.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Does the hon. member not think that the people need a little sympathy?


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to occupy any more time this evening than I have to. First, I should like to comment on a question which I asked the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) on Monday of this week, as set out in Hansard, page 1359. My question was based on a letter I received from a mine workers' union situate at River Hibbert, Nova Scotia, informing me that a mine operating in that section at the present time would be closed on April 30. That organization had sent a delegation to the provincial department of mines, asking if anything could be done to keep the mine in operation. There are 110 men employed; and at the present time, according to the letter I received, they are paying national defence tax, contributing to a Spitfire fund, and subscribing for war savings certificates-which means something financially to the country at this time. According to my information, the market for that coal is the railways, and that market has certainly not disappeared. In answering my question, the minister stated:
I do not know of any action which the federal government could take to compel a mine to operate in the province of Nova Scotia. As my hon. friend knows, the mines of Nova Scotia are under the control of the provincial government.
War Appropriation Bill

The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) then rose in his place and said:
But you have taken authority under the War Measures Act to do this very thing. What is it for?
The Minister of Mines and Resources replied:
I might refer to the observation of the leader of the opposition, who has hastened to the rescue of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I do not know anything about the particulars of this mine. I should assume that if the provincial government, who are familiar with the operations, thought it was not advisable to maintain the mine in operation, their judgment would probably be sound. In any case I do not think it will affect the volume of coal that will be moved from Nova Scotia to other parts of Canada, whether the mine remains open or is shut down. There is plenty of coal available to meet the requirements that can be moved at the present time.
With respect to the minister's statement that the leader of the opposition hastened to my rescue, I do not think I was in any difficulties on that occasion, nor do I believe that there will be any necessity in future for anybody to rescue me; there has not been in the past. I endeavour to speak only about matters of which I have some knowledge, and I resent the minister's remark because it would lead anyone reading Hansard to suppose that I was floundering here and unable to take care of myself.


Angus MacInnis: It was the Minister of Mines and Resources who was floundering.


Clarence Gillis: As to there being no market for coal, I believe that the reverse is true. According to an order in council set out in sessional paper 2208, in answer to a question placed on the record by an hon. member, it is stated in the second paragraph:
Owing to the large traffic movement to the Atlantic seaboard the annual coal consumption of the railways has greatly increased, and it is most desirable at this time that the railways shall be assured a supply of coal adequate to their requirements.
It goes on to state that an inquiry is being made at the present time at Minto, New Brunswick, to see whether there is not a possibility of stepping up coal production in that particular mining section in order to meet the requirements of the situation, and setting out that an adequate supply of coal must be maintained for the railways.
As I have said, according to my information, in the section I speak of their market is the railways. Therefore, in view of the fact that their market has not disappeared, and that the minister and the federal government have the authority under the mobilization act to continue the operation and to assume jurisdiction in this particular case, if the mines

department of Nova Scotia are not prepared to accept their responsibility, why should the federal government not step in? According to the letter I received, that mine is down about 2,500 feet. It is only a matter of developing their slope to the next lift, drifting along probably 250 feet or 500 feet, tapping the seam lower down, and continuing the operation. If that is a true indication of the situation at the present time so far as coal is concerned, I see no reason why the federal government should not make at least some inquiries into the matter of preserving the means of livelihood for 110 men and their families in that section, who are making every reasonable contribution to the war effort. I leave that to the minister, feeling sure that he will do what he can with respect to that matter.
I. listened here a couple of nights ago to several hon. members from Nova Scotia stressing the necessity for the creation of a shipbuilding industry in that end of the country. I join with them in that request. I have endeavoured on every occasion when I have had the privilege of addressing this, house to bring to the attention of the government the necessity for the creation of some industry in Nova Scotia other than coal mining. I know that coal mining is on the wane in that province; the older mines are folding up; there has been no expansion of the industry for the past fifteen years, and I do not think there is going to be any. Something must be done to take up the slack in employment caused by the fall in the coal mining industry.
I would judge from discussion and press reports and resolutions that I am receiving from that part of Canada, that there is at the present time a well organized movement in Nova Scotia to bring forcibly to the attention of the government the necessity for something being done there. In that connection I received to-day from Mayor G. B. Slaven, mayor of Sydney, Nova Scotia, who is acting as chairman of an organization set up in Cape Breton island, a resolution, to urge that question upon the government. The resolution is lengthy, and I shall not read it-all, but one of the paragraphs states:
Whereas a great number of industries are being established which are not classed as war industries and while being used to render assistance in this war, yet will remain as a permanent industry after the war-
It goes on to state that it represents the considered view at a meeting of that entire section at which every town on the island was represented, including representatives from the municipal councils.
I would assume from wffiat I have heard that it is the intention of the government

