1943-06-11

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Weir.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct the following question to the Prime Minister. A Canadian press dispatch under Washington dateline of June 10 states that:
"The first step has been taken in the creation of a united nations relief and rehabilitation agency to feed, clothe, shelter and guide back to health the people of war-ravished nations as they are redeemed from axis domination," the United States State Department announced to-day.
The dispatch goes on to say;
A draft agreement, providing for machinery to carry out this objective has been approved by Great Britain, United States, Russia and China.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house the role lyhich this nation will play in connection with this new development? I should be glad if the Prime Minister would also comment on the report current in Washington that in view of our enormous

War Appropriation-Procedure
agricultural resources the chairmanship of the supplies committee of this agency may go to Canada.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that the announcement which he has just quoted as appearing in a Canadian press dispatch of dateline June 10 is correct, namely, that-
The first step has been taken in the creation of a united nations relief and rehabilitation agency to feed, clothe, shelter and guide back to health the people of war-ravaged nations as they are redeemed from axis domination.	.
The next statement of the dispatch, to the effect that a draft agreement providing for machinery to carry out this objective has been approved by Great Britain, the United States, Russia and China, is also correct. The proposals at the present time are simply in draft form, but I hope to be able some day next week to lay them on the table as they are finally approved.


Gordon Graydon: Has the draft proposal been submitted to Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes. The proposals will be finally tabled next week. As to the role which Canada will play in connection with this new development, I may say that Canada is prepared to play her full part. As to commenting upon the report current, to the effect that the chairmanship of the supplies committee of this agency may go to Canada, I should prefer to say nothing about that at present. Later I may have something to say.



FOOD CONFERENCE


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown Biggar):: I was going to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to the one asked by the leader of the opposition, in regard to the recent food conference. Has an interim committee been appointed? If so, is Canada represented on that committee and, in that event, by whom?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking of the food conference, my hon. friend means the conference that met at Hot Springs?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have said that I hoped to be able to make a full statement to the house this Week with respect to the conference. I am ready to do so, but the report itself has not yet been translated into French. I am therefore going to ask
the house to allow me to table the documents on Monday and to make a full statement with regard to the conference at that time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On- the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister)1:	May I say that I had a
further reason for not desiring to make to-day the statement on the food conference. It would I believe suit the convenience of hon. members if the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) were to be allowed right of way, at this afternoon's session, to present his statement under the war appropriation measure. The Minister of Munitions and Supply was to have followed immediately after the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, but I understand the latter is quite prepared to delay if the house is agreeable to making way for the Minister of Munitions and Supply to proceed with his statement. The statement would then be on Hansard and hon. members would have an opportunity to study it in detail and with care between now and Monday. I have had an informal conference with the leaders of the different groups and I understand that they are agreeable to having this done. If so, the minister's statement might be made the first order today.
Gordon Graydon: It would be understood
of course that the Minister of Munitions and Supply would simply close his part of the debate at the end of his statement, and then we would go on with the Minister of'National Defence for Naval Services, and when he is through-I am optimistic about this-we would go on with the order mentioned by the acting leader of the government last night, namely, supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house
would have the choice between going on with supply in agriculture or going on with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, as it might prefer.


Gordon Graydon: If the choice I suggest
were made we would be agreeable to the Minister of Munitions and Supply going on when the war appropriaton bill is called. If we are to make a change of the kind the Prime Minister mentions we would ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply to leave his statement until such time as the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services is through.
Radio Broadcasting


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After the
Minister of National Defence for Naval Services is through, we will go on with either agriculture or the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


Gordon Graydon: That is not my understanding of any informal arrangement made. We are not agreeable to that, and I want to make it clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I was
saying was that my hon. friend could have his choice. He has made agriculture his choice, and certainly we will go on with agriculture.


Gordon Graydon: May I say how pleased
I am that the Prime Minister has accepted my choice on this occasion.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister when the house may expect an announcement on the filling of the present vacancy on the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very soon, I hope. The vacancy has existed, I believe, only about a fortnight and it will be filled within that length of time.


Gordon Graydon: In that regard may I suggest on this occasion, as I have urged on previous occasions, that organized'agriculture be taken into consideration when the appointment is being made, because we really need a representative of the farmers on that board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The late Mr. Nathanson, who was on the board, represented business which is also entitled to representation on the board. That circumstance may have to be considered as well as the question of additional representation of agriculture, to which reference has been made before.


Gordon Graydon: Of course, the situation with respect to agriculture is an old problem on the board. It has been referred to on previous occasions.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I direct a question to the
IMr. Graydon.]
parliamentary assistant of the Minister of National Defence. The minister unfortunately is not able to be here to-day, but I have placed in the hands of his parliamentary assistant certain press clippings from the sports page of the Toronto Globe and Mail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I can tell that this is a page which is read very generally. From these clippings the parliamentary assistant will see that the well-known sports columnist, Jim Coleman, makes certain serious allegations respecting the arrangements made by the Canadian army in connection with prize fighting. I note that Lieutenant-Colonel A. G. White, adjutant of the Montreal military district, has made a reply to Mr. Coleman, but I think the controversy merits an investigation by the minister, and I would ask him, after making inquiries, to give a statement to the house covering the points which have been so raised.


Mr. W. C. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: The press clippings to which the leader of the opposition has referred reached me this afternoon. I had no previous knowledge of the matters referred to in the clippings. However, I shall be very glad to make inquiries and give the house a statement.


Gordon Graydon: The allegations are pretty serious.


Mr. CRERAR:: Are they correct?


Gordon Graydon: That is what I want to find out.



ARGENTINE REPUBLIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me about recognition of the new government of Argentina. My hon. friend Will no doubt be interested to know that, acting on instructions, the Canadian minister in Buenos Aires estab-. lished official relations with the Ramirez government to-day.



MAN-POWER PRIORITY RATINGS FOR INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last

Man-Power-Labour Priorities
as recorded on page 3467 of Hansard, the hon. member for Danforth inquired about labour priorities. I would like to make the following answer. Labour priorities are established for all industries in the priorities division of the labour supply branch, Department of Labour, by the interdepartmental labour priorities committee, consisting of representatives of the wartime prices and trade board, Department of Munitions and Supply and selective service. The priority assigned to an industry is based on the relative essentiality of its normal production. Many firms normally producing relatively less essential goods change over to the production of war materials and must be assigned a priority rating in accordance with the assessment of the essentiality of their new activities.
Labour priorities are confidential and are not disclosed, even to the firms concerned. Firms may make application for special priority consideration through their wartime prices and trade board administrator, or directly to the priorities division of the Department of Labour. All applications and claims are investigated by the wartime prices and trade board and Department of Munitions and Supply representatives and, when justified, are presented to the interdepartmental labour priorities committee for their consideration.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister why these are so confidential?


