1942-05-08

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I have just received a telegram from London, Ontario, stating that the press reports that the government-owned aircraft plant at the Crumlin Airport, London, Ontario, now operated by Fleet Aircraft, is to be turned over to the Canadian Pacific Railway to operate. Is this story correct, and if so, why is the Canadian Pacific allowed to add a government-owned aircraft plant to its privately-owned system?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have not been advised of any such change, but the Canadian Pacific Air Services are operating overhaul plants at two or three points. Any well-organized aeroplane company can be called upon in connection with this overhaul work by reason of its skilled personnel. I would not bar the possibility, but I have not heard of the change and I should be surprised if it had taken place.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister will
inquire?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is that
a government-owned plant or a plant heretofore privately owned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The plant at London was built by the government as an overhaul plant for planes of the Royal Air Force operating in that section.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Have any steps been taken to set up an investigation committee as requested by Midland shipyard workers on their return to work?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: No.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY INQUIRY AS TO DEVELOPMENTS IN VIEW OF SHORTAGE OF POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In view of the serious shortage of power will the Prime Minister inform the house whether there have been any further developments in the situation regarding the St. Lawrence waterway project-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -or whether the government has in contemplation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is clearly a question that should be placed on the order paper.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Monday's routine proceedings and
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might advise my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition and hon. members of the house that the Votes and Proceedings of to-day will contain a notice of a bill to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, and that mention of the bill will appear on the routine proceedings and orders of the day on Monday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Prime Minister if that is all? Because according to the news which I have read that is purely a pro forma matter. The government has all the legal power now. What the country wants is something decidedly more than that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend speaks without knowing what the bill contains.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The question I asked was, is that all, to amend the Mobilization Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will look at the bill and its contents when it appears before the house and the question can be answered in the regular way.



DEFENCE OF CORREGIDOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister whether

War Appropriation-Naval Services
the government of Canada has sent to the people of the United States a message of highest appreciation of and gratitude for the outstanding bravery, tenacity and endurance of the American and Filipino troops in resisting for five months overwhelming Japanese forces in the indomitable defence of Cor-regidor, and expressing the pride of Canada in being allied with the people of the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did my hon. friend ask
whether we had sent or would send a message?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Has the government sent a message such as that to the people of the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has not been a formal message sent to the people of the United States, but through official channels expressions of appreciation of what has been achieved have been given by the government.



SALVAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of National War Services an item which appeared in the Globe and Mail of May 8, reading as follows:
Hon. G. E. Romkey, Speaker of the Nova Scotia legislature, said to-day in a letter to a Halifax newspaper that Lunenburg county fishermen have salvaged 10,000 pounds of lard from the sea, but "the powers that be don't want it and we will have the pleasure of towing it out to sea to dump again."
Has the minister any knowledge of this matter?


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: No.


Clarence Gillis: Would he inquire?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Qucens-Lunenburg):: As it relates to my riding may I inform the house that considerable salvaging has been done by Nova Scotia fishermen, especially those from my riding. I communicated with the minister regarding this and was advised that the receiver of wrecks is the man who would take charge of these products. I believe that that organization is looking after it now.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 7, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Yesterday there were some questions asked the answers to which I promised to endeavour to bring down to-day. I have some at least of the answers here.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) asked whether cadet training was uniform in the three services-that was the gist of his question. I have here the syllabus of training issued under the direction of the chief of the general staff. It gives the subjects that are common to the army and air force cadets, and they constitute the great bulk of the subjects. There are a few subjects which are taken by air cadets and not by army cadets, and vice versa. For instance, I find that air cadets give nine hours' study to air frames; naturally the army gives no time to that subject. On the other hand the army gives twenty hours to small arms training, as against only six hours for the air force, and so on. The syllabus of training prepared for the use of sea cadets is considerably different, and I think inevitably so. I find for instance that sea cadets are required to study seamanship, how to sling and lash a hammock, how to lay out bedding, et cetera; the meaning of naval terms, customs of the naval service, bends and hitches, knotting and splicing, rules of the road at sea, the use of the compass and the helm, the use of the lead and line, anchors and cables, and the like. So that there is a great difference between the training of sea cadets and the training of army or air cadets; and on reflection I think it will be seen that it is impossible to have uniformity of training in these three branches as far as cadets are concerned.
Another question asked by several hon. members was in regard to naval pay and allowances. I intimated some time last week that the matter was under consideration by the treasury board, and I think I said again last night that I had been before the treasury board several times, that they were considering the question and were on the point of reaching a decision. I am very happy to announce now that that decision has been
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Naval Services
reached, and that from April 1 of this year the dependents' allowances granted to wives and children of men in the naval service will be on a parity with those granted to wives and children of men in the army and air force.
Richard Burpee Hanson: So that it would appear that all the criticism directed against the navy in that connection was well founded.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I would not say it has been entirely well founded. The navy was better off in some respects than the army, and not so well off in others. We shall have to lower from now on the amount granted to men out of quarters, which will bring it more into line with the army and the air force, and one or two other little adjustments will have to be made. But I think that the present arrangement is, as a whole, more equitable than the former one.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked whether dependents of men in the navy could draw from the war allowances adjustment fund. The answer is yes, they can do so in the same way as the dependents of members of the other armed forces.
A somewhat similar question was asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who put this case: if an ex-army man is in receipt of veteran's allowance and his son joins the navy and gives the father some assigned pay, is the veteran's allowance diminished to the extent of the assigned pay. I am instructed by Colonel Marriott, the secretary of the war veterans' allowance board, that that would not be the case unless the total received by the veteran from the veterans' allowance board and from the son were more than $60 a month. So long as it remains under $60 the veterans' allowance board will not in any way reduce the original grant.
Questions were asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other hon. members with regard to convoys, and I asked that I be given some little time to think over that matter. I have done so, in such time as I have had at my disposal to-day, and I can say first of all that the losses to ships in convoy are generally much less than those to ships out of convoy. I am not speaking of any given day, but taking a period such as a year, we estimate that the losses to ships in convoy run something like one-quarter of the losses to ships out of convoy. The losses on the north Atlantic, the east-west route from these shores to Great Britain, since the beginning of the 
war, in convoyed ships, still runs less than 1 per cent. I need not give the exact figure, but it is less than 1 per cent for the period of two and a half years. In other words less than 1 per cent of the ships setting out from these shores in convoy have been sunk by enemy action.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the ratio having regard to the early period of the war and the present period?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does the hon. gentleman mean are the sinkings more serious?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that is really what I mean.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should say that on the east-west route, the ordinary route from this country to Great Britain, the sinkings are not unusually alarming at this time. I do not think they are out of the ordinary. There are heavy sinkings, of course, on the north-south route, as I intimated last night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
where there are no convoys?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. The sinkings there are very heavy, but the percentage I gave previously is about right even for that route. Ships travelling out of convoy and subjected to enemy action we think are four times as vulnerable, or perhaps even more, as ships travelling in convoy.


Mr. McIVOR:: The Canadian navy does the convoying?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The convoying from here to Britain is done in part by the Canadian navy, in part by the British navy and in part by the United States navy, with the three sharing in about equal measure. Certain sections, of course, are exclusively under the control of the Canadian navy.	.


Mr. BENCE:: I am sure we were all gratified by the announcement made by the minister that adjustments are to be made in the allowances given seamen and their dependents. I wonder if the minister would place the amended scale of allowances on Hansard, so that they may be available to all hon. members. When this matter first came up some days ago and I suggested that some adjustment should be made I stated to the Minister of National Defence, whose department was under consideration at the time, that in my opinion the whole matter of the uniformity of dependents' allowances and pay in the various services might well

War Appropriation-Naval Services
be gone into. I offer that suggestion to the minister again at this time. Instead of having to equalize rates of pay by means of various amounts payable for subsistence allowances when men are out of barracks, and that sort of thing, the straight rates of pay should be more nearly equal, and the dependents' allowances should be more nearly equal, so that the confusion which now exists in the minds of the public and of the men in the services may be removed, and further so that if the administration should grant the cost of living bonus, which has been so strongly urged by all hon. members of this house, that bonus may be more easily applied, without creating additional confusion.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I could not produce at the moment a table showing the new scales of pay, but perhaps the house would permit me to place it on record on Monday.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Put it in the Votes and
Proceedings.
Mr. MACDONALD	(Kingston City):
Very well. It takes a little time to prepare a new table for all ranks, and the work can only be undertaken to-day.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Perhaps the minister would place it on Hansard on Monday, so that it may be generally available. The public do not get the Votes and Proceedings, as a rule.
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Kingston	City):
Very well.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to mention a matter that has not been touched upon as yet. When the subcommittee of the war expenditures committee investigated the methods of handling stores in the various defence departments last summer, we were impressed with the efficiency of the method used by the naval branch. I believe we mentioned that in the report which we submitted to parliament last November. We spent a day in Halifax, where we saw the system in actual operation and had an opportunity of speaking to the men engaged in looking after the stores. I think we all realized that the responsibility of the man in charge of the warehouse containing the stores was very great indeed. Not only did he have several hundred thousand dollars worth of supplies to look after and distribute, but under his care was some of the most confidential and secret apparatus used by the navy. I need not say more about that. But we were astounded to find that the permanent civil servant in charge of those valuable stores and that secret equipment was
receiving, I believe, $1,320 a year; and at the time we were there, because for some reason he had been overpaid previously, a deduction of $10 a month was being made from his salary in order to make up that overpayment. This civil servant is a married man with a family, living in Halifax; and, as the minister said the other evening when we were discussing the question of pay, Halifax is not a city in which living is at all inexpensive. We found it difficult to understand why a man in charge of such valuable equipment should be receiving a salary altogether incommensurate with the responsibility which he had to assume. Indeed, we were astonished to find that this civil servant, in that responsible position, was actually receiving less than the men who were doing ordinary, common labour in the warehouse, moving the stores about. Up to the time we presented the report, I understand nothing had been done to rectify the situation. Has the matter been further considered, and has some salary more nearly commensurate with the responsibility been granted to the man in charge of stores at Halifax?