War Appropriation Bill
to do something along this line in that part of the country. In that connection, I called the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply to something that I would again like to bring to his attention. On February 28 I asked him, as reported at page 1116 of Hansard, a question as to whether it was the intention of the government with the cooperation of Dominion Steel and Coal to utilize the plate mill that was built there during the last war at a cost, I think, of some $11,000,000, the government having subsidized it to the extent of $4,500,000. I do not think the mill ever went into production. Most of the machinery in that mill has been taken away, I presume moved to somewhere in Ontario; my information is that it went to Ojibway, but I cannot say whether that is true. The reply of the minister at that time was quite lengthy, but the latter part stated:
.	.	. but we are studying the question of
installing additional primary steel capacity at Dosco-that is, more open hearth capacity- and I hope a decision on that question will be made early next week.
According to a press dispatch, the minister has not anything to hope for in that direction. A dispatch of February 27 quotes Mr. Arthur Cross, president of Dominion Steel and Coal company, as stating that the steel plant was operating at 100 per cent capacity, but that there will be no plant extension for the coming year.
I would judge from the minister's answer to me that it is necessary at this time to expand that steel plant in Sydney. Mr. Cross' statement, however, definitely says there will be no expansion. That question received some publicity. If Dominion Steel and Coal company are not desirous of operating that plant, and if its operation is essential to Canada's war effort, as was indicated by the minister's answer, there are other people who are interested in that plant and may make use of it. I have a letter here from the Anglo-French Development Corporation Limited of Montreal stating that they are interested in that plant, that clients of theirs from overseas are endeavouring to take over in this country plants that can be put into war production, and that they are interested in that plate mill in Sydney. I replied, referring them to the heads of that corporation, suggesting they get in touch with them. The date of this letter is March 1; it went to Sydney and was relayed- back to me. To-day I had a letter from the same corporation thanking me for the information and addresses given and saying that they were immediately getting in touch with these people with the end in view of utilizing that plate mill. By virtue of the fact that the Canadian people
have an equity in that mill to the extent of $4,500,000 given to the corporation during the last war, it should be the government's prerogative to do something with it. I trust the minister will think that over and endeavour to make use of that mill. If a steel shipbuilding industry is to be developed in Nova Scotia, that mill will certainly be needed. There is also a comment on that matter in the Toronto Globe and Mail. A statement by one of their regular correspondents reads:
Why not recondition the Dosco plate mill?
They go on at length to point out why that should be done. Therefore the general public is interested.
Commissions have sat from time to time examining the industrial life of that part of Canada and have reported on its economy, its place in confederation with relation to the development of the rest of Canada. I should like to quote a few excerpts from the submission made by the Nova Scotia government to the commission on dominion-provincial relations. The present Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) was premier of that province at the time. I think this brief was drafted by the late Minister of National Defence, Hon. Norman Rogers, and it sets out clearly the situation in which the maritimes, and Nova Scotia particularly, find themselves at the present time in relation to the rest of Canada. They certainly have not been treated as part of the Canadian family. The position is stated much better in this brief than I have seen it anywhere else. I shall quote just an extract here and there from this brief between pages 51 and 55. They say:
In the last decade between 1920 and 1930 the decline of manufacturing in Nova Scotia became more pronounced. In Ontario and Quebec (central Canada) capital invested in manufacturing increased from $2,696,000,000 to $4,158,000,000; the number of employees increased from 487,000 to 512,000. while the gross value of products decreased slightly.
Then further:
Ontario and Quebec are the most important manufacturing provinces of Canada. Their combined production in 1930 amounted to $2,735,000,000. or nearly eighty per cent of the gross value of manufactured products of the dominion.
Those figures are taken from the "Canada Year Book", 1933 Further it says:
Ontario and Quebec account for almost eighty per cent of the total capital invested in manufacturing in Canada.
That is also from the 1933 edition of the "Canada Year Book". Again it says:
Out of the total male wage-earners, numbering 431.463, and the total female numbering 120,033, 47-1 per cent of the former and 46-2 per cent of the latter were employed in Ontario.
War Appropriation Bill