Humphrey Mitchell: Because the relative
importance of industries may change from [DOT]day to day. That is the reason. I think my hon. friend will agree that it is just as well that it should be kept confidential. That is the considered judgment of all the agencies that are concerned with the question of priorities for industrial operations.


Gordon Graydon: I can quite understand the minister's position. That is one side [DOT]of the argument. The other is the possibility that observance of confidence in the matter might be carried to the point of abuse. I am not suggesting that this exists, but in any event the possibility of its arising is there.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can assure my hon. friend that if he has any knowledge of anything he thinks is abuse I shall be glad to hear of it, or from any other member of the house.



PRIVILEGE-MR. ROY REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN MONTREAL &quot;DAILY STAR&quot;

[Stage Direction]
of june 9, 1943
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. A
Montreal newspaper called the Montreal Daily Star, in its edition of June 9, published an editorial entitled "Opportunity for Service", which contains a vicious attack upon me and my constituents. The last part of the article reads as follows:
The government plans a campaign to enforce "dim-out" regulations and to discourage careless talk and the circulation of sensational and inaccurate rumours many of which last year were repeated in the House of Commons itself by members of the affected constituencies.
They might just as well have mentioned my name, because everybody knows that the "affected constituency" is the one I have the honour to represent in this house. They speak of rumours which they say were repeated in the House of Commons. I believe that every Canadian citizen would have been much more happy to learn that those reports of sinkings in the St. Lawrence were merely rumours, but unfortunately they were true, and as a matter of fact they have been officially recognized by the proper authorities in this very House of Commons; so much so, that the government has decided to follow a new policy this year with respect to the protection of the St. Lawrence.
Some .hon. MEMBERS: Order.	,


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is entitled to make a denial of statements made in the newspaper quoted, but he is not entitled to make another argument.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, I should at least like to quote further from the first part of this article, which is also wrong and very injurious to my constituents. It reads as follows:
Premier King's announcement that a civilian defence system has been organized to guard the lowrer St. Lawrence against submarines represents a marked advance over the precautions taken last year, when the absence of civilian cooperation was in a measure responsible for the sinking of some ships. The population of that area are now being given an opportunity, which they will no doubt seize with alacrity, to share in their own defence.
That is a stupid statement, Mr. Speaker; it is utterly ridiculous. I wish to recall to the editor of this paper that our civilian population has never waited and will never wait to protect our country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. .


Thomas Vien: Order. I understand that the hon. gentleman has concluded his remarks on the question of privilege.
Passports



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I hold in my hand an application form for renewal of a passport. This came to me by chance. I tried to get a few copies of these application forms from the passport office because everybody knows it is absolutely necessary for members of parliament to have some of them on hand for the use of constituents who desire to renew their passports; but I was informed by the passport office that I could have none, and that they should be asked for direct by the applicant. Surely if this is done as a matter of economy, it is, as we say in French, une economie de bout de chandelle. If the government wants to economize, it could save much more by economizing on stationery, dispensing with the large envelopes that come to members of parliament with just a short letter inside.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made a statement a few days ago in the house in which I indicated the reasons why the passport office thought it inadvisable to have the application forms distributed, and I need not repeat what I said at that time. I do not mind saying to my hon. friend, as I intended to say the other day, that while the passport office is making its rule rigid, it has from its point of view good reasons for so doing. I myself feel that possibly there might be a measure of concession made to members of parliament. The department's purpose is to effect economies and at the same time to maintain in the use of these forms a certain security which is regarded by our government and by the United States government as important. However, I am not sorry that my hon. friend has brought the matter up, and I shall have another discussion with the officials of the department about it. Even ministers themselves sometimes find it difficult to get things done in their own departments that they themselves might wish to do.



MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLIC APPEARANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great public interest taken in the coming visit of Madame Chiang

Kai-shek and the many appeals to members of the house as to the prospects of hearing her, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would not consider arranging for her public appearance in front of the parliament buildings or elsewhere so that the wishes of the public might be gratified.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I may assure my hon. friend that my colleagues and I have appreciated the great public interest there will be in Madlame Chiang Kai-shek's appearance in the capital next week. I have personally taken up with Madame Chiang Kai-shek what she might find it possible to do in the way of speaking before hon. members of the house and over the radio, and have since taken up the question whether it wouldi be possible for her to speak outdoors. Madame Chiang Kai-shek herself would prefer to speak indoors, and also to make just one address. In order that the largest possible number of persons may have the advantage of hearing that address we have reached the conclusion that while it would be well to have the address delivered in this chamber, where all hon. members of this house and members of the senate could be conveniently accommodated, and others in the galleries in so far as that can be arranged on the basis of the official list, the address should be broadcast so that it may be heard in all parts of Canada. To permit of the address being broadcast

and not raising at this time the question whether broadcasts should be made from the house during its regular sittings-as well as for other reasons it has been thought desirable to have the broadcast made at 11 o'clock in the morning of Wednesday of next week. That will be the arrangement with regard to the address. I am sure that arrangements can be made for having loud speakers on parliament hill, and I have no doubt that if the citizens are gathered there Madame Chiang Kai-shek will be only too happy to make an appearance 'before them, but I am quite sure she would wish to be spared having to deliver a second address.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 10, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

War Appropriation-*Supplies

['It is a fact nevertheless that in the United States the federal department of agriculture have set up four experimental laboratories across the country to deal with the question of the possibility of using agricultural products for rubber. Apparently we in Canada have done nothing along similar lines. Is it felt that we shall get the benefit of the research work of the United States department of agriculture, and that there is no necessity for us doing anything here? As I appreciate the policy over there, those laboratories are set up purely and simply looking at the question from the point of view of agriculture rather than from that of industry.']
Hod. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Munitions and Supply for the current fiscal year total $166,300,000, as compared with the estimates for the last fiscal year, which totalled $698,090,106.01. This is a sharp reduction, but I would point out to hon. members that the size of the estimate for the department has no relation to the sum of money to be expended by the department, which for the current fiscal year will amount to something in the order of $3,400,000,000. The department is the procurement agency for the armed services and
for all allied governments, and the funds to cover these purchases are furnished by those from whom requisitions are received. The items taken care of by the departmental vote cover additions and extensions to plants; payment for cargo vessels which are purchased to be operated by the Canadian government; housing developments in connection with the munitions programme; revolving funds for working capital of crown companies, and departmental administration. The departmental appropriation has been broken down under eight separate headings, and with the consent of the house I shall place this break-down on Hansard as follows:
Department of Munitions and Supply Draft Estimates, 1942-43, 1943-44
Actual expenditures
preliminary
1.	Additions and extensions to plants	
$361,853,661 592.	Cargo vessels-Operated by Park Steamship Ltd	
15,522,500 003.	Housing development	
30,725,643 494.	Land and other miscellaneous physical property	
3,856,920 075.	Revolving funds for working capital-Munitions production	
100,000,000	00Aircraft production	
25,000,000	00Ship production	
100,000,000	00Miscellaneous stores	
20,000,000	006.	General production and warehousing expenses	
14,300,408	74
Estimated
expenditures