Mr. STIRLING:: Could the hon. member say whether or not the man paid rent?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; he was a married man with a family, living away from the warehouse, renting his own house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was not furnished with housing?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to support the representations of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in regard to this matter. I am familiar with the work of the individual mentioned. His name has not been stated, but if he is the man in charge of the stores, I believe he is the same person I have in mind. If I remember correctly, the salary he is receiving is $1,440 and, as has already been stated, he has in his charge many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods. He has been in the employ of the government for a period of about twenty-five years. I am glad to say that since the visit of that committee, to Halifax, not because of their representations but because of representations by others, this has been rectified to some extent and that official is now receiving $1,620. I still feel, however, that because of his responsibilities, and because of the efficient manner in which he is conducting his duty, he is far from receiving what he would receive if employed by a private firm in Halifax or any other city.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
I wish to pay a word of tribute to the efficient manner in -which contracts for stores in general have been administered in the naval dockyard at Halifax. For many years I was closely connected with that work, and was in a position to see the manner in which contracts were let and tenders received. I do not hesitate to say, as I have said to the minister on one occasion, that I cannot see any advantage, so far as the dockyard authorities at Halifax are concerned, in taking away their duties as purchasing and contract agents.
I am very happy to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that an inquiry be instituted whereby not only that official but many other permanent officials in Halifax may be brought up to salaries in keeping with their duties. In this particular instance two persons were brought into Halifax at greatly increased salaries to carry on the duties of this one official. It was found, however, after a certain period of time that notwithstanding their qualifications and increased salaries they were unable to. carry out the duties in as efficient a manner as this permanent official had done. He is now carrying on that work, and I feel in fairness to him that he should receive at least the remuneration of the men from Montreal who were unable to carry out, or apparently did not carry out those duties in as efficient a manner as the present official.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Is that Mr. Pitman?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He is one who is underpaid, and Mr. McNamara is another. I believe the party the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had in mind was Mr. "Jock" Matthews.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: A. A. Matthews?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No; I believe it is A. J. Matthews.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is likely the same man.


Major James William Coldwell: I had forgotten what the name was.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have the name of Matthews, but he is down as a clerk, grade 4.


Major James William Coldwell: The man I had in mind was in charge of the entire main stores at Halifax.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The naval stores officer there is Mr. Pitman. He receives a good deal more than the amount mentioned. I believe the amount he now receives is $2,760.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think that is the man.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Mr. Pitman is receiving that amount now. However, some of those men were undoubtedly underpaid last year, and we have succeeded in getting some adjustments for many of them. This man may have been one.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: There are on record not one but several letters dealing with the dockyards, and I am sure it will be found that
representations have been made not on behalf of one but of several who I consider are being underpaid.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member is quite right. He has several times brought this matter to my attention and to the attention, I believe, of the civil service commission. But he knows the problem that has arisen there. It is the old story between the permanent employee, who must advance along a regular scale, on the one hand, and the temporary employee, who comes in only for the duration of the war, on the other. The permanent employee gets certain advantages by way of pension, and the like, which the temporary employee does not get. He also has the advantage of security as long as he does his work. But there have been some glaring cases where men in permanent positions were called on to do work greatly in excess of what they would normally do, and we have adjusted some of those cases. If I had the name of the particular person-


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the name was Pitman.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He is the stores officer, and is now receiving a salary of $2,760. So he is better off than he was last summer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In view
of something said by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) about changing conditions with respect to stores at Halifax, the bringing in of a man from Montreal and the interposition of the Department of Munitions and Supply, would the minister tell us what the position. now is? Has there been a change in the modus operandi? Does the Department of Munitions and Supply now do the buying and the receiving? What is the inefficiency hinted at by the hon. member for Halifax?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Oh, no; pardon me-

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may
have misconstrued the word used; I thought there was a reference to inefficiency or less efficiency.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I did not hint at any inefficiency, as far as the stores department at Halifax is concerned. Rather do I point out that there was no inefficiency, and I could not understand the change from the purchasing plan which formerly existed to that which is now conducted by the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do the purchasing now?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes.


John James Kinley: Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), as reported at page 2236 of Hansard, made rather extended remarks with regard to what he considered as confusion with respect to the handling of seamen of the merchant marine. 1 am glad to see the hon. member's remarks were mostly of a questioning nature; he was looking for information, and was told that the matter came under the Department of Transport.
Representing the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg, where I am in t.he centre of marine activity, I have considerable local knowledge with regard to the movement and activity of our merchant seamen, whom I regard as perhaps the most important and vital of the men who are performing their duty on the Atlantic at the present time.
The hon. member concluded his remarks on the point in this way:
I believe someone should take hold of it, and do some organizing. To my mind it is silly to have men, after leaving their boats, drifting from one end of the country to the other, looking for other boats.
I thought yesterday the situation was not such as was portrayed by the hon. member, but I waited until this morning and took up the matter with Captain Arthur Randles who is in charge of this matter. He is a seagoing captain of great experience, one who served on the Cunard line, and a man who should know his job thoroughly. I discovered that this movement of merchant seamen was well organized. The men whom my hon. friend met on the train going to Nova Scotia had been members of a crew of a British ship which was being turned over to another nationality. The crew was brought to the eastern coast, to the manning pool. All our manning pools are within Canada, located in eastern Canadian ports.
Men are brought to the manning pools for several reasons. First, they can be properly
controlled and looked after. Second, their health can be checked and treatment given, if necessary. Third, they can be given basic pay while waiting for a ship. A ship may arrive in New York and may be two or three weeks in port if repairs are needed or if the return cargo is not ready or for many other reasons. It would be folly to keep the crew alongside that ship for that length of time. It is considered advisable not to allow a crew to scatter in a foreign port; it is thought better to keep them under control and supervision. Therefore they are brought to the manning pool at the rendezvous, the last port before the ships leave to cross the Atlantic. Many ships come there from United States ports with only part crews, and the complete crew is obtained at the port on the Atlantic coast. It is important that a ship which is to be a part of a convoy should not delay the convoy while getting a crew together. Crews must always be available at this special place, and that is why the merchant marine have established these manning pools on our coast.
The manning pools are operated at considerable expense and are vitally necessary in looking after seamen. I am told that the usual seaman's pay on ships is S100 a month, which is little enough. The pay for oil tankers is more because this work is quite dangerous. I do not want the idea to go abroad, and I do not think the hon. member intended that it should, that seamen were carried from one port to another, leaving no crew available for the ship on which they had arrived. Ships are arriving every day. A ship arriving to-day may expect to be in port three weeks. Its crew can be brought to the rendezvous port where they can be checked up and given a rest or put in hospital, if necessary. When the ship is ready to sail, another crew will be available.
I was glad to hear the minister say that in some cases the pay of our naval ratings and junior naval officers is to be increased. The junior officers felt that they deserved a little better treatment. During the last war a position in the navy was considered a rather comfortable berth. During the last war the Canadian navy was not to such a great extent engaged, and the men of the navy did not have to face the constant dangers faced by the soldiers overseas. But in this war, as the minister says, the navy is having the casualties and is facing the rigours of the north Atlantic in winter, the submarine menace and all the dangers of the sea. The men of the navy are facing great hazards, and they should be rewarded accordingly.
I would remind the committee that many seamen are being taken care of on the eastern

War Appropriation-Naval Services
coast. Over 500 shipwrecked seamen have been picked up and cared for within the last couple of months. Hon. members can see that it is a lively place as far as merchant seamen are concerned. So the merchant seamen and the navy deserve the best of treatment from the Canadian people.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Was the adjustment to which the minister referred in the case I mentioned due to a reclassification of the man's position, or will it apply to other storerooms across Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As far as I understand, Mr. Pitman has not been reclassified. He is a naval stores officer. Reclassifications have been worked out in a great many cases, not merely at the dockyard at Halifax, but also at Esquimalt.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: The minister gave us a break-down yesterday which included $52,-
720,000	for stores, equipment and supplies, and $34,166,000 for armament stores. Will the minister outline to the committee what machinery the department has to make sure that these supplies are up to standard? In connection with torpedoes and other things supplied to the naval department, is there a representative of the department in the armament factories to make inspections? What percentage of materials purchased during the past year were not up to standard?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I could not give my hon. friend specific instances, but I may say that we have inspection officers who go around inspecting the many things we buy. These officers insist that the articles be up to specification. If they are not, and cannot be brought up to the specifications by modification, they are immediately condemned. It would take me some little time to find out just how great this condemnation has been, but I can get the information for my hon. friend.


George Hugh Castleden: Are there inspectors in each armament firm producing materials for the navy, or are inspectors located only in some firms? What is the procedure in connection with the condemnation of materials? Is it sent back to ordnance?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I imagine it would not be accepted at all. I am not exactly sure whether we have a man in every little place, but the articles are inspected before we accept them.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there an inspection staff for all this material?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that part of the British purchasing commission?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Our organization is not nearly as large as that of the British purchasing commission which has a tremendous organization spread all over the country. However, in a general way the work is similar. All inspection branches are doing pretty much the same sort of work; they examine the material before it is finally accepted. If it is not according to specification, it is condemned unless it can be brought up to standard by some modification. That is what we do on a smaller scale, compared with the army or the British purchasing commission.