Quebec manufacturers reported 30-4 per cent of the total males as compared with 39-6 per cent of the total females. As to earnings, Ontario firms paid out 49'5 per cent of the total wages in Canada, and Quebec 29'8 per cent.
Further on it states:
It will be seen that while manufacturing has increased in Canada as a whole by, say, twelve times since confederation, the increase in the maritimes has been about four times.
And further:
Between 1871 and 1931 the number of employees in manufacturing in Nova Scotia increased by only 580, or by 3-7 per cent. In the same period the number of employees in manufacturing in Canada as a whole increased from 187,942 to 557,426, or by 197 per cent.
This document goes on to set out some very good statistics. I have no intention of reading them, but I should like to read the concluding paragraph; coming from these people, I think it is very good. If I were to use it, or if it were to be used by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, we would be considered socialists:
It is asserted as a general principle that industries in Ontario and Quebec have natural advantages of situation in relation to raw material, labour, force, and markets which enable them to take full advantage of the so-called economies of large scale production. We are asked to believe that these economies of large scale production will enable an industry to protect itself more adequately from foreign competition, and are passed on to the consumer, either in part or in full, through lower prices made possible by the lower cost per unit of the commodity manufactured. Whether such economies are thus passed on to the consumer in many cases is open to grave doubt. It will depend on the reality of internal competition, and the Canadian industrial field is so narrow as to raise serious misgivings as to the extent of true competition in many lines of manufacturing. The existence of monopoly, trade combines, and friendly price agreements within the shelter of a protective tariff, is not always capable of positive proof, but that it exists over a considerable range of manufacturing is scarcely open to question. Undoubtedly,	a	substantial	proportion	of	theeconomies	of	large scale	production	are	notpassed on to the consumer, but render possible a higher margin of profit for the industry and go into the safety deposit boxes of company promoters or the pockets of shareholders. Certainly	the	proportion	of benefit	that is
returned to the people of this province is not substantial.
With that statement I am in absolute agreement. I leave these thoughts, as set out by the experts who drafted the submission to	this	economic	inquiry, with	the
Minister of Munitions and Supply.
Just recently, another discrimination as far as industry in that end of the country is concerned was brought to my attention by a submission presented to a tribunal that has just- finished probing miners' wages in Nova
IMr. Gillis.]
Scotia; I refer to the McTague board. In making their presentation to that board, the representatives of the miners brought to its attention the unfavourable treatment received by manufacturers of steel in that end of the country in connection with the bounty paid on coal. I should like to give their own words. They say:
We feel convinced that Dosco should receive at least as favourable treatment as the upper Canadian companies, which receive a drawback of 74 cents per ton on coal used for metallurgical purposes as against the 45 cents bounty received by the Dosco. If the latter did receive the same treatment then they could easily pay more for their coal to the Dominion Coal Company, thereby benefiting the coal industry and increasing its earnings and also developing and strengthening the coal industry of Canada. In general we submit the proposition which we feel sure is almost axiomatic that Canada needs a strong fuel policy. We further submit that to bonus foreign coal 74 cents and Nova Scotia coal only 45 cents is not in line with a national fuel policy.
With that statement I am in absolute agreement. I made it my business to get in touch with the Department of Trade and Commerce and find out exactly how much money was paid to importers of United States coal used for metallurgical purposes during the years 1939 and 1940. I find that to December 31, 1939, there were 498,760 tons of coal imported and used for metallurgical purposes, on which $246,886.18 was rebated to the importers. During the year 1940 there were imported for that purpose 769,289 tons, on which the rebate amounted to $380,798.03.
The McTague board has completed its inquiry into the question of wages. I have seen a press release with regard to the findings of that board, but I am not going to comment upon them at the moment. Certainly they are not satisfactory to me, but it is the business of the union to make an analysis of those findings before I have anything to say about the matter. I believe that the treatment received by manufacturers of steel in Nova Scotia is a factor in keeping down wages in the coal mines. I see no reason why the steel company in Sydney should not receive the same treatment as the Ontario manufacturers receive, and in my opinion that is something which should be taken into consideration.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made a thorough analysis of the position of labour and its relation to our war effort. I do not want to repeat anything he said in that connection, but I am entirely in agreement with his views. With regard to conciliation boards, the minister seemed to resent the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East that often the machinery set up for conciliation boards is too slow. I am