45.000.	000 00
30.000.	000 00 7,000,000 00
15,000,000 00
7.	Loans to commodity companies
8.	Departmental administration..
17,334,584 94	15,000,000 00
9,496,387 18	9,300,000 00
$698,090,106 01	$316,300,000 00
Less-Estimated reduction in revolving funds
150,000,000 00

The Minister of Munitions and Supply also administers the air services branch of the Department of Transport, and the war estimates of that department total $6,095,085. These have been broken down under two items, and with the consent of the committee I shpll place the breakdown of this amount on Hansard as follows:-
Air Services Branch (Department of Transport) War Expenditures and Estimates
Expended
9. Air Services:	1942-43
To provide for special radio services, weather observation and teletype services-
Radio	
$1,093,981	94Meteorological	
812,254	56J17 Additional radio range stations (maintenance):	newdivision office at Vancouver; additional staff at headquarters	Subsidization of radio-operator students	....
10. Civil Aviation:
Extra airport traffic control systems	 184,047 30
Operation and maintenance of municipal (terminal) airports 276,093 30
Additional facilities-Moncton to Newfoundland airline...	418,344 85
Improvements to North Bay airport	 343,339 04
Operation and maintenance-North-West air route	 60,992 91
Montreal airport improvements	
_______ $3,189,053 90
'Supplementary items 1943-44.

Estimated

374,460 00*
100,000 00*
680,000 00 336,600 00 976,700 00
500,000 "66* $6,095,085 00
War Appropriation-Supplies

Over the past three and a half years I have made reports to the house from time to time on the production, programme. These were reports of progress towards objectives yet to be attained. It will be recalled that there were always one or two items in the programme which were giving us trouble either because of difficulty of design, the need for elaborate tooling, or shortages of critical materials and components. I am now able to report that certain of our major objectives have been reached. Late in 1942 we were delivering in substantial quantities every item of war equipment for which we had received orders in the first two and a half years of the war. Every week we are launching six or more vessels, either escort, cargo or patrol. Every week we are turning out 80 planes. Every week our automobile factories produce 4,000 motor vehicles and 450 fighting vehicles. Every week our gun plants make 940 heavy guns or mountings, and our small arms plants turn out 13,000 smaller weapons. Every week our ammunition factories make 525,000 rounds of heavy ammunition and 25,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. Every week our chemicals and explosive industry has an output of 10,000 tons. Every week our factories produce $4,000,000 worth of instruments and communications equipment. We have launched 500 ships and delivered 8,000 aircraft. We have delivered 475,000 motor vehicles and 21,300 fighting vehicles. We have delivered 55,500 heavy guns or mountings and 630,000 small weapons. We have produced 800,000 tons of chemicals and explosives. We have produced instruments and communications equipment to the value of $160,000,000. These are some of the highlights of a programme which includes almost every type of equipment and supply needed in modern warfare. The total dollar value of our deliveries to date is over $4,500,000,000. We estimate employment in war industry at upwards of 900,000 men and women.
I mentioned a moment ago that certain of our targets had been attained. This does not mean that there will be any slackening of the over-all effort, but rather a change in emphasis. Some programmes will be reduced, others will be expanded. There are some rather drastic reductions in ground army stores on the one hand, but on the other greatly increased demands for naval vessels, guns and equipment, combat aircraft and radar equipment. Before receiving notice of changes in programme, our over-all production programme for the fiscal year 1943-44 totalled 3 billion, 653 million dollars. We are now able to estimate the revised programme at

3 billion, 425 million dollars, or a shrinkage of approximately 6 per cent. Of this shrinkage approximately 30 million dollars represents reductions in defence construction projects, leaving slightly less than 200 million dollars or a 5^ per cent net reduction in the production programme. Because we realized that changes in programme were inevitable in war production, we have maintained a high degree of flexibility in the planning of our production facilities, which now permits us to make the changes necessary with a minimum of inconvenience.
I will comment briefly now on each item of the programme, giving the accomplishment to date and indicating what changes will be made, either by way of reduction or expansion.
Ammunition. We have created a great ammunition industry in Canada. More than 38 million rounds of heavy ammunition have come from our factories. Complete filled rounds of this heavy ammunition are now produced at a rate of 525,000 rounds a week.
At the close of 1942 we were making 28 types of shells of 15 different calibres, ranging from the 40 millimeter quick-firing shell to the 7-2 howitzer. So far this year three types have gone out of production. Of the remaining 25 types, two will be increased in output, others will be produced at the current rate, and others will be reduced.
Some cuts in production will take place at once, but wherever possible any necessary reductions in the programme will be made over a period of months and should cause a minimum dislocation of manpower.
All told, there are nearly 50 plants engaged in making shells alone. There are scores of other plants producing components, including 12 types of fuses, 14 types of cartridge cases, two types of gaines, six kinds of primers, two types of depth charges, ten types of trench mortar bombs, pyrotechnics of 70 different kinds, as well as practice bombs, anti-tank mines, rifle grenades.
Components. As the output of shells declines, so the production of cartridge cases, fuses, primers and gaines will also be reduced. However, all of the cartridge case manufacturing capacity thus released will be diverted' to making additional cartridge cases for the United States. Over-all production will' decline. Some plants can be converted to the manufacture of other types of equipment, but this is not possible in every case.
Chemicals and Explosives. The vast Canadian chemicals and explosives production is supervised by Allied War Supplies Limited. This crown company has under its control 40