George Hugh Castleden: I have the assurance of the minister that all supplies are inspected by the naval authorities?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the present system of purchasing through the department of munitions was set up, and perhaps in the early stages of the war when the purchasing board was operating, I think under Mr. Vaughan, the navy did its own purchasing, as did national defence. Then this new system was established whereby the department requiring supplies and munitions and the like requisitioned the Department of Munitions and Supply. That department makes the contract, fixes the price and so forth, but the inspection is carried on by the department making the requisition. Is that not the procedure? Or is there a double inspection? I would not assume there was, but is there?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In many cases there is a double inspection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Suppose shells are required for the navy. They are ordered through the Department of Munitions and Supply on requisition from the navy. Does the navy have an inspection staff in the shell plant, or is the inspection done under the Department of Munitions and Supply? I know there is an inspection because I have seen it, but I just want to know the modus operandi.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If you ask me about a given plant, I could not say at the moment whether we have inspectors there or not. Some plants do a very minor form of work, and we might not have an inspector there, but undoubtedly we would have supervision over the manufacture of shells. The branch of our department that is concerned with that work is under the particular charge of Captain Wood. Ships

War Appropriation-Naval Services
that were being built for us by the Department of Munitions and Supply would be inspected by the officers of another branch of the Department of Naval Services, who would watch their building, attend their trials, and finally pass upon them as having been properly built, and that inspection service would be in addition to whatever inspection the Department of Munitions and Supply might give.


Mr. HAZEN:: How many men have been honourably discharged from the navy, and how many discharged for cause since the beginning of the war? Is a man who is partly disabled let out of the service, or does the department find work for him?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The total number of discharges from the navy up to the end of last year was 1,537, and the number discharged as medically unfit, 933. We do provide work, where that is possible, for men who are partly unfit. I do not say that that is always possible, but I know we have one man at headquarters here who lost his leg in service, and he is still in the service, wearing an artificial limb. That is what we would try to do wherever possible.


Douglas King Hazen: To revert to the training of officers, are officers training courses being held at the present time on the Atlantic ocean?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Would the minister say
where they are being held, the subjects taught in those courses, the length of the courses, and whether those schools will be continued after the college is opened near Esquimalt next autumn?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Officers are trained to some extent at each one	of	the	vounteer reserve	divisions	inCanada, beginning at Charlottetown and going on to Saint John, Quebec, Montreal, and	so	on.	Some of the training of	the
officers would be undertaken there. The next stage in the officer's training if he is accepted, would be carried on at Halifax in the east or at Esquimalt in the west.
The courses themselves are the regular officers courses including seamanship, navigation, signalling, gunnery and the like. These courses will be carried on after the college at Esquimalt is opened, because that college	will	have a capacity	of only	onehundred cadets a year. The entry age is as low as sixteen. By itself that college would not	at	all	begin to fill the	needs of	the
Canadian navy, for officers.


Douglas King Hazen: The Minister of National Defence filed a syllabus of training for the officers under his department. Would the minister put on Hansard a copy of the syllabus which the naval officers take?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not have it here, but I shall be glad to do that on Monday.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Referring to the Spikenard, I believe that several of the pensonnel of the ship were saved. They were picked up and, I presume, taken to England. What happened after they arrived in England? In such cases are the men placed on other Canadian ships, or are they sent home to Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They probably received leave after they got ashore. Three or four of the men went to hospital, I think, and three or four did not need to go to hospital. They would get survivor's leave, as it is called. In that particular case the men would undoubtedly be attached to His Majesty's Canadian depot ship Niobe and be placed at the disposal of the officer commanding that ship. No doubt he would place them on some Canadian corvette or destroyer and return them to Canada, or they might be permanently attached to some Canadian corvette or destroyer which stood in need of reinforcements. They would come under the charge of the captain of the Niobe, Captain Agnew, and he would look after them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If they are given leave to come home, is their transportation advanced to them, or are they allowed any compensation on their way home?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is not a very easy question to answer. In the case of these particular men, if they were given leave to come home to Canada, I should think they would get passage on a Canadian corvette or destroyer. The practice of paying a man's leave from a foreign country to Canada is one that creates some difficulty, and there is no uniform rule about it in all three services. My hon. friend can see what problems it would lead to if we began to pay the transportation of men in large numbers from England to Canada. It would amount to a very great sum. On the other hand, we feel in the navy that if a ship has to put into a United States port-


John Ritchie MacNicol: In this case the ship was sunk.	[DOT]


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I know, and if my hon. friend is speaking of that, that is another story. I thought he was asking whether transportation is paid to men who are given leave to come home to Canada.
2264	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
We feel that if a ship puts into a United States port for a long refitting and has to be there for a month, it may be better to have the sailors return to their homes in Canada rather than to be kept in that port. They might not be able to sleep on the ship if the refitting was very extensive and would have to pay for quarters ashore. We consider that we should be allowed to pay their tray back to Canada in such a case. The air force has very large bodies of men in Newfoundland; so has the army, and in these services whether transportation should be paid to Canada raises a question of some difficulty.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the families of
those who lost their lives on the Spikenard be compensated? If so, what is the scale of compensation?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
cannot give the scale of compensation, but it is the regular pension. The minister of pensions can give that. If a sailor is lost at sea his dependents receive exactly the same treatment as the dependents of a man killed on the battlefield, but what the scale may be in any given case I do not know. I have not the table here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have in mind a son who lost his life at the time the Spikenard was sunk. His family asked me if his mother would be allowed any compensation. Before he enlisted he had been one of the supporters of the family.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: In that case the pension is not a matter of right but is based upon certain principles, one of which is that he would have been the sole support of his parents if he had been saved and had returned home. The principle in regard to a mother or other dependents, so far as pension is concerned, is entirely different from the principle with relation to widows.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Suppose at some future time the mother should become dependent on the public for support. What I want to know is, between now and that time, while not receiving anything, what would be her status? Would she be entitled later on?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he had contributed to her support before serving in the forces and she was not able to earn her own livelihood, she would be considered eligible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
would have to be the two factors, contribution, and the fact that she depended upon him for support.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there not a third principle, that of expectancy of support in her old age from that son? Is effect given to that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, my hon. friend is right; there are three principles involved.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is hard to make the third principle work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: How many merchant ships have been armed by the navy, or does the navy take that responsibility?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
cannot tell the hon. member how many have been armed. The naval department, so far as the arming of merchants ships in Canadian waters is concerned, would supervise that work, would put in the guns and generally provide the crews to operate them. How many ships have been armed, however, it is difficult to say, and perhaps it would not be well for me to state the number even if I had the exact figures. The number is considerable, however.


George Hugh Castleden: Does that equipment belong to the naval department or do the owners of the ship buy their own?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We have argued a great deal about that, but we were beaten down finally. We have to provide the equipment, and pay for it, so that it is ours.


George Hugh Castleden: Depth charges?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. We began in a small way, doing work for them, and ended by paying for the whole thing.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Do not the ship owners make any reimbursement?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ship owner attends to
the strengthening of the ship. We provide the mountings for the guns. The guns are furnished by the navy.


James Lester Douglas: And the service of the crew for the guns?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In
a great many cases we supply the crew.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


George Hugh Castleden: That is not the complete policy. In some cases the owners of the ship may supply their own equipment?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Their own crew?