War Appropriation Bill
in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver East on that point. I have been twenty years in the trade union movement; and it is my belief that while this conciliation machinery may have served the purpose in peace time, certainly it does not serve the purpose to-day. I have seen the mining industry wait months for the setting up of a board.
I do not believe the Department of Labour takes a sufficiently strong stand in these matters. When a board is appointed, by not agreeing as to the chairman an industry can hold up the functioning of that board for months. Two or three times last session I drew the attention of the minister to a board that was attempting to function in the Acadia section of the mining industry. Several months elapsed before anything was done. That sort of thing does not help to create a healthy frame of mind as far as the trade unions are concerned. Personally I think that if the operators of industry are as much interested in prosecuting the war effort as we are led to believe by some of the statements made in this house, there should be no need to carry on a poll in industry by sections. For instance, the Dominion Steel and Coal company controls twenty-six subsidiary companies across Canada. If the government is going to make an examination of that company, wherever a dispute arises, section by section, it will involve the setting up of twenty-six conciliation boards. The setting up of each board will involve considerable cost to the country, money which could very well be utilized in these days in other directions.
I believe if industry are as much interested in prosecuting the war as they should be*-and certainly they have something for which to prosecute it-then there should be a general understanding that when a probe is made and a board is set up, such board should make a thorough examination of the complete industry, including all the subsidiaries. It should bring about an understanding, set wages and get on with the job of prosecuting the war.
Instead of that, we have the present position where application is made for the setting up of a board. There is a disagreement at once about the appointment of a chairman, and the battle wages back and forth. All are in a bad frame of mind. Then, when the chairman is appointed, an examination is made in only one section of the industry, and on restricted terms of reference, thereby leaving an advantage in the hands of those who have an understanding of exactly how much of an examination can be made under
the terms of reference. I suggest that this machinery must be speeded up, and that we must come to some understanding.
The hon. member for Vancouver East discussed the question of intimidation. Comparisons are sometimes made in this chamber respecting the position in England, and the attitude of government over there. We hear much about the stand labour has taken in the prosecution of the war. There is, however, a vast difference between labour in Canada and labour in Great Britain. Labour in Great Britain, from the point of view of social legislation, is, in my opinion, at least fifty years ahead of Canada. It enjoys, many, many privileges that we have not. Labour in Great Britain is organized at least to the extent of 65 per cent, while labour in Canada is organized to the extent of only 15 per cent. The main fight of labour to-day is for the right to organize, and for the recognition by industry of that right.
For the life of me I cannot understand why those who are engaged in industry and who are prosecuting the war, those who have something to lose from a failure to . win the war, and who must realize what the situation is in Europe, are not alive to their own interests, and do not seem to realize that the greatest medium to-day of stabilizing their industry and putting it into a state of 100 per cent production lies in the recognition of the rights of the workers to sit round a conference table and iron out difficulties, instead of setting up conciliation boards and hammering at ministers of the government, who have plenty to think about without spending their time ironing out quarrels between industry and labour.
It took Hitler on the English channel to awaken the ruling classes in England to the necessity for a full recognition of the value of labour in the prosecution of the war. I am in hopes that it is not going to take Hitler on the St. Lawrence to awaken the captains of industry and the operators of monopolies in Canada to the necessity for full cooperation. Labour produces the sinews of war; in the final analysis, labour fights a war. With a situation such as we have today, I cannot understand why those in authority do not realize the value of sitting round a conference table, getting down to business and thereby relieving members of the government, who are charged with the responsibilities of their departments, from refereeing disputes between industry and labour in Canada to-day. I believe that if industry is engaged in an all-out effort, which means
War Appropriation Bill