War Appropriation-Supplies
different projects, 34 of which have come into full operation. Of the 18 major projects on the list, three are mammoth ammunitionfilling developments, three are making explosives, two are fuse-filling undertakings, and the others are chemicals producers. Total employment in these factories is in excess of 50,000 men and women.
The various Canadian chemicals and explosives projects under the administration of Allied War Supplies cover an area equal to that of the city of Montreal. The largest, are the shell-filling ' plants, but on one explosives project alone the capital expenditure runs to 18 million dollars.
Great Britain and the allied nations have relied heavily upon us for this production.
Our present production of chemicals and explosives is running at a rate of 10,000 tons a week. The total quantity turned out to date is in excess of 800,000 tons. One of these products is the most powerful explosive developed anywhere during the present war. The production of this valuable and secret explosive is being increased.
As our heavy ammunition programme recedes from its peak, due to decreased requirements, production of certain explosives and propellants will also be reduced.
Small arms ammunition. A tremendous production job has been accomplished in small arms ammunition. In 1940 we made only three types, to a value of 4J million dollars. Now we are making 20 main types, ranging in calibre from -22 to 20 mm., having a value of 23 million dollars for the four months from January 1 to the end of April of this year.
The 9 mm., bullet, used in the Sten carbine, can be cited as one example of a lowered target. The future objective has merely been lowered so that the present production figure will be tripled instead of quadrupled.
Much planning remains to be done before anything more definite can be said regarding revision of the small arms ammunition programme, because these changes must be made on the basis of advices received only a few days ago. In the meantime, we are turning out more than 25 million rounds a week in plants and arsenals employing 30,000 people, half of them women. The government arsenal at Quebec is the model on this continent for this type of production, both in efficiency of operation and quality and quantity of production.
Guns. In the production of heavy guns and small arms, we have achieved mass output on a constantly rising scale. Toward
the end of 1942 our monthly ordnance output was greater than it had been for the entire 1941 year.
More than one-fifth of the total government investment in war plants has been allocated to the production of guns and small arms.
We are making twelve types of heavy ordnance, and 16 types of carriages and mountings, in Canadian shops. To date we have produced 55,500 guns, gun barrels or mountings. Our weekly production rate is now 940 units-570 guns and gun barrels and 370 mountings. Merchant ships and combat vessels made in Canadian yards can now be equipped with Canadian-made guns. Our field artillery, anti-aircraft guns, our tank and anti-tank guns are being shipped overseas for service on all fronts.
We are now engaged in revising some of our gun schedules downwards. The items most likely to be affected are the 3-7 and Bofors anti-aircraft guns and the 6-pounder anti-tank gun. The scheduled production of 3-7 and 40 mm. Bofors AA guns will carry on at a reduced scale to the end of 1944. The plant making the 6-pounder carriage is being converted to the manufacture of 20 mm. Universal mountings for the army and single 20 mm. mountings for the navy.
There are eight major plants and scores of subcontractors operating on small arms contract. Our output of small arms in 1942 increased 1,300 per cent over 1941. We have turned out 630,000 small arms to date and present production is at the rate of 13,000 units a week. These include rifles, carbines, anti-tank rifles, smoke dischargers, bomb throwers, two types of trench mortars, and four types of machine guns.
In line with the changing picture of our overall production programme, there will also be adjustments in the small arms schedule.
Maximum output of the Bren gun, 8,000 per month, will be reached this month and will be maintained at that rate until the end of 1944. Original schedule for the No. 4 army rifle, Canadian version of Lee-Enfield, which is being produced in the government-owned and operated plant, Small Arms Limited, was doubled during the past year, and our present output is now in excess of 34,000 a month. Production of this weapon will be increased to better than 40,000 a month.
Production of the Sten, which is now at peak, will be slightly reduced from the maximum planned-10,000 a month. Present orders on hand for Vickers, -5-inch naval machine guns, training rifles, and 2-inch trench mortars are sufficient to carry us into 1944.
72537-225}
War Appropriation-Supplies

Production of the Boys anti-tank rifle will be discontinued during the summer. We are also abandoning producing the Browning aircraft and tank type machine guns, having met requirements for both these weapons. This production will be partially replaced by the Browning pistol and a 20 mm. machine gun.
' Naval Guns and Naval Orders. We are now producing four types of naval guns and ten types of naval mountings for use * both on combat and merchant ships. While there will be some slight changes in this programme, the overall picture involves a substantial increase in output.
There will be a substantial increase, too, in the production of a wide variety of other naval equipment. For example, Canada is now producing in quantity 20 or more components of naval torpedoes. These include the engines, propellers, bodies, transmission gear, and gyroscopes. The output of all of these will be increased.
There will be larger output from the 168 firms now engaged in making the complicated and expensive components of anti-submarine detection devices, which Canada delivers complete to the navies of the united nations.
All told, Canada supplies 60 or more types of the most complicated instruments for naval purposes, on all of which we are increasing our production. These include equipment for arresting planes on carrier decks, secret gun sighting devices, and fire control instruments costing up to S30,000 each.
Canada makes the fire control clocks and other instruments for the navy which determine the range, elevate the gun, calculate both the distance to the target and its movement, the wind deflection of the bullet, and finally fire the gun at the correct instant.
There are no higher manufacturing standards in the world than those demanded by the navy. Canadian manufacturers have met those standards with conspicuous success.
Many British warships being repaired and re-equipped in Canadian and United States ports are being supplied with these Canadian-made guns, mountings, anti-submarine detection equipment and instruments.
Motorized Equipment. One of the most important contributions Canadian industry has made to the war is our output of fighting vehicles and motor transport. It is generally agreed that a major factor in the victories of the British armies in Africa was the quality and reliability of the motorized equipment they had at their disposal in the Egyptian, Libyan and Tunisian campaigns. More than 36 per cent of the motorized equipment

throughout the entire middle east if of Canadian make. Fifty per cent of the load-carrying vehicles used by Montgomery's victorious Eighth Army were Canadian made.
Soon, very soon, the 500,000th motor vehicle will roll from the assembly line of one of our automobile plants. We are turning out these military vehicles, as distinguished from fighting units, in more than 100 different types at a rate of 4,000 a week. Our present production of fighting vehicles, including tanks, ruus to 450 a week, for a present total of more than 24,000 units.
So highly are our Canadian-made military vehicles rated that this programme of ground equipment production is to be continued at its present peak capacity.
Through our army engineering design branch, constant changes and improvements have been effected in the motorized transport and fighting vehicles made in Canada. Our designers have achieved remarkable results in improving the quality, performance, and utility of mechanized units. The Canadian "dry pin track" for instance, has just been approved for production. Developed by our own design branch, it is a tank track which not only gives better performance than any other type in use to-day, but can be made more economically than any other. The lessons learned in active theatres of war are being steadily applied. The motorized units we are sending overseas to-day are more serviceable, better built, and more economically manufactured than the units of a year ago. New models are constantly going into production.
Tanks. We have just completed our Valentine tank programme. The total production- 1,400-has gone to Russia. Recalling our difficulties in the early stages of this programme, I am able to say that the last tank was delivered exactly on shedule. The plant has been converted to the production of engines and components for the escort vessel programme. We are approaching the end of our contract for Ram tanks. Over 1,700 have been produced. Our tank arsenal is now producing self-propelling gun mounts, and will shortly go into production on the M-4 tank. This type is now standard for the United States, British and Canadian armies.
Instruments and Communications. In the field of instruments and communications we have made remarkable progress. We have produced intricate instruments to the extent of $160 million and the 1943 production will reach the $250 million mark. They are now being produced at a rate of $4-3 million a week.