George Hugh Castleden: Their own equipment;
I mean the gun itself. Does the department supply all that?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Now we supply the whole thing, the ammunition, the gun, and the men to operate it. There might be some cases dating back from early days when merchant ships had their own gun crews, but nowadays we have a large number of ratings on what are known as defensively equipped merchant ships, which are referred to as Dems. There are a large number of these. In the beginning the merchant ships probably had a few gunners of their own.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where Canadians take
part in commando raids on enemy territory, if there is no record of any man who does not return who may have been captured or killed in landing or after landing, does the dependents' allowance stop immediately or is it continued until something definite is found out?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
am not quite sure on all the points. If he is missing, his pay goes on for the rest of the month. I think that is the arrangement. When he is presumed killed his widow or dependent, as the case may be, falls under the ordinary pension regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there an interregnum when she does not get anything?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
do not think so. I remember an order was signed recently but I do not recall its exact terms. I believe the' man's pay goes on until the end of the month, and once presumption of death arises the pension begins automatically.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I ask the question for
this reason. In the air force it stops immediately. I have in mind a young man who enlisted in the R.C.A.F. and on reaching England was apparently transferred to the R.A.F. He was there only a short time and was sent to Gibraltar or Malta.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is the R.A.F.?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is not our service.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But he enlisted in the
Canadian forces. I will bring the matter up later when the minister for air is before us. This young man was reported missing after an attack on an Italian convoy, and the separation allowance was stopped immediately.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is in the R.A.F. That does not come under the Canadian regulations. We have our own regulations which are different from those.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is probably not the
right time to ask how he got out of the R.C.A.F. into the R.A.F. I should like to know whether on going into the R.A.F. he lost all rights that belonged to him under the R.C.AJF.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are many Canadians in the R.A.F. Some are on Canadian rates of pay-most of them, I believe. I thought my hon. friend was referring to a Canadian who had joined the R.A.F., becoming an out-and-out member of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He was transferred to it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He is probably on R.C.A.F. rates of pay.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: There is an anomaly in the pension law which I can best illustrate by taking the case of a member of the naval service. Our pension legislation now in existence came into effect a year ago in pursuance of a report of a special committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macmillan). The effect of the legislation on members of the armed forces was to change the pension law as it stood in 1940 when under the terms of an order in council there was in effect the principle that obtained in the original Pension Act of 1919. The feature of which I wish to speak is the so-called insurance principle, sometimes called the "incurred during service" principle. Under that principle, once a man enlisted the country became responsible for him. There was one exception, misconduct, but subject to misconduct the country in effect took the responsibility of insuring the man so that if any injury occurred to him during service he, or in case of death his dependents, became entitled to pension. But instead of that principle there was adopted what is commonly called the "attributable to service" principle, which meant that the injured man, in the event of disability, or his dependents in the event of his death, had to show that his injury or death arose out of or was directly connected with his military service.
Taking the case of men serving in the Canadian navy, if these men are injured or
2266	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
killed outside the territorial waters of Canada they or their dependents are entitled to compensation. It does not affect the case whether their injury or death was due to accident or to something that occurred in the course of hostilities. If a man in the Canadian naval service is killed while in Canada his dependents will not necessarily obtain compensation, nor in case of injury will he necessarily be entitled to compensation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unless it was a result of service.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Unless that injury or death arose out of or was connected with his naval service. In other words if a man takes influenza or has appendicitis, unless he can show, which in many cases is impossible, that his influenza or appendicitis was occasioned by his service in the navy, he or his dependents are not entitled to compensation. If he is accidentally killed while out motoring, likewise, unless he was on some work connected with his service, there is no provision for compensation. Of course the same principle is also in effect in the army and the air force.
I suggest that whatever may have been the reasons for this anomaly in our pension law in the past, to-day, under the changed conditions, they no longer apply. The war has spread to the Pacific as well as the Atlantic; enemy submarines operate in our coastal and territorial waters. There seems to be no reason why men in the naval service in Canada should be under a disability or be discriminated against in comparison with members of our naval service serving in England or in the West Indies. The same is true of members of the Canadian air force and members of the Canadian army who, while ready to go overseas, die in consequence of some injury contracted during their service but not directly attributable to their service. All these men should have the same protection that was accorded to men who served in the last war. It is almost impossible for a medical man or for anybody to prove to a medical tribunal that a man's death, occurring say in consequence of appendicitis, was attributable to service. Although his service, however, may not have been the immediate cause, the fatality may have been due to the changed conditions under which he had to live when he became a member of the armed forces. In other words some months after a man joins the army or the navy in perfectly good health, he suffers an attack of illness from some internal condition which, while it cannot be shown to have been directly attributable to service, nevertheless may have been occasioned 
or brought on by changed diet, changed lodging or changed living conditions.
I know it may be said that there is provision for a compassionate allowance in certain cases, but I submit that is not good enough. Members of the active service force who are injured during service should be entitled to pension if disability occurs during service, not on compassionate grounds, not as a matter of charity or hand-out, but as a reward for valuable service rendered to the country. These men or their dependents should not have to prove necessity in order to qualify for compensation, because if they do, in many cases those who are most deserving would not obtain compensation. Their circumstances might be necessitous, but their pride would preclude them from applying on those grounds.
We were all pleased at the minister's announcement to-day that new naval regulations will bring to parity as far as possible the pay of those in the naval service and that of those in other branches of the armed forces. I suggest to the minister that some attempt be made to take up now the question of the compensation to which members of the naval service, as well as those of the other armed services, should become entitled in the event of disability.


Mr. REID:: Would the minister care to tell the committee if corvettes are used in convoy work or for protection against submarines?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: 
Thomas Reid: Has the navy department any extensive programme for the building of corvettes?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, quite extensive. We are building them, or having them built for us, all the time. There are some on the ways now, and several will be launched this summer.


Grote Stirling: Two nights ago there was an appeal over the radio for machinists and fitters for employment at the Halifax dockyard. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether he has made it a practice to send requisitions for his requirements to the Department of National War Services. I remember that at the beginning of the war we had the voluntary service emploj'ment bureau; then there was the registration of 1940; then the registration in connection with unemployment insurance, and then the census. It has neve^ been clear to me whether the other departments of the government have definitely indented on the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
information brought to light by these registrations. I should like the minister to tell me, if he can, that it is a definite practice in his department, when men of a certain class are required, first of all to take everything that is available according to the information brought to light by these registrations.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The broadcast to which my hon. friend refers was made by Engineer Captain Stephens, I think.


Grote Stirling: It was just read over the air.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I did not see the text of the broadcast before it was delivered, and I would not care to attempt to answer the question definitely, as to whether the engineering department consulted the Department of National War Services before making the appeal. I could obtain that information. Unfortunately Captain Stephens has gone to the west coast and will not be back until the first of next week. It would be he who would make the appeal, in connection with shipwrights, artificers and dock yard men; it would be he, I assume, who would investigate labour conditions before making the appeal. I can get from him the information on that point.


Grote Stirling: I should be glad if the minister would do so, because I should like to be able to establish the point that it is the custom and policy of one department of the government to keep in close touch with those who have the figures resulting from the registration so that when a need appears it can be filled with reasonable speed.
There is another matter in connection with the dockyards as to which I should like some information. No doubt the dockyards are full of work. Proof of that is to be found in the fact that it has been necessary to send certain refitting and repair work to other places to be done. What are the hours of employment at the Halifax dockyard, for instance? Last fall we found that at Portsmouth there were twenty thousand men employed, working three shifts a day, entirely occupied in outfitting, refitting and doing repair work of a major nature. Certainly work in these three categories is required to be done in our dockyards. I should like the minister to tel! us the number employed at the Halifax dockyard in that work, and how many shifts are working each day.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. friend that we do as well as the Portsmouth dockyard, where he found twenty thousand men working three shifts a day. I do not think we can approach
that record. I should like to get specific information on that point, and bring it down on Monday.


Grote Stirling: Do we work three shifts?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think we do. There may be three shifts in some branches, but there would not be three full shifts at the Halifax dockyard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a
matter of fact, to be perfectly candid, speaking generally there is only one shift a day. Things are tied down at twelve o'clock noon on Saturday and there is no work Saturday afternoon or on Sunday, except in an emergency. There is only one shift a day at Halifax, is there not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think that statement was made the other day with reference to the Halifax shipyard, which is another matter altogether. I am speaking of the naval dockyard. There are not three full shifts a day. On the other hand I would not want to say that there is not one full shift and other partial shifts. I believe one of the problems there is a shortage of skilled foremen, and that sort of thing; but there are not three full shifts. On the other hand, I think it is a little better than one eight-hour shift; but I should like to get the exact information.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Are all repairs required to Canadian ships made in Canada, or do some ships have to be sent outside to be repaired?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some are repaired outside of Canada-in Newfoundland, in Great Britain, and some even in United States ports.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Could the minister tell us how many corvettes he is going to add to the Royal Canadian Navy this year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I did not want to give exact figures with regard to any particular ships. I said we now had seventy-five corvettes, more or less, and that this year we would add about a hundred ships, including a good many corvettes. I think that is about as close as I should come to it. A good many of the hundred ships that we hope to add during the next year would be corvettes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In regard to operations in Halifax harbour, is there the fullest cooperation between the naval authorities and the Department of Transport, that is the harbour commission authorities? In particular, what was the cause of the inquiry

War Appropriation-Naval Services
in respect of the vessel Claire Lilley, recently-held before Mr. Justice Archibald, which I believe was a secret inquiry?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That was not a naval inquiry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it was a judicial inquiry before Mr. Justice Archibald.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What was the vessel, a merchant ship?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I do not know.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not sure that it was a warship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
would not suppose it was, from the name. I understand that if the full details of that inquiry were given to the public it would reveal very interesting information as to the cooperation or lack of cooperation, one or the other, between the Canadian naval authorities and the pilotage service in and out of Halifax. Although I am not specifically informed, I assume it may have been collision. The inquiry was held in secret, and evidence was taken; but I do not think anything has been said about it. There are a number of other cases about which the public are inquiring. I am mentioning only one at the moment, and I suggest that the minister should get information. Unless there is some violation of a military or naval secret, which would be of advantage to the enemy-and I can scarcely think that would be the case, because it all happened within the harbour limits-he should bring down information, and should tell us exactly what the position is, what action was taken and the result of the inquiry.
I am going to leave it at this, that there is a suggestion that there is not the fullest cooperation between the naval authorities on the one hand and, shall I say, the civil governmental authorities on the other. That has raised a nasty situation, one that is not-well, shall I say creditable-with the result that there is not that degree of efficiency in the harbour that there ought to be. Would the minister bring that information down as fully as possible on Monday?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to do that. Offhand I have not heard of the case of the Claire Lilley, but I shall find out about it. It might not be in my department at all, but I shall get the fullest possible information.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: A few days ago an hon. member asked what right nontMr. R, B. Hanson.]
British countries had to order their nationals domiciled in Canada to undertake compulsory service in their own armed forces. I have had occasion to look up the law on this subject, and to hon. members to whom it might be of interest I would refer them to Hansard of May 1, 1941, where the Prime Minister gave a conclusive answer to the same question when asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. From that answer it appears that such countries can bring the call for compulsory service to the attention of the nationals, but they cannot exercise any compulsion within Canada in order to induce them to respond to the call. The Prime Minister continued:
The national of the foreign government can refuse to respond to the call, without incurring any penalties within this country. On the other hand he will not be able to embark on a ship flying the flag of his home country or enter its territories ^without subjecting himself to prosecution in his own country.
That is the situation.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I have had the privilege of visiting Halifax harbour and barracks on only one occasion but, since my home is in the vicinity of Esquimalt, I have been there on many occasions. I have noticed at both points that while there is a large number of civilians working, there is very poor restaurant accommodation. Our men have been asking for better accommodation, and I should like to know if the situation has been remedied.
Another matter which seemed apparent was the congestion within the barracks itself. A number of bunkhouses appeared to be built very close to each other. Is there any real necessity for having these bunkhouses, accommodating a large number of men, built side by side. I believe one of the bunkhouses at Halifax harbour has been destroyed since the time of my visit.
Is there any necessity for having hospitals built within that area? It seems to me we are running an unnecessary risk which could be avoided by spreading out a little more. Additional buildings are being erected at Esquimalt, and in my opinion they are being built too close to the other buildings, having regard to protection of our men.
I believe, too, we have not yet any balloon barrages, or any type of protection which should be above these barracks to protect the men as much as possible.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall look into these matters. I do not believe it is desirable to have the hospitals out of the general area in which the troops are located. It must be remembered that the problem of discipline and the control of men