the complete organization of all the Canadian people for the prosecution of the war, it ought to have sufficient intelligence to cooperate with that group which, in my view, is the major factor in the prosecution of the war-those who produce, and those who light.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) took exception to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. As a worker, I get around among the workers, and from what I learn I agree absolutely with what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said. He will hear and I will hear stories from people who will not come to a minister of the government, who will not approach the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other law-enforcement body on matters affecting intimidation and persecution. In many sections of industry in Canada, there is to-day much unrest, and much of that unrest is on account of the question of organizing.
I would draw the minister's attention to a matter which for some time has been in the slings. I have heard it stressed in the house time and time again that the great requirement of industry at present is that of securing . the services of trained men. If my memory serves me correctly, on November 7 of last year sixty-three skilled workers at the Chrysler plant at Windsor, who were engaged in disputes, were thrown out of employment. Forty-six of those men were arrested, and paid about $9,000 or $10,000 in fines. They paid for breaking the laws of society, and according to my information, at least half of those men-and they were skilled men-are still on the streets. They have no jobs. They made application for changes in their registration cards, but those changes were not made, and as a result they are still registered with Chrysler. No other plant will employ them until they are released by Chrysler, with the result that since last November those men have been out of employment. I have received from the regional director of the union in that section a copy of an eviction notice. It would appear that one of those men was ordered out, and an eviction notice served on him. Here is a man who is walking the streets, thrown out of his home, at a time when men are necessary to industry. These are men who have paid the penalty for breaking the law. They have paid in the courts of the country, but they are being further penalized by the captains of industry, and in my opinion their only crime was that of exercising their democratic right to form a trade union-.
I understand that from time to time the Minister of Labour has ordered these men back to work, and has made recommendations

along reasonable lines, all of which have been ignored. I do not believe the responsibility is his, but I do suggest that contracts with all industries engaged in war production should carry a clause stating that workers should have the right to organize and to bargain collectively. That matter has been discussed from time to time in the house. I say to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who has the prerogative of creating these industries, that if we are going to win the war we are not going to win it with kid gloves. The kid gloves must come off. Anybody in Canada who stands in the way of a proper prosecution of the war should be dealt with as an enemy of the state. Any organization which keeps skilled workers on the road to-day and refuses to release them to other sections of industry is certainly not cooperating in the prosecution of the war.
There are many points upon which I should have liked to touch, had I had the time. I would, however, draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to one further matter. To-day at the shipping piers in Sydney, Nova Scotia, there are ten men who have been blacklisted by a company for exercising their rights as union men. To-day they are on the road, and they have been on the road for the past five or six weeks. On different occasions the miners' union have approached the company, but have not been able to straighten out the matter. I have before me a brief prepared by executives of the union to be submitted to an adjustment board which has been set up in that province for the purpose of adjusting the grievance. The men in question had absolutely nothing to do with some trouble which developed there and which was being negotiated by the Minister of Labour and his conciliation branch. On several occasions I have met with the minister and have endeavoured to iron out that grievance. The minister was sympathetic, and he sent a conciliation officer down there to go into the whole dispute.
Before the conciliation officer arrived in Sydney, the strike developed. This was not called by the union; it was something that arose spontaneously in the wash-house, and it could have been organized on the outside by people not connected with the union. It certainly did not serve the purpose of the men at that time in view of the fact that they had been negotiating for two weeks and had a well established case. The union itself had legislated against the strike, and there are men on the road to-day who voted against any such action. They were active union men and, as such, they are on the road to-day. This is something I should like the Minister of Labour to look into.

War Appropriation Bill
I do not want to exceed my time limit, but I did want to leave these few thoughts with the committee as to the necessity of establishing other industries in Nova Scotia and the necessity for recognition of the rights of the workers to organize. We had a complete statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East on this matter. I hope the ministers charged with the responsibility of going into these matters will pay some attention to what I have said.