War Appropriation-Supplies
Three new industries have been developed in Canada to meet the demands of the radio industry, the output of Which has expanded sixteenfold since the beginning of the war. They are a dynamotor industry, a ceramic insulation industry, and a crystal industry.
We have become a major source of united nations supply in this field. Canadian invention is responsible for seven major developments in the production of signals equipment. Ranging from a "talkie-walkie" set which one man can operate as easily as a cradle phone, to a super-highpower field wireless station with a radius of more than 100 miles. These products of original Canadian design have so impressed our allies that large orders have been placed in Canada for tens of millions of dollars worth of this equipment.
All the communication devices for Canadian tanks, ships, planes, and motorized vehicles are being produced in volume in this country. These are the artificial eyes and ears of our armed forces. Optical instruments by the tens of thousands have been produced to date by Research Enterprises Limited, a government-owned company producing a great variety of intricate equipment such as prismatic gunsights, clinometers, periscopes, range-finders, dial sights and cathode tubes. This company, which employs 6,800 people, is working on orders for radio and optical equipment totalling more than 130 million dollars.
Aircraft. To date Canada has produced 8,000 planes. Aircraft are now coming from our factories at the rate of 80 a week in nine types. We are now passing through an intermediate stage, entering production of new trainer types and just achieving production of combat planes such as the Lancaster and Mosquito, which presented very special and difficult production problems. The low production point arising from the change in models has now been passed. Production figures will steadily increase. While we have had ups and downs in our monthly planned production, actually the total poundage of planes produced has steadily mounted since the middle of 1940, when we were producing only two planes a week.
The four types of trainer craft upon which the industry is now engaged are the Fairchild Cornell, an elementary trainer; the North American Harvard, a single-engined advanced trainer; the Canadian Anson, regarded as the best twin-engined advanced trainer in the world, which is 'being produced under the supervision of the government-owned company, Federal Aircraft Limited, and the Bristol Bolingbroke, a twin-engined reconnaissance bomber and gunnery trainer.
The service types are the PBY-5A Catalina, a coastal reconnaissance amphibian; the Lancaster, mightiest four-engined long-range bomber in the world, being produced in the government-owned and operated plant Victory Aircraft Limited; the Curtiss Helldiver, navy dive bomber, and the famous Mosquito, fast twin-engined fighter bomber. In addition to these, we are also producing the Noorduyn Norseman, the only all-Canadian designed plane on the list, regarded-as the best single-engined all-round transport type plane yet designed.
Two of the planes I have mentioned have yet to come into production. Design modifications have held up the dive bomber programme, but these have now been cleared, and the first Lancaster, biggest and most ambitious job ever undertaken by the Canadian aircraft industry, is expected to be test-flown within a few weeks.
The Canadian aircraft industry, and plants in component manufacture, now employ more than 100,000 workers. More than 25 per cent of these employees are women. Because we are increasing our production, the aircraft industry will in future be able to absorb all workers, not required by the armed services and in high priority shipbuilding, who were hitherto employed on those programmes which are to be curtailed.
In addition to the production of new aircraft, Canada has established an aircraft overhaul industry to service the thousands of planes now operating in the dominion. Thirty special plants are located strategically across the dominion, to make regular engine overhauls, to take care of airframe reconditioning, and to rebuild damaged planes. These plants recondition and replace into service 200 planes and 800 engines every month.
In any assessment of our aircraft record, two points are basic; first, every single plane we are building today is the accepted leader in its class; and, second, the quality of workmanship and the methods employed in the manufacture of Canadian planes are unexcelled.
Cargo Ship Building. During the twenty years before the outbreak of this war, Canada built not one seagoing merchant ship. Our present record in shipbuilding, therefore, is all the more remarkable in that it represents the achievement of what is virtually a new major industry.
Last month we launched 19 cargo vessels from Canadian yards.
By the end of May we had achieved a total of 168 freighters launched under our cargo vessel programme. Of these, 141 had been
War Appropriation-Supplies

delivered by the end of May. All but four of these are 10,000 ton vessels. The others are 4,700 tonners.
Roughly one-half of our overall commitments for shipbuilding in Canada, which total one billion dollars, will be spent on cargo ship construction.
Freighters delivered, under construction, or on order, total more than 300, of which 90 per cent are 10,000 ton ships.
The 43,000 workers in the 12 Canadian yards engaged in this cargo boat programme have every reason to be proud of their contribution to the war effort. Recently the Burrard Dry Dock Company set a record by delivering the Fort Wedderbume in 89 days from the laying of the keel. At West Coast Ship Builders a ship has been launched forty-five days after the laying of the keel.
Our cargo shipbuilding programme is now at its peak. It will be maintained there. The entire programme is administered by Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited, one of the largest of our crown companies.
Practically all the shipbuilding at present being carried on by the united nations is designed to meet immediate war requirements. For this purpose the British shipping authorities developed a type of cargo ship known as the North Sands. This type was chosen because the components were suited to mass production by engineering shops and foundries not heretofore accustomed to serving shipbuilding, and the ship itself is suitable for construction in all types of shipyards, including new shipyards built and equipped hurriedly. The engine and boilers are of rugged construction, simplified for operation by a person of limited experience and easy to repair and maintain in all ports of the world.
The ship is suitable for carrying all types of cargo; general merchandise, crated motor vehicles, bulk grains, coal, ore, lumber, or munitions of all types, ranging up to the heaviest of guns and tanks.
This type, under the name of the Liberty ship, was also adopted by the United States Maritime Commission for their greatly expanded cargo shipbuilding programme; modified somewhat to suit their mass production methods. It constitutes an overwhelming proportion of the present vast American monthly ship output.
It should be clearly understood that the ship built in the United Kingdom and Canada under the name of North Sands ship is from the standpoint of hull design and horsepower exactly the same ship as is built in the United States under the name of Liberty ship. Consequently the rated speed of the