War Appropriation-Naval Services
is always important. While I agree that the buildings should not be crowded closely together, still I think they should all be within the same general area, for the sake of the better discipline which can be effected in that way.
I shall look into the question of restaurant accommodation for civilians at Esquimalt. The balloon barrage does not come within my department. On the assumption that balloon barrage protection is desirable or necessary in some of the coastal cities, a subject concerning which there is considerable doubt, it would not be the duty of the navy, but rather be that of one of the other forces to provide such barrage.


Mr. McGARRY:: I understand considerable ship repairing is being done at the port of Louisburg. Is any repairing being done to naval ships at that port?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think any extensive repairs are being done to naval ships. There might be some small or running repairs which could be made there; but there is, as far as I know, no dry dock or marine railway at Louisburg. Consequently only light repairs could be made. However, some merchant ships are putting in there, and it may well be that some naval ships, too, have had minor repairs done. I should hope that that would be the case.


Mr. BROOKS:: The minister has told us
about the elaborate programme for the con-itruction of naval vessels during the coming year, and about the number of vessels constructed during the past year. All hon. members realize the great need for these vessels, and that they should be built as quickly as possible. I believe the public has been quite concerned in the past year over the great number of labour disputes in Canada. Have these labour disputes in any way materially affected the navy's building programme? I realize, of course, that such disputes come under the Department of Labour, but they also affect our war effort. While we realize that the men should and must receive the proper wages for their labour, we have been quite concerned over sympathetic strikes where large numbers of men go out on strike perhaps because some one man has been dismissed by reason of lack of knowledge of the work he is supposed to perform. How many work hours have been lost on naval construction in the past year on account of such strikes in Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall try to get that information from the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I wish he were here. I know he intends to be here
because he expects to reach some of his expenditures. The hon. member will, however, understand that when we want a ship we specify the kind of ship and have the plans drawn up. Then the Department of Munitions and Supply arranges for the building of it. Consequently the matter of days lost through labour disputes would be one within the knowledge of that department rather than of mine. Of course anything that keeps men away from work for two or three days interferes to that extent with the swift and complete building of the ship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to bring up something which perhaps is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). I think the ministry should give some indication of what the position is with regard to labour ;n the city of Halifax, particularly in respect of the shipyards and the longshoremen. I believe a rather disturbing situation has arisen there. While a discussion of this matter may not be germane to the minister's estimates, it may be of some interest to this country to know that as recently as April 30, 1942, order in council P.C. 3511 was passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), invoking the provisions of both the War Measures Act and the National Resources Mobilization Act. Under this order in council the longshoremen in the port of Halifax are being regimented, or should I say "conscripted", for the first time. The principle of compulsion has been inaugurated, and the order provides for the imposition of fines and penalties for breaches of the order made by the controller.
I do not know the reason for the enactment of this order in council but I do know that it is the most advanced piece of legislation with respect to labour ever passed by this government by means of order in council with parliament in session and without any reference to parliament. I want hon. members to read this order in council over the weekend and to endeavour to understand its implications. I would refer them to the preamble and to the subject matter as covered by section 3.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is it in the Canada
Gazettet


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know; I never see the Canada Gazette. I get copies of the orders in council passed under the War Measures Act and I read as many of them as possible. When this one reached my desk yesterday I thought it contained most drastic provisions, and I thought some explanation was due to the house

War Appropriation-Naval Services
and the country with respect to the underlying policy. I do not say that the position is not justified, for I do not know what the circumstances are. But I do know that the proposals contained in this order in council are the most drastic with relation to labour that have been enacted since the war began or even before. I direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to section 3 which covers the powers of the controller and to section 12 which covers the modus operandi and the allocation of labour to individuals working in the harbour. This section has eight subsections. Section 13 grants protection to the controller and any person acting for or under his authority and declares, under the authority of the War Measures Act and the Mobilization Act, that the controller or any such person "shall not be liable to any person for anything done or omitted in the exercise or purported exercise of any power or authority from time to time vested in the controller." He is made a czar.


Angus MacInnis: That is in most orders now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a drastic provision.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 14 of the order provides:
All persons, companies, organizations, associations or agencies

I think that covers the whole gamut of human relations.
-directly or indirectly engaged or concerned in shiploading' operations in the port-
Meaning the port of Halifax.
-shall in all matters act upon-
That is the compulsion.
-and in accordance with the directions, orders and decisions given or made by the controller under this order.
The first question that naturally arises is: what was the occasion for the enactment of such drastic legislation? I do not say that the occasion did not warrant the action, because I do not know, but I think it is due to the public that the true position should be made known. We should be told why this order was enacted when the house was in session. Was it necessary to act so quickly that parliament could not be consulted? This is a direct regimentation of labour, mandatory in character, with breaches punishable on summary conviction by fine or imprisonment or both. The provisions with respect to punishment will be found in section 16, which reads:
Any person, company, organization, association or agency as aforesaid who, or which, contravenes or fails to comply with any pro-

vision of this order or with any direction, order or decision given or made by the controller under this order shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
That may be necessary. I do not know, but I do invite the ministry to tell us why such drastic legislation was enacted by order in council while this house was in session and why the governor in council took upon itself the power to impose fine and imprisonment for a breach of a civil order. Is that to be the policy of the government for the future with regard to labour? I hold no especial brief for labour, but I want to see fair play. Is any other class in the country being dealt with in the same way? Yes, there is. There are other civil provisions in respect of breaches of orders in council which were passed by this government while parliament was in session. There are many of them, but this is the first time that this principle has been applied to organized labour, and the ministry must justify itself. Has organized labour failed in the national emergency? Is it necessary in the public interest that this order should be passed? Let us know the circumstances so that the house and the country may judge. I am not passing judgment on the policy; I am simply questioning the reason for it.
It is our right and duty to call attention to these matters. We should not allow this sort of thing to pass unnoticed. I am not approaching it in a spirit of censure, and I am certainly not approaching it in a spirit of praise. I want to know what the facts are, and I want to approach whatever consideration I give to them with as judicial a mind as I can summon to my support. I invite the minister to tell us the reason why this was done. The Minister of Labour is not at the moment in his seat. He is the sponsor of this thing, but I have no doubt that the demand, if there was such a demand, came from other departments.
So far as I know, organized labour in this country have made their contribution to the war. So far as I understand their position, they are not satisfied with certain things which have been done; they are not satisfied with government policy.
May I pause here for a moment to pay tribute to the work of a man who in the course of a lifetime's performance of duty was suddenly stricken yesterday with illness. I refer to Mr. Tom Moore. I have known him for many years. I am glad to say that I have always found his views with respect to the relations between capital and labour, and the relations of labour with the government, sane

War Appropriation-Naval Services
and sound. I regret more than I can say that at this difficult time, in the performance of his duty, in endeavouring to explain matters to those whom he represents, he should have temporarily at least fallen by the wayside. I certainly hope-and in expressing this hope I am sure that it will be the wish of everybody within sound of my voice-that his disability is only temporary.
Labour for the most part, I think, has satisfactorily performed its functions in this difficult war period through which we are passing. There are perhaps exceptions. I have no doubt that there is a left wing in labour, as there is in most bodies, and I certainly have never welcomed certain agents who have come into this country. But that is just in passing.
I think the government owe to this house and certainly to the country an explanation why legislation of this kind is passed by order in council while parliament is in session, legislation confined, if you will, to a narrow basis, to the port of Halifax, and I invite the minister to give us an explanation.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
regret that I am not able to comply with the hon. gentleman's request. Matters dealing with longshoremen and labour conditions are matters for the Minister of Labour. I think we should leave them to him to deal with. I believe he could explain the genesis of the order in council, certainly much better than I could. We do not employ longshoremen. If there are naval craft to be attended to, we attend to them ourselves. I do not know whether my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply has anything to say about the matter. I think the explanation of the order in council had better be left to the Minister of Labour.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in rising
to say a word on this matter I should like first to associate myself with the remarks of the leader of the opposition in regard to the sudden illness of Mr. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I have known Mr. Moore for many years and have been associated with him at times in his work, and I join most heartily in the hope expressed by the leader of the opposition that Mr. Moore's illness may be only temporary.
I am glad that the leader of the opposition has raised the question he did because in my own feeble way I have been trying ever since the beginning of the war to impress upon this house and the country that one of the chief obstacles to our war effort has
been the refusal of the government to take labour into its confidence and to make it a partner.
When in February last the executive of the trades and labour congress of Canada met certain members of the cabinet to put before them the legislative programme of the congress for this year, the Prime Minister frankly admitted that the government had not cooperated with labour as much as it should have done. But despite that, the government has not changed its policy.
The leader of the opposition has referred to the order in council. I must admit that I have never seen it, and I do not know how the leader of the opposition got it, unless it was sent to him as a special favour or unless he made application to the clerk of the privy council for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think all orders in council under the War Measures Act are sent as a matter of courtesy to the leader of the opposition from the registrar of the legislative committee of the cabinet. I am sure I cannot read them all.