Mr. TURNER:: Mr. Chairman, as you well know I seldom speak in this chamber, and I did not intend to speak on this resolution. I should, however, like to draw the attention of the committee to a point or two. In the first place, the resolution now before the committee was first introduced into the house on February 19 of this year. Wide latitude has been given to hon. members, and many have spoken who do not know the first thing about tanks, aeroplanes, guns and other implements of war, and who know less about their manufacture. Yet they talk and take up the time of this committee when we have a real war on our hands and a job to do.
This is not a school; it is a House of Commons where we are expected to impart knowledge to the house and to the country so that all may benefit. Many questions have been asked which mean nothing to our war effort but which have just delayed the progress of this house at this critical time. In my opinion, much of this has been done for purely political advertising purposes at the expense of the country. Perhaps some hon. members have not realized just what harm has been done by this useless talk. I should like to point out that permitting all this baseless criticism to go on has not helped our war effort.
While we have been talking, President Roosevelt to the south of us has put through his lease-lend bill. He has it signed, sealed and delivered and has started off already with seven billion dollars. He has already given the United Kingdom ships and other help, while we are simply talking and doing nothing. The senate was summoned here, but had to go back home because there was no work to do, even in war time. This does not leave a very good impression upon the minds of the people and it certainly does not help our war effort. The President of the United States has stolen all the thunder and applause and the headlines, and he certainly deserves them. They were working there while we have been idle.
This performance of ours has had the kind of effect upon our people that one would expect. It has been much like this: They say,
"they are just wasting their time and our money down there." This must be changed. All this may have a still more serious effect and become quite noticeable when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) launches his loan for some billion dollars or less, made necessary by this very resolution which has been before the committee for nearly one month. I do not think this delay will help our war effort at all.
Therefore I sincerely ask all members of the committee to tighten up and get down to real business, to realize that there is a war on and get this House of Commons geared up to a war-time basis. After all, this chamber should be the very pulse of our nation at this time. Our people expect it, but they certainly are not getting it. This is all I have to say.


Mr. HAZEN:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and through him, the government to provide more industrial plants and allot more contracts for munitions and supply to New Brunswick.
I have received each week since June last from the office of the director of public information a circular setting out the contracts awarded for materials and supplies. These run into the millions of dollars. I have examined these statements and have been surprised and disappointed at the small number of contracts allotted to New Brunswick. The name of Canada Packers Limited appears frequently in the list of New Brunswick firms having received contracts, but this is not a New Brunswick company. In making a comparison between the contracts let in New Brunswick and those let in other provinces, the contracts given to this firm should not be considered. I ask that in future this error be corrected.
I receive also regularly from the director of public information another circular giving the construction contracts awarded by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. These also run into millions of dollars. I have examined these circulars and have been surprised and disappointed at the small number of contracts awarded to firms in New Brunswick.
Rightly or wrongly, and I believe rightly, the people of New Brunswick believe that they have not been treated fairly in the matter of these contracts. When they read week after week of the thousands of contracts that have been awarded by the dominion government and see that only a few have been given to New Brunswick, they are not at all satisfied.
The people of New Brunswick take pride in the fact that Canada is making a great contribution to our war effort as a member of
War Appropriation Bill

the British commonwealth of nations. But they get no comfort nor do they derive any satisfaction from the fact that, while the government is advancing the enormous sum of over $307,000,000 to companies in different parts of Canada in order that they may erect plants to manufacture the materials required in our war effort, the statement put on Hansard a few days ago by the Minister of Munitions and Supply shows that out of this enormous sum of $307,000,000 only $182,526 or a small fraction of one per cent, is being spent in New Brunswick. This amount is being provided for the McLellan Foundry and Machinery Works at Campbellton. We are all pleased that this firm is being assisted and that, in consequence, work will be provided for this part of the province where it is needed so badly. I am sure the company will make a good job turning out shells in the factory which this money will provide, and the minister has made no mistake in assisting this company.
We have been told that further sums will be advanced by the government for the purpose of erecting plants of various kinds. I think the figure of $177,000,000 was mentioned in Hansard. I would ask the minister to keep the province of New Brunswick in mind when it becomes necessary to erect such plants.
At the last session of parliament all the members from New Brunswick, both Liberal and Conservative, held a meeting and appointed a committee to interview the Department of Munitions and Supply. It was the opinion of this committee that work should be provided in the first place for all small plants in the province and that then, if it was possible, consideration should be given to erecting large new plants which would have a chance of surviving after the war, these to be built with government assistance.
The committee received a courteous welcome and had a frank discussion with the deputy minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply. I am not prepared to say that the efforts of the committee produced any noticeable results, but on the other hand I am not going to say that they produced no results. I do know this, that only recently the premier of New Brunswick came to Ottawa and endeavoured to get some plants started in the province, which is further evidence that the people of New Brunswick are not satisfied with what has been done for them by this government.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply stated in the house the other day that he knew "of no small plant which had not more business than it could do at the moment," that