American Liberty and the Canadian and British North Sands is exactly the same, namely 11 knots. Our Canadian ships have exceeded 14 knots on their trials, without load, in smooth water and have averaged a speed of over 11 knots on a return voyage loaded between British Columbia and New Zealand.
This ship under service conditions is up to convoy speed. Increasing its speed would involve increasing the power plant by the cube of the increase in speed. To drive this ship at 11 knots requires 2,500 horse-power to drive it at 18 knots would require over 11,000 horse-power, in addition to which the ship itself must be redesigned. Any effective increase in speed gained by such a proportionately tremendous increase in power would involve building and tooling new plants for components manufacture, which could only be done after high expenditure and great delay. During the period of change-over less ship tonnage would be produced, at a time when ships of the type now being built are most urgently needed for war purposes. From the Canadian standpoint the building of faster ships is a post-war rather than a present-day war problem, for which the necessary advice is now being secured from the best sources.
A certain number of the North Sands type of ship were built as oil burners, with certain changes in design and equipment of a strictly operational nature. These have been named Victory ships, both here and in the United States.
Based upon our experience ini building the North Sands ships and the Victory ships, the necessary arrangements, are now being made to build next year an improved design of cargo ship to be known as the Modified North Sands ship, one of the characteristics of which will be its adaptability for either coal or fuel oil, which, under war or post-war conditions, will give the ship much greater operating flexibility.
Canadian export trade in peace-time consists chiefly of bulk cargoes of agricultural, forest, or mineral products. The 11-knot ship now being built will carry these cargoes at a lower ton mile cost than any faster ship which would necessarily cost much more to build, operate and maintain.
We are also building a limited number of 4,700-ton ships, of a design adopted by the British authorities for general and bulk cargo carrying to ports where the volume of trade is not large and the water is more shallow. These ships, which were originally designed for British operation, are now being modified to meet Canadian operating conditions. They are most suitable for Canadian coastwise trade and also to supply Labrador, Newfoundland and the West Indies.

War Appropriation-Supplies
Naval shipbuilding. We are not only building cargo vessels to carry our munitions and war materials abroad. We are building the vessels to escort and protect them.
To date we have placed contracts for 424 frigates, corvettes and steel minesweepers- these are our escort craft. By the end of this month we shall have launched a total of 221 of these vessels.
During May, we launched a total of 17 escort craft.
In addition to the steel vessel programme, we have placed orders for 178 wooden patrol ships and wooden minesweepers. Of these, 100 were in the water by the end of May.
We are also building two destroyers of the Tribal class.
Eleven yards are engaged on the construction of escort vessels, including the government-owned yard Toronto Shipbuilding Limited. Of these the largest type is the frigate of which 18 have already been launched. These ships, more than 300 feet in length, are bigger, faster and more heavily armed than corvettes.
Our entire naval shipbuilding programme is being expanded and expedited.
There are some 65 smaller boatbuilders with about 4,000 employees turning out a wide variety of small craft ranging from lifeboats to the smaller patrol boats. Of the^ 4,000 boats ordered from these yards, about 75 per cent have been delivered. Expenditure on this small craft programme now totals more than 16 million dollars. In addition, several eastern yards are engaged in ship repair and overhaul work of vital importance to maintaining the Atlantic lifeline.
In addition to the 21 major shipyards engaged on cargo and naval shipbuilding, there are well over 300 Canadian component manufacturers on the shipbuilding programme, supplying the countless requirements of the industry, from rivets, to ship plate, from navigation instruments to engines and boilers.
Destinations. About thirty per cent of all Canadian war production is delivered direct to the Canadian forces at home and abroad. The remainder goes to Britain, the United States, India, Africa, China, Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific.
Arms sent to China include Canadian 25-pounder guns, Bren and Boys guns, rifles and ammunition for these weapons. We expect to ship many additional types of equipment, now that the mutual aid board is operating.
Canada has sent Russia more than 1,400 Canadian tanks, more than 2,000 Canadian universal carriers, Canadian naval guns, and
Canadian Bren guns and anti-tank rifles. We have provided the Russians, too, with ammunition for heavy guns and small arms.
In addition, to Russia have gone machine tools, boots, gloves, textiles, clothing and personal equipment. To this great and successful ally have gone large shipments of the five metals most urgently required for the Russian war programme.
To the United States Canada has been shipping war materials such as components of various munitions, ammunition, secret electrical devices and of course base metals. These transactions are handled by a government company, War Supplies Limited.
More than 80 per cent of the Canadian output of automotive transport has gone to Britain, Egypt, India, the middle east, the near east, the far east, Australia and New Zealand. To the empire, Africa, Australia and New Zealand have gone armoured cars, guns, heavy ammunitions, small arms, anti-aircraft guns, bombs, antitank mines and small arms ammunition.
We have begun the manufacture of 145 military locomotives for the government of India.
Canadian-made rifles are in use in Africa, Iraq, New Zealand, Australia, India and many other places. Canadian-made aircraft have long been in combat service and Canadian machine guns have been blasting German, Italian and Japanese planes from the skies on all fronts.	[DOT]
Other equipment shipped throughout the world includes heavy ammunition, bomb throwers, Sten guns, universal carriers, parachutes and flare chutes, artillery, tank and anti-tank guns, and a long list of instruments.
General Purchases. Our general purchasing branch handling most of the supplies required by our army, navy and air force, constitutes the biggest single market for hundreds of Canadian manufacturing plants. Orders placed by the division now total two and a half billion dollars. Its purchases range from pins to locomotives, from canned milk to fire fighting vehicles. It involves the buying of battle dress-50,000 dress a week and 5 million pairs of footwear a year-the purchase of food, medical supplies, lumber, fuels, machinery, electrical equipment, and miscellaneous stores. It also buys raw materials for the finished products. Last year more than $11 million was saved by the purchase of raw cotton to supply textile mills working on orders for the department. And now this branch has taken on the huge job, by arrangement with United States authorities, of purchasing the food required to feed