Angus MacInnis: I hope we shall all get a copy of the order in council at an early date. But let me tell the leader of the opposition and the members of this house that this is not the first order in council of this kind which has been passed since the war began. My hon. friend the member for Royal, I think it was, asked a question in regard to the amount of time lost through strikes. If one considers the non-cooperative policy of the government and the anti-labour policy of Canadian employers, it is amazing how few strikes we have had and how little time has been lost in that way in Canada since the war began. Whenever a little time is lost through a strike we all know about it at once through headlines in the press, but we do not hear of the time that is continually being lost-far more time than is lost by strikes-through lack of proper organization in industrial plants and matters of that kind over which the workers have no control.
Last September, while a number of disputes in shipyards were being heard by conciliation boards appointed by the Department of Labour, that department appointed a royal commission to investigate the shipyards in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. As I have pointed out before, the members of that royal commission, three lawyers, Mr. MacDonald, of Dalhousie university, Senator Gouin, of Ottawa or Montreal, and Mr. Barlow of Ontario, were appointed without any prior consultation whatsoever with

War Appropriation-Naval Services
organized labour. Some time after it was appointed to deal with one or two shipyards, its powers were extended to cover all the shipyards in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. On November 24 the commission reported to the Minister of Labour recommending an increased wage scale for all the shipyards concerned. This matter was under discussion for some time; then suddenly on January 26 the government, by order in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, ignored altogether the report of its royal commission and the scale of wages it had recommended, and for the first time in Canada's history, so far as I know, set a wage scale by order in council. Not only did they set the wage scale for certain workers by order in council, but in the same order they gave the Minister of Labour the right to set wages for any category of labour not already mentioned in the schedule attached to the order in council, at whatever rate he might consider fair and reasonable. As I pointed out some time ago, that is doing just the very opposite to what the government at the beginning of the war did by order in council. By order in council P.C. 2685 the government gave its blessing to the principle of collective bargaining; but here, by order in council, it has completely destroyed collective bargaining, because there can be no collective bargaining under an order in council.
If there is anything that is amazing in our whole war effort it is the fact that labour has acted as reasonably as it has done considering the treatment it has received; and undoubtedly the reason that labour has acted as reasonably as it has, is that labour realizes that it has a stake in the winning of this war. There must be some one in the Department of Labour of late, who, whenever a case comes up involving some problem that requires consideration and cooperation with labour, immediately says, "We had better settle it by order in council". There must be someone in the department with considerable influence who takes that attitude. I do not know who the party is but in some way or other that person must be rooted out, or the Minister of Labour will have to take the responsibility for what has been done and is being done in his name. I have not seen the order in council to which the leader of the opposition has referred. I will make it my business to see it as early as I can, and I shall have something further to say about it. This order, I understand, refers to longshore work. I wonder if the Department of Labour has heard what has

happened in the old country with regard to longshoremen. Longshoremen to-day are in the service of the government with a stated wage, whether they work or not. That is something that Ernest Bevin won in a dispute in 1921. For a long time it was not given effect to; he had to wait twenty years until he came into office himself before the organization he represented received what they were given by a board set up by the government.
I have mentioned the failure of the government to cooperate with labour. I have in my hand a report by the executive of the trades and labour congress of Canada, of which Mr. Moore is president, on order in council P.C. 8253, the wage-fixing order. In this report the executive states:
This conference further expresses its regret that any representative of the government should create such a misleading impression in the public mind, that labour had in any manner been a party to the formulation of the policies incorporated in order in council P.C. 8253.
That was in connection with a statement made in a radio address by the former minister of labour that this order had been discussed with organized labour before it was passed. The report goes on:
At the outset this conference reiterates and wishes to make definite and clear that organized labour throughout the whole of Canada as represented by the trades and labour congress of Canada has pledged its fullest support to the government of Canada in all steps essential to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion to the end that freedom, right and justice shall prevail over the nazi forces of aggression. . . . This declared policy was made in good faith and has been faithfully observed.
It must be pointed out, however, that the unwillingness of the federal government to accept the proffered cooperation of the representatives of organized workers makes it increasingly difficult for them to give effect to that policy.
This is the considered opinion not of a left-wing of the Canadian labour movement, but of conservative responsible officials of the largest labour organization in Canada. Not only that, but they said in connection with the national labour supply council, which has recently been abolished:
The conference considered that the national labour supply council was not functioning as had been expected,-
But listen to this.
-but that in many instances it had been used to mislead the public as to the attitude of organized labour respecting the government's labour policies, and in that way the members acting thereon had been placed in a false position. This opinion was expressed in the following resolution which was unanimously adopted:

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Whereas the national labour supply council was created by order in council P.C. 2686 of June, 1940, by the present government for the purpose of acting in an advisory capacity regarding matters affecting labour and industry during the war emergency;
And whereas many questions of national importance have been referred to this council for advice, and in many instances, other matters of equal or greater importance have been dealt with in other quarters and the national labour supply council ignored;
Whereas, generally the advice and recommendations of the council have not been accepted by the government or its ministers, which indicates that its services are evidently of no value as further demonstrated by the manner in which order in council P.C. 8253 was enacted.
Therefore be it resolved, that the representatives of the affiliated organizations of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada herewith request that the order in council under which the national labour supply council was established be revoked.
Could there be a greater condemnation of the government's policy toward organized labour than that resolution? Possibly this is not the time to deal fully with this matter, but that time will come, and I assure this committee that the question of the government's labour policy will be dealt with.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last night I
asked the minister a couple of questions on which he was going to give me information to-day. The first had to do with what steps were taken to unify the command on the two coasts as between the army, air force and naval forces, particularly the naval forces whose task it is to be responsible for the defence of Canada's shores.
The other question was with reference to the $21,000,000 to be spent for buildings.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: For new buildings the amount is $20,509,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the
minister outline some of the buildings?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Naval service headquarters at Ottawa; that is the new building going up here. I think I said last night from memory that the cost would be in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a million dollars. As a matter of fact it is

Others are:
Halifax dockyard	 $3,996,000
Halifax barracks	 3,606,000
Sydney base	 4,469,000
Esquimalt base	 78,000
Esquimalt dockyard	 1,524,000
Esquimalt barracks	 850,000
Royal Roads (that is the site of
the new naval college)	 535,000
Botwood, Newfoundland, about.. 730,000
Saint John, N.B., base	 635,000
And a large number of smaller sums. There are some twenty to twenty-five projects in all, but I have given the main ones.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does this
amount cover all the buildings to be erected? Are there other buildings put up by the Department of Public Works?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: This covers all the buildings that we are to erect this year. There are a few buildings to be rented, the rentals amounting, I think, to $166,000. Land to be purchased runs to about $1,250,000, and the whole thing makes up the total of $21,955,000 which I gave last night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
contemplated at Saint John? Is the estimated cost of $635,000 for new construction? Will there be any land in connection with that?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, there is $21,000 for land.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a pier at the entrance
to the dry dock, in connection with ship repairs.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In addition to the present facilities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Construction of buildings at Saint John is given at $423,000; purchase of land and buildings, $16,500; rental of lands and buildings, $27,000; carryover from 1941-42, $190,000, making a total of $656,500. The exact detail of the buildings is not given here. It will be in connection with the dock and repair facilities there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand from the minister's colleague that there is a new pier near the dry dock or repair facilities now there for the purpose of docking ships in connection with repairs to them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The extension of, I think, the south bulkhead.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The extension of the north and south sides, one of which we pay for and one of which I think the Department of Munitions and Supply pay for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
would not be any land required for that.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City); The pier is very long, I think 700 or 800 feet, in order to enable ships to be taken out of the dry dock quickly without interfering with other ships going in for repairs.

2274	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it of a temporary or permanent nature?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Permanent.