"almost every small machine shop can get all the work it wants to do." His statement is found at page 1006 of Hansard. If that statement was intended to apply to all of Canada, I assure the minister it is wide of the mark so far as New Brunswick is concerned. There are small plants and shops in New Brunswick which want more work and I hope that this will be provided. The minister has told us that there is no one more anxious than he to distribute these plants, and that he is trying at the present time to place a plant in New Brunswick. This is good news, and I hope that he will continue his efforts and that they will be successful.
It has been pointed out that we have no great supply of electricity in New Brunswick. That is true, but it is also true that we have some electrical power. We have in the city of Saint John power available from three plants. The hon. member for Vietoria-Carle-ton (Mr. Hatfield) tells me that there is power available in his constituency. I am informed also that some manufacturing plants such as chlorine plants, cordite plants and soda-ash plants do not require large amounts of power.
We have in New Brunswick men who want work. The hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. O'Brien) told me that he had received word to-day that from four to five thousand men are idle in his constituency and vicinity. We have resources that need developing, and we have some power available. With all these factors at hand, with the minister anxious to distribute these plants, and with these enormous sums of money that are being spent by the government upon' the construction of plants, I again urge the government to establish more of these plants in New Brunswick.
In my opinion a short-sighted policy is being followed by the government in continuing to place so many of these plants and war contracts in central Canada. I can appreciate the fact that earlier in the war when the extent of the war effort was not realized by many people, the policy of placing so many of these plants in central Canada could perhaps be justified on the grounds of sound business.
But in view of the enormous task that lies before us, in view of the all-out effort that we have to make, the time was reached some time ago when this policy should have been changed in the interest of national unity, in the interest of the financial and economic well-being of every part of Canada.

War Appropriation Bill
I should like to say that I am in agreement with a remark made in this house not long ago by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), when he said:
... I am not finding fault in any way with Quebec or Ontario. The people of those two provinces are good Canadians and are entitled to their full share of the good things available in this nation. But let it not be forgotten for one moment that the people of every one of the nine provinces of Canada have an equal right. If that is forgotten, then unquestionably the unity of this country will be threatened, or, if not the unity, at least the strength.
I want to draw the attention of the minister and the government to a fact which should be kept constantly in mind when we are considering the location of these plants, that when the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia agreed to enter into a federal union with the colony of Canada, that is with upper and lower Canada, they did so in the belief and on the understanding that they were entering into a partnership in which they would share the benefits. They entered into confederation in the belief and on the understanding that they were entering into a partnership that would be to their advantage. Unfortunately for them, confederation did not prove to be to their economic advantage. After a thorough investigation made by the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, the Rowell-Sirois commission reported that:
New Brunswick shares with Nova Scotia the unhappy distinction of the longest unfavourable economic history of any Canadian province.
That is not a pretty picture, but I think every one of the four members of the government from the maritime provinces will agree that it is a true picture; that New Brunswick does share with Nova Scotia the unhappy distinction of the longest unfavourable economic history of any Canadian province.
The Rowell-Sirois commission also in their report say that the "basic problem" before the commission "lay in finding a way in which the financial position of the provinces could be improved and assured without disastrous financial consequences to the federal government on whose efficient functioning the provinces are dependent." Although the conference held between the dominion and provincial governments in January last to consider the Rowell-Sirois report came to a sudden and, in my opinion, an unfortunate ending, the dominion government at the present time has a wonderful opportunity to solve, to some extent at least, this basic problem which the commission faced, though it cannot implement all its recommendations.
It can solve the problem, to some degree, by a wise distribution of these plants.
The government can, if it will, have more plants erected in the maritime provinces. Perhaps at the present time we have too much centralization and too lop-sided an economy in this country. Wealth is not fairly distributed. I would ask the government, through the Minister of Munitions of Supply, in the interests of national unity and in order to improve the financial and economic position of New Brunswick, to establish more of these plants there. The plants we should like to have established with this end in view are plants which could have an opportunity of surviving after the war, such as modern shipbuilding plants, chemical plants, chlorine plants and soda-ash plants.
We are glad to learn that two merchant ships are to be built in Saint John. I hope this is only a beginning. Lord Beaverbrook, in his forceful address over the radio not long ago, urged our country to supply ships and more ships. It has been reported that the Germans plan to have 600 submarines engaged in attacking British shipping this spring. At present, I understand, our replacements are not keeping pace with losses. We have a critical situation to face. I know that the energetic hon. member for Northumberland, N.B., is endeavouring to get the government to establish some shipbuilding plants on the Miramichi. I would urge the government to build more ships in New Brunswick. They can be built. There is a pressing need for them, and where there is a will there is a way.
While I am speaking of shipbuilding, I would point out to the government that it is essential to make the best and most expeditious use of the tonnage which we now have at our command. There has been a great delay in handling ships. I want to call the attention of the minister to the fact that there has been a serious congestion of shipping at Saint John this winter owing to lack of wharves and water-front facilities for handling cargoes.
It has not been uncommon during the winter months to have all the berths occupied by ships, to have several ships anchored in the stream, and to have ten or a dozen ships waiting outside the harbour to get in to discharge and load cargoes. This is a serious situation in war time, when tonnage is limited and supplies are vitally needed overseas.
The officers of the national harbours board visited Saint John in January and conferred with the mayor and members of the common council, with officers of the board of trade,
War Appropriation Bill