War Appropriation-Supplies
thousands of men working on the Alaska highway. There has been set up recently in Edmonton a crown company, North West Purchasing Limited, which will handle all purchases in Canada for the Alcan and Canol projects and for the various military operations in the Yukon and Alaska.
Construction. To date contracts for the construction of defence projects total 340 million dollars and commitments for new industrial productive facilities approximate SS50 million.
In the construction field, the war peak rate of building was reached in the spring of 1942.
Air Services Branch (Department of Transport). The air services branch, comprising the civil aviation division, the meteorological division and the radio division, is responsible for the construction of all aerodromes and ancillary services in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador which are required for home defence and for the British commonwealth air training plan. To date, the branch has spent over $100,000,000 on 286 projects, including the construction of 146 new aerodromes and extensive improvements to 51 others. In carrying out these projects, we have established some remarkable construction records thanks to the efficiency and enterprise of the Canadian construction industry which has displayed characteristic ingenuity in coping with difficult problems of climate and terrain.
The establishment of a very extensive network of operational and training fields has required a corresponding increase in meteorological and radio services. In addition to weather forecasting for Our passenger airway services, the meteorological division is providing the weather data for the R.A.F. ferry service across the Atlantic and the T.C.A. service between Canada and Newfoundland. It is also forecasting for the R.C.A.F. and naval units operating off the Atlantic and Newfoundland coasts, as well as the air .patrols on the Pacific coast north to the Alaska boundary. These responsibilities have meant a considerable increase in personnel in operating centres and the construction of new weather observation stations in many remote and isolated locations. We are now setting up radiosonde stations in various parts of the country for the purpose of recording weather conditions in the stratosphere for long range forecasting.
Since the outbreak of war 14 radio range and communication stations have been built and equipped by the radio division for the Department of National Defence for Air. Seven radio stations are nearing completion 
and we are planning the construction of 16 additional stations in the current year. The radio division is also collaborating closely with the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. Radio stations of the division along the east and west coasts and Hudson bay and Hudson strait and in the Canadian Arctic are now serving the navy. These stations form an important link in the aircraft detection programme and are, of course, of great value to the naval authorities in facilitating ship movements.
We have been successful in coordinating the Canadian radio services with the United States services, so that we are approaching the time when one single system of radio aids to navigation in the air and on the sea will service the north American continent.
Crown companies. Park Steamship Company Limited:	Up to the present time 12
vessels of 10,000 tons deadweight; 5 vessels of 4,700 tons deadweight and one tanker have been delivered to the company. The first vessel was received from the builders on the 30th June, 1942, and the last (of the within stated number) on the 1st June, 1943. These vessels, through managerial agreements, have been turned over for management and operation to reputable steamship firms and placed in trade designated by the Canadian shipping board. Managing operators are directly responsible to the company in respect to the care of the vessels and the financial results obtained from the voyages made, and close supervision is given thereto by the company. By the close of the year 1943 it is expected the company will have at least 30 dry cargo vessels of 10,000 tons deadweight; 8 vessels of 4,700 tons deadweight and 10 tankers-all of these steamers to be handled in the foregoing manner.
In addition to the ships I have mentioned, 30 ships of the 10,000-ton class have been delivered to the company to be chartered to the Ministry of War Transport of the United Kingdom on a bare boat basis. The United Kingdom is able to furnish crews for these boats whereas Canada cannot do so at this time.
Every effort is being made to obtain the maximum number of crews for the purpose of operating as many ships as possible by Park Steamship Company, and in that connection the company works closely with the director of merchant seamen, Department of Transport. During the war period the size of the Park Steamship Company fleet will be limited only by the number of Canadian crews that can be obtained. After the war,

War Appropriation-Supplies
the ships now being chartered to the United Kingdom will be returned to Canada and will then be added to our Canadian merchant fleet.
Defence Communications Limited. This company was established a few months ago. It will coordinate existing telegraph and telephone services, and provide new communication services for the armed forces.
Fairmont Company Limited. This government company is continuing its work of purchasing, storing and selling rubber for use of Canadian war industry.
Melbourne Merchandising Limited. This company is purchasing in bulk and distributing the wool required for use in war contracts.
Citadel Merchandising Company Limited. This company which was set up to fill the machine tool requirements of war industry has done an outstanding job. It has provided from Canadian and United States sources 32,822 machine tools to an approximate value of $170,730,000.
Plateau Company Limited. This company continues its work of purchasing, storing and selling silk, cotton, nylon, and kapok for the use of the production programme.
Cutting Tools and Gauges Limited. It is the function of this company to procure the cutting tools and gauges required for the munitions programme.
Wartime Housing Limited. Besides plant construction, the department, through the crown company, Wartime Housing Limited, has engaged in a housing programme in connection with war industries. These activities have ranged from the provision of additional housing in heavily populated industrial areas to the development of entire new communities.
Wartime Housing Limited has proved to be a vital link in Canada's long-range war production programme. It is the largest housing agency Canada has ever known. To the end of April it had, completed, under construction, or pending, a programme involving an expenditure of more than $75 million and providing accommodation for more than 90,000 people.
This programme includes 16,377 houses, 11 hostels, 63 staff houses, 13 bunk houses, 16 dining halls, 14 schools and 18 special buildings. With houses built in scores of communities from Halifax to Prince Rupert, the home building programme is standardized to four-and six-room types of insulated houses which are generally rented, subject to regional conditions, at $22 and $25 a month for four-room bungalows and $30 a month for six-room dwellings. The houses are demountable, and
were designed purposely for removal or salvage. The gross income from projects already occupied or under construction will amount to more than $8 million a year.
Wartime Industries Control Board. The appointment of controllers to increase and conserve supplies of strategic materials has been subject to some criticism in this house and elsewhere. It is claimed that the system violates the principle of ministerial responsibility. I think I should tell the house that controllers are subject to the direction of the minister in all that they do. Their orders are issued with his full knowledge and concurrence. If we had not taken immediate steps to increase and conserve our supplies of strategic materials through curtailment, rationing and other means, it is quite certain that we should not have achieved the record of production which I have just outlined. The only possible alternative to curtailment and rationing was to take what we needed for war and essential industries, and let the public scramble for the rest. If we had followed this procedure, I am quite sure that we would now be criticized for not having taken steps to ensure the orderly distribution of materials which were in short supply. Admittedly, curtailment and rationing measures always contain an element of experiment. Inequities in distribution can only be discovered through trial. Where we have found such inequities, we have taken the necessary corrective steps. At the present time I believe our various curtailment and rationing programmes are accomplishing the main objective-the allocation of materials where they are needed most- with a minimum of hardship to the public.
Coal. Coal is one of our most pressing supply problems. Consumption has increased by more than 45 per cent since the war began. In 1939 we used 28,500,000 short tons; last year 41,500,000 short tons, and in the current year we expect to use 47,250,000 short tons. Since the 1938-1939 coal year Canadian production has increased, but to an extent much smaller than the proportionate increase in total consumption. The result is that we have relied to an increasing extent on imports from the United States. Since the war began our imports from the United States have nearly doubled. As requirements in the United States are also increasing, it is impossible to forecast with any degree of certainty what quantity of coal we can import from the United States in the current year. So far this year our United States imports have been lower by more than half a million tons than those of last year. All of this means that Canada faces a possible shortage of 4,000,000 short tons during the current year. We can
War Appropriation-Supplies