James Lester Douglas: Is the minister prepared to make any statement about the unified command?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have not much to add except that on the east coast General Elkins is in command of the whole area. My hon. friend's question was, I think, particularly directed to whether General Elkins could order ships of the Canadian navy out to sea. In a strict sense he could not do that; I am so informed by the chief of naval staff. I do not know that any army commander would endeavour to designate particular ships, because he is not familiar with the operation of ships. What I fancy might be done would be that the general would say, "I want a combined force of ships, planes and land forces for a certain purpose", and he would ask the naval commander, "what in your judgment would be the correct number of ships and that sort of thing?" That, I imagine, is what General Elkins would do. Strictly speaking, he is in what is called strategic control of the whole coast, but he does not exercise or attempt to exercise powers over the actual disposition of individual ships. That is a matter which is still under the control of the chief of naval staff and the admiral commanding on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition brought up the matter of this order in council, and I think this committee has a right to an explanation from the Minister of Labour in regard to it, because I believe it is just one more step tending to lessen the importance of this parliament in the eyes of the people of Canada. To me this is one of the most unusual of the departures from the ordinary rules of law that have characterized the activities of this government, and I add my protest in support of the stand taken by the leader of the opposition. I protest against the tendency of this government to act with cavalier disregard of and contempt for the rights of parliament. This order in council goes further than any other passed so far. Up to the present time acts of parliament have been suspended, amended in part or in whole, and even abrogated by order in council, and I may add that we on this side of the house have been endeavouring to secure information in regard to the statutes thus affected, but as yet we have been unable to get it, though [Mr. Macdonald (Kingston City).J
the Prime Minister has stated that certain acts of parliament have been effected as indicated.
Under this legislation labour is placed in a position which cannot be justified. I am not one of those who believe in raising class against class, in pointing out the great contribution of labour and at the same time ridiculing the contribution made by the industrialists of this country. Both have contributed to the effort; they have worked in partnership, and I condemn those who would endeavour, in time of war, to secure support for themselves, by pleading for one class as against another or by endeavouring to cast aspersions upon the great industrialists, of whom some are known as dollar-a-year men, who are serving this country fairly and honestly. Labour has done fine work. So have the industrialists. But I do think this piece of legislation is not fair to labour. It reveals a tendency to disregard the rights of individuals engaged in labour which, if not protested against, may well lead to a state of regimentation one does not care to contemplate.
This is the first mobilization by compulsion and by locality. It is limited territorially. The rule of law under which we operate gives every person equality under the law, but this legislation by order in council makes it an offence to do certain things in Halifax, places labour under compulsion in Halifax, while a different law prevails in all the other seaports of Canada. I protest against the principle of an order in council such as this, which is retroactive in part and applicable to only one section of Canada. If it is to be of assistance to the war effort, then make it applicable to all seaports. To make such provisions applicable to only one place; to give any individual the power to control and dictate to labour as to how it shall act, what it shall do, and so on, is a departure from British constitutional principles and a denial of the liberty of the subject. Section 3 of this order in council provides that the controller shall have power and authority-
[DOT]-to give directions to, and to make orders, and decisions binding upon, all persons, companies, organizations, associations and agencies engaged or concerned in shiploading or unloading at the port of Halifax with respect to all matters, whether general or special, other than wage rates, affecting working and hiring conditions, practices and methods in connection with shiploading and unloading operations.
Then it goes on and destroys the entire right of the individual to hire as he will. Under the provisions of this order in council men are going to be hired not as individuals but, if I may use the expression, in bulk, for section 12 provides:

War Appropriation-Naval Services
The present system of daily hiring of individuals working at the site of the work is hereby abolished and there shall be substituted therefor a new system of hiring which, subject to such alterations as the controller may deem expedient, shall embody the following principles. . . .


John Ritchie MacNicol: What controller?


John George Diefenbaker: A controller set up by the governor in council to control the longshoremen in the city of Halifax. Then it goes on to provide that there shall be set up a central dispatching agency:
The present active working personnel of the port shall be divided into fixed gangs with named gang bosses; longshoremen shall hereafter be hired in gangs and exclusively through the dispatching agency.
Just picture the situation. Only those are to be hired who come exclusively through a dispatching agency set up by the government. This government, which is so fearful of compulsion in so many matters, by order in council has done something which constitutes an invasion of the rights of the individual that in fny opinion cannot be justified. When we speak about labour and production-and no doubt we will be hearing more about this -is labour responsible to-day for the decrease in production that has occurred in some parts of Canada? Or is it the lack of governmental organization; is it the bottlenecks which have been created because of the fact that materials are not being received? Members of this house are receiving letters from persons employed in various factories in Canada in which we have been told that men in some war plants have little or no work to do because of the shortage of materials.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Only in government
operated plants.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not speaking about government operated plants. I am speaking now of plants engaged in the manufacture of war materials, and I have particularly in mind plants engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes. We cannot get any direct answer from the government; we are simply told that it cannot be so. I do not believe that statements coming from men working in factories in various parts of Canada that there is no work, or they are working only part time, because of the shortage of materials, would be made unless there is some foundation therefor. I suggest this, that instead of bringing into effect while parliament is in session an order in council which controls the individual and interferes with his rights to such an extent as to render him powerless-instead of introducing legislation like that while parliament is in
session, by the backdoor route of an order in council, this government should ask for and would get the cooperation of labour. Canada should be assured that the men engaged in industiy and those working in war factories should have the opportunity of contributing to the very limit, by operating a twenty or twenty-four hour day.
The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to-day said that he needed ships. But he said our factories are not operating full time. I ask the minister what is being done in order to increase the production of ships in Canada. Does the naval department believe there should be wooden ships produced as mine-sweepers, and the like?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They are being produced.


John George Diefenbaker: In Canada? When the minister replies would he say when that production started, to what extent it is being encouraged by the government, and to what extent wooden vessels are being used?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has, if he will forgive me, stepped pretty heavily into my own field of production. I think I should say a few words at this time. I am astonished that a gentleman who only to-day has been demanding conscription, and immediate conscription, objects so seriously to an arrangement which has a certain degree of compulsion as applied to longshoremen at Halifax. In war time the rights of the individual must on occasions be subordinated to the rights of the state.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that is conscription of the men in Halifax? Is that what it is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. But I say my hon. friend was demanding conscription, and he objects to the orderly feature of compulsion. The position at Halifax is this-and if the Minister of Labour were here he would be the proper man to answer it. A situation arose there that was just as bad for the men themselves as it was for the other interests concerned. The arrangements that were made there were made by mutual consent. In Halifax a tremendous number of boats have to load and unload. The delay of a boat alongside a dock may be just as serious as the loss of one boat. At least the delay of boats for three or four days is as serious as the loss of one boat by submarine sinking.
A situation arose under which too much time was lost in Halifax. I think it was a year ago that by agreement with labour Mr. COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
Vincent Macdonald was placed in the position of being the arbitrator 'of all matters of stevedoring. Since that time there has been some improvement, but in recent months we have had crews turn up without key men -certain winchmen and certain labourers who must be with the crew, otherwise the crew cannot function. We have had cases where a crew would turn up, but because of that winchman they would have to be sent home; they could not function. We have had cases where winchmen would turn up, but an insufficient number of labourers would turn up for the crew to function. It was a disorganized state of affairs. Some arrangement had to be made so that we could be sure that when a shift came on it would come on complete, with the proper organization to go to work.
The Minister of Labour went to Halifax and spent some time there consulting longshoremen organizations. He met the longshoremen in mass public meetings, and the result was this order in council. The order in council is an improvement for the men. It insured to the men that when they reported for work in Halifax they would be able to work, and it insured to the ships lying alongside-


John Ritchie MacNicol: After reporting for work, if for some reason work was stopped a few hours and the men had nothing to do, they would receive their pay anyway, would they not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, under this arrangement. A number of concessions were made. The men have always wanted a hiring hall in Halifax. The fact that there were several stevedoring organizations operating there led to the continued lack of a hiring hall. The hiring hall of course helps in the organization and the dispatch of crews.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The same as on the
railway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not the same as on the railway, but it is the same system as has been working with great satisfaction in Vancouver for a number of years. The arrangements I am sure are much more satisfactory in labour to-day than they were before this order in council was passed.


Angus MacInnis: Hitler stated the same thing about what he was doing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless my hon. friends opposite think nothing of conscripting men for the army. Men on the job, when they are under charter, are on pay and under discipline. I know no reason in war time why it is
IMr. Howe.]
criminal to put key men in industiy under discipline, especially if it is done by mutual consent, as this was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the
minister say this was agreed to by the longshoremen?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does he now state that the policy of the government is to conscript free men for industry in this
way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I am talking about a particular situation arranged by mutual consent, and an arrangement concerning which many statements have been made in this house which are wholly uncalled for. It is a policy which is not applied generally; it is applied in a particular place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is just a beginning, like other steps you take. It is one feeble step at the beginning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend object? He is quite convinced, I am sure, that it is quite fair to take certain men and say to them, "You go in the army." Does he say it is unfair to take other men and say, "You must work in industry"?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say that. But here is a specific case, in a particular area, where men are told they must either go to work or go to gaol.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A man does not need to qualify as a longshoreman unless he wishes to. If he wishes to leave the profession he is free to do it. But as long as he holds a card as a longshoreman, and is paid a longshoreman's rates, and receives recognition by longshoremen, he must accept in every particular the discipline that goes with the work of a longshoreman. If that is conscription, then make the most of it. When a man signs on to work he is subject to the discipline of the job. When he signs on as a longshoreman at Halifax he is subject to the discipline of the longshoreman. There is no law enforcing him, as I see it. He does not have to sign up; if he wishes to quit, he can quit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "Accept it or starve."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Starve 1 starve I-my hon.
friend should apologize for that. Who starves in this country because he does not work on a particular job?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: I will say this, because that is a challenge-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not wish to engender any heat. But the effect of the policy of this government with respect to a certain class of young men in this country is "get into the army or starve". I have said that in this house more than once, and it is well known to the membership. I put myself in the judgment of the members of this house if that is not a correct statement of the position as a result of the policy of this government with respect to certain of our citizenship. I approached the matter through the front door but the government approached it by the indirect route. The effect of the government's policy is that certain young men must go in the army or starve.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend makes the dogmatic statement that certain men must go into the army or starve. There may be one man who has starved.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is beside the point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are talking nonsense and you know it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask the minister to withdraw that. Am I in the habit of talking nonsense? I place myself in the judgment of the minister. I appeal to him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very infrequently.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I try to keep my feet on the ground. I try to be fair to the government. I have tried to help this government on many occasions. I tried to help the Minister of National Defence .the other night and I am sure he was grateful. I am not sure what is going to happen to me as a result.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Try to help me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, on the proper occasion, of course I will. The minister knows he does not have to appeal to me to do that. My one instinct is to do anything and everything I can to help the war effort. But I tell the minister frankly; I tell this house and I tell the people of Canada that I was shocked when I read the order in council passed in the secrecy of the council chamber and stumbled upon by me. As far as I know, no publicity was given to it in the press of this country.