and with local shipping and railway men about the congestion which they found there. At this conference the mayor presented the following recommendations which were considered necessary to improve the port so that it could handle the heavy volume of traffic:
(1)	A shed for No. 8 berth, West Saint John.
(2)	Passenger and immigration facilities.
(3)	Reconstruction of McLeod and Pettingill wharves. This work had been arranged for and was ready to be proceeded with when war broke out. The Canadian National Railways have expressed particular need for this reconstruction.
(4)	Additional wharfage facilities on the east side of the harbour for the handling of bulk cargoes such as lumber, coal, ear$ et cetera.
Mr. Colin Mackay, president of the board of trade, is reported to have said at that conference:
There is no use in getting supplies manufactured in a hurry and sent to the seaboard in a hurry if they are going to be held up for a considerable length of time for lack of sufficient handling accommodations. We need more docks here, more facilities. Large sums are being expended on the war effort. Well, this is a most important link in that effort.
Mr. D. W. Ledingham, chairman of the port committee of the board of trade, is reported to have said:
There is no question but that we are in a jam. There is a "bottle-neck" here. Ships are having to wait outside and in the stream because there are no berths to take care of them. Traffic is going to American ports that should be going through here. The MeLeod-Pettingill wharves could be constructed in seven months and be ready for the next winter shipping season. Every steamship line is suffering from cramped facilities.
Mr. T. C. McNabb, general superintendent of the New Brunswick district of the Canadian Pacific railway, spoke from the point of view of the railways. He is reported to have said:
There are not enough berths from the standpoint of the railways. We have never had so much tonnage as we have had this winter for export.
It was pointed out to the board that there were sufficient longshoremen to meet all needs. Councillor Skaling, who is president of the New Brunswick trades and labour council, informed the members of the board that the labour capacity existed and the port wanted the opportunity to use that labour to the utmost. Captain Oland, the naval officer in charge of the port, said that the best longshoremen in North America were to be found in Saint John.
Colonel S. A. Dubuc, a member of the national harbours board, is reported to have expressed the opinion that the only remedy seemed to lie in increasing lighterage facilities

on a tremendous scale, loading ships in the stream and even from the harbour side while being loaded at the dock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the Minister of Munitions and Supply make a statement with respect to the construction of the new dock in Saint John which was announced some time ago by the national harbours board? I should also like to have the Minister of National Defence give the break-down of the cost of the thirty day training centres at Fredericton and Edmunds-ton as soon as convenient.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 14, 1941.