Angus MacInnis: It has not been printed.


Major James William Coldwell: We could not get a printed copy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has
been mimeographed. You can get a copy.


Major James William Coldwell: We have a copy now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There may be absolute justification for it. I thought I approached the consideration of this matter with judicial fairness. That was the approach I intended to make. Does the minister say that there exists in the port of Halifax a situation which demanded that this be done?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right. That is the first question. Was it necessary to put into effect the underlying principle of this order in council because of the attitude of the longshoremen at Halifax?


Humphrey Mitchell: The longshoremen agreed to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If they agreed to it, why was not the policy of having a round-table conference carried out? Why was not a working arrangement with the men arrived at instead of enunciating the principle contained in this order and making it a criminal act for the men who do not obey it? W7hy should they be made to submit themselves to the courts of this country as quasi criminals? I simply cannot accept that. It is contrary to my sense of reasoning. It is contrary to common sense. It does not add up. That is why I brought the matter before parliament.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is no different from what they do in Great Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not excuse us. Have they done it in the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are not so far into the war in the United States. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot reconcile the view that the longshoremen of Halifax accepted this order and knew what they were agreeing to, as the minister suggests. I am not questioning his word, because he should know and I do not. I put my statement in the form of an interrogatory. Did the longshoremen of Halifax know what was going to be in this order in council? I cannot for a moment think they did. Were the terms of the order in council submitted to the longshoremen or to their legal adviser? I assume they had one. Did they properly understand what they were agreeing to?


Humphrey Mitchell: I addressed the owners,
and I discussed with the executive board of the union the original, basic order in council. I addressed the longshoremen and we enjoyed ourselves. I have been associated with them all my life; that is, with the rank and

TVar Appropriation-Naval Services
the officials. We discussed the order in council for three hours in a building in the city of Halifax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not answer my question. Was the concrete order in council submitted to the counsel for the longshoremen, and did he and they understand it?


Mr. CRERAR:: The terms of it were discussed and agreed upon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does the minister of Mines and Resources know about this?


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you know?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
trying to get information. I shall know a lot more about it long before my friend over there does. That interjection was quite uncalled for.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say with great
respect to the leader of the opposition that he asked a question. All I know, of course, is the information that was passed along.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have some hearsay information; that is all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not hearsay. I think I
can make this comment, that I can claim to know as much about it as the leader of the opposition appears to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister knows what his colleague reported. That is what I would anticipate, and in law that is hearsay evidence. I do not suppose I can make the minister understand what hearsay is technically, but that is what it is to a lawyer. The minister is a layman, and we are dealing with a technical question when we are dealing with the law of evidence. I put it again to the Minister of Labour:	Did the
longshoremen of Halifax understand the concrete terms of this order in council, and did they understand that for a violation of one of its terms they were submitting themselves to a fine or imprisonment or both?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a fundamental
principle of British law that you cannot have one law for the rich and one law for the poor dealing with-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has that to do with it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me finish-dealing with the same subject. This applies both to the shipowners and to the longshoremen. I think it may be stated fairly that in the main the difficulties have been with the shipowners, with the stevedoring companies. You cannot

impose a fine on one side and not on the other. This matter was discussed frankly and freely with both sides.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The basis of the order in council?


Humphrey Mitchell: The original order in council that laid down the basic principles of this order in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was this one discussed?


Humphrey Mitchell: There was no objection from the longshoremen.


Major James William Coldwell: Did they know about it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Let the longshoremen speak for themselves. It is fundamental that ships have to be turned round. I went there and saw how they were hiring longshoremen, picking them out like sheep. They were using the system they used fifty years ago. What we have tried to do is to institute a system similar to the one on the Pacific coast. They have hiring halls there, but instead of the hiring halls at Halifax being under the jurisdiction of the employers, they will be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. This is similar to what Mr. Churchill did in connection with a similar situation in Great Britain. As he stated, the safety of the state is paramount. These ships have to be turned round, and it was necessary to reorganize the port of Halifax so that the ships could be turned round. We think this is the first step. The controller, Mr. Vincent Macdonald, has the confidence of the longshoremen, the shipowners and the stevedoring companies. Then we brought a man from Vancouver who has had a great deal of experience in this line on the Pacific coast, and we also had a technical expert, Mr. Green, who organized this system of loading ships by lighter which is being used in the port of Halifax.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the name of the man from Vancouver?


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking from memory, Mr. Train.


Angus MacInnis: From the employers
federation?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would assume so. We have set up an advisory committee, representative of the union and the ship owners, to advise the controller. I think we have been as fair as we possibly can be. Naturally, when you discuss these matters with both employers and employees there is a lot of cross-questioning and some disagreement, but when the thing was finally settled the order in council was approved by the men,

War Appropriation-Naval Services
by the shipping federation and by the stevedoring company. After all is said and done, it is something new in this war. We are making a determined effort to turn round the ships that come into the port of Halifax more quickly than they have ever been turned round before.
If certain aspects of the policy do not work out well, we shall have to retrace our steps. But it is something entirely new in the dominion, and I feel-and I said this when I addressed the longshoremen-that it is in their own best interests and in the best interests of industry and of the country. When the thing gets into practical application there may be objections from one side or the other, but I feel sure that this advisory committee, representing both sides, will be able to advise the government of any changes which are necessary in the set-up for the purpose of increasing the tempo of turning round the ships entering the port of Halifax. Anyone who knows Halifax and shipping knows there has been some delay in turning round the ships as quickly as possible. I do not need to tell the members of this house of the tremendous losses of shipping at sea and of the necessity of expediting the loading and unloading of ships travelling the shipping lanes to the old country and other parts of the world in the firing line in order to transport the products of industry and agriculture of the north American continent to where they are vitally needed. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are certain parts of the minister's statement with which I am in agreement. The movement of the ships should be speeded up; nothing should be allowed to impede them; but the minister did not answer my question whether the men knew what they were agreeing to, and whether they knew they were submitting themselves to fine and imprisonment. If the minister will do me the honour to read the remarks which I made when introducing this subject this afternoon, he will see that I approached it from the point of view of interrogation because it seemed to me to be introducing an entirely new principle. The minister himself said that it is a new system but, by the same token, he said they had it in Vancouver-


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I did not say that.


Olof Hanson: -and it seemed to me there was a little inconsistency there. But I may have misunderstood him. I take it that this is the first time in this country that this principle of compulsion with respect to labour has been introduced into our economy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all. It is in shipping, and always was. A man has to sign articles on joining a ship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is entirely different. A man signs his articles, goes on board ship and knows that he is amenable to the discipline on board ship. But this is not analogous to that, and the minister will not say so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do say so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I shall have to differ with the minister, and we do not have very much time to argue it out before six o'clock. I do say this, that when this order in council came to my attention, having read a great many orders in council I decided that this was the introduction of a new principle in our war economy. The minister justified it on more than one ground. First of all he says that it is necessary that the ships which come in and go out of that harbour should be speeded up, and I agree with that. We must do everything to expedite the dispatch of these ships.
But the question I ask the minister, and which I asked before, is this: Is it necessary to resort to this kind of policy at this time at that port, did the men who he says agreed to the underlying principle of this order in council know in fact what they were agreeing to, and were the conditions in the port of Halifax such that it was necessary to resort to a policy of this kind? If the answer to all of these questions is in the affirmative, I have nothing more to say. The minister knows the facts; I do not. But this having come to my attention entitles me, I think, to bring it to the attention of parliament with a view to eliciting the information for which I now ask.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Lake Centre asked how many wooden ships were being built in Canada. There are 28 wooden ships of substantial size-I am speaking only of the larger type of ships, not about the smaller boats at all-being built in Canada for the Canadian navy, and in addition there are 24 wooden ships being built for the British navy. These are all wooden ships, minesweepers and of that general class.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked about the expenditure at Saint John, and I gave him the main expenditure in respect of a fitting-out berth on the south side of the dockyard. There are some other expenditures which perhatps he would like to have. An administration building is to be
2280	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
built at a cost of some $25,000, barracks at a cost of $40,000, and a recreation building at a cost of $7,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In connection with training purposes?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We have at Saint John some 169 naval personnel in addition to the divisional strength.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And not much in the way of facilities at the present time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right. We are also building a workshop and ordnance store combined at a cost of some $45,000, and then there are some odd amounts for fencing, roads, waters, sewers, and so forth. The main item is for the fitting-out berth at the south side of the dockyard. It is a very long berth; I am not sure whether it is seven or nine hundred feet long.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will these works be built by public tender?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Again I must refer my hon. friend to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who builds the works. I think it is the desire of that department to proceed by public tender as far as possible, but there are cases where that is rather difficult when the work has to be done in a hurry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is our policy to proceed by public tender if it is possible to get competitive tenders, but my hon. friend will understand that the construction industry is very busy-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not so
busy in New Brunswick.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is not busy in New Brunswick I can assure my hon. friend that it will be done by public tender. But sometimes there is only one contractor available to do the work.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, May 11, 1942