per year. We are using over half a million tons of steel per year to make tanks and other army vehicles.
Steel foundry capacity also has been expanded. The output of castings has risen from 61,000 tons in 1939 to 160,000 tons in 1942. These castings are used in a great variety of munitions from huge stern frames for cargo ships to parts for small arms.
For 1943 the steel requirements of this country are estimated at nearly five million tons, of which domestic mills will supply more than three million. We have built the two largest blast furnaces in the British Empire. One is not quite finished, but during the summer our pig iron output will be at a rate of over 2J million tons per year, which is nearly four times as much as in 1939.
In coping with the enormous construction programmes which have been under way during the past three years, it has been almost impossible to make ends meet. At the present time we are able to Telease more steel for essential purposes such as railway equipment and agricultural implements.
Non-ferrous metals. Canada is the greatest base metal exporting country in the world, and this year our output will attain the highest peak in our history. This has been achieved by the enormous expansion of the aluminum industry, the development of a Canadian process for the production of magnesium, the extension of recovery operations at large base metal mines, the revival of old mines, the expansion of existing properties and the development and exploitation of new marginal and submarginal deposits.
The aluminum industry in Canada provides possibly our most spectacular story of wartime expansion. The Canadian output is more than six times that of 1939, is now greater than the total 1939 production of the rest of the world, and is supplying about 40 per cent of the war requirements of the United Nations.
Yet the demands are now so great-18,000 pounds are required for one large bomber- that civilian curtailments will continue until the war is over.
In the case of copper, nickel, lead and zinc the aggregate refined production is estimated at 827,800 tons for 1943, as against 662,100 tons in 1939.
Canada is now producing 95 per cent of the combined nickel output of the United Nations; 20 per cent of the zinc output; 124 per cent of the copper output; 15 per cent of the lead output; 75 per cent of the asbestos output; and 20 per cent of the mercury output. 
Formerly entirely dependent on imports for our supply of magnesium, we now have a government owned and operated magnesium plant, using a process developed in Canada, which supplies our own needs plus a surplus for export.
At the beginning of the war, we were lacking in such essential metals as tin, tungsten, motybdenum, mercury, chrome and manganese. Under the direction of a government company, Wartime Metals Corporation, every effort has been made to stimulate the production of these metals, and where necessary to build uip stock piles of imported metals. These efforts have met with a large measure of success.
We have discovered what appears to be one of the most important discoveries of tungsten on this continent. In the latter half of 1943 Canada should be well on the way to self-sufficiency in tungsten.
The search for molybdenum has met with considerable success. Two new properties, one financed by the government, wild be in operation in the latter half of this year, and their combined output should provide the major part of our requirements.
The development of mercury has been outstanding. Prior to the war, we were entirely dependent on imported supplies, but to-day Canada is one of the important producing countries of the world and we are exporting in quantity.
Chemicals. Although Canadian production has risen to unprecedented' heights, the supply of basic chemicals, such as alcohol, chlorine, glycerine, soda ash, and sulphuric acid, would be insufficient, if their uses were not constantly watched and, wherever necessary restricted.
Supplies Control. Canada is no longer short of cork. Hard fibres, however, are in critical supply. Substitutes for Manila and Java hemp have heen found for certain uses and the production of hemp in the United States, on an increased scale this year, is expected1 to help the supply position materially. Nylon has replaced silk almost entirely in the production of parachute shrouds, and substantial quantities of nylon yarn are being shipped to the United Kingdom for this purpose. The supply of kapok is sufficient for our war requirements.	.
Machine Tools. The expansion of machine tool production and the efficient control of the allocation of machine tools has been one of the cornerstones of our production programme.

War Appropriation-Supplies
Since the war began we have produced machine tools in Canada to the value of $60,000,000. This represents an increase in yearly production approximately five times as. great as that of our best pre-war year. In allocating machine tools the objective has been to eliminate waste by preventing the creation of new tool capacity when there is existing capacity which will do the job.
Priorities. The priorities branch is responsible for the proper distribution of certain scarce equipment and components. Canadian industry has been placed on the same basis as United States industry in the allotment of scarce United States equipment affected by the United States priority procedures. I remind you that priorities on imported United States equipment are fixed by the priorities officers of the United States government, although application must be made through the Canadian priorities office.
Ship Repairs. Control of ship repairs and salvage is becoming increasingly important as the battle of the Atlantic reaches its peak. In the first three years of the war, apart from naval ships, Canada repaired 5,000 vessels averaging 4,000 gross tons each.
Now that Canada has assumed greater responsibilities in convoying ships to Britain, our activities in this field will continue to expand.
Since the salvage control was established in May, 1942, effective measures have been taken to recover ships and cargoes abandoned by owners or underwriters, and much valuable material has been salvaged.
Construction. Thousands of tons of valuable raw materials have been conserved for war and essential use by construction control. A restrictive order has placed all construction projects on a licence basis.
Many hundreds of projects have been postponed until after the war, and thus a backlog of post-war activity is being built up.
It is recognized that in crowded areas private dwellings must be built. In the last four months 5,622 licences for home construction have been issued.
Power. Our great resources of electrical power provide one of the basic reasons why Canada now holds fourth place among the united nations as a war producer. The unfavourable winter season and the lateness of the ice break-up this year severely tested our power facilities.
With still more power plants and facilities going into operation this year, it would now seem safe to assume that, if present restrictions are maintained, we need have no fear for the future.
It took Canada forty-five years to bring power installations up to 7,155,000 horse-power in 1938. In the short time since war began, new developments, including the enormous Shipshaw undertaking and certain other projects not yet completed, will have added an effective electrical capacity of 1,870,000 horsepower.
Since the beginning of the war, interconnections between power systems have been made more elastic and of great capacity. Power has been loaned from time to time between the United States and Canada. In times of break-down, power has been transmitted to the United States at Niagara, and taken from the United States at Beauharnois, or vice versa, depending on the needs of the moment. In all respects the relations between the Canadian and American controls have been cooperative and helpful.
In Ontario, production has been materially increased by the completion of the Big Eddy development, the Madawaska development, and the submerged weir in the Niagara river. The DeCew Falls development is nearing completion. In Quebec, all the power companies have greatly increased their output, and the Shipshaw development alone has increased the installations this year by 600,000 horse-power. Additional generators are being installed monthly. In Alberta, the Minnewanka de-. velopment has been completed; and in British Columbia, the Brilliant development is proceeding. In all the provinces, improved storage facilities, together with the installation of new machinery, have made more power available. All this new power must be used for war and essential purposes.
The gas situation in southwestern Ontario has been improved by additional drilling and by completion of a part of the new coke-oven gas plant at Hamilton. Of necessity, the gas restrictions have been very severe on many families in that area. It is hoped that when the new ovens at Hamilton are completed. and with full use of the still gas at Sarnia, all requirements for war production will be met, and some cases of individual hardship may be mitigated.
Motor Vehicle Control. Only a limited number of new trucks are being released and such releases are only for the most vital purposes. It follows, therefore, that owners of existing trucks are the custodians of irreplaceable property of importance in the war programme, and, as such, they must take every precaution to keep their trucks in good running order. Every assistance is being given to operators and garagemen to assure adequate essential repair facilities.
.3556
War Appropriation-Supplies

The transfer of used trucks from essential industries, such as farming, mining, lumbering and general haulage, is causing serious difficulties, and is likely to become critical during the harvesting of the western crops. This problem is receiving careful consideration.
Transit. With drastic restrictions on gasoline and tires for private vehicles, the public transit systems have been faced with the almost impossible task of handling approximately twice as much traffic as before the war with few additional vehicles.
In some eleven centres all across Canada the hours of approximately 351,500 office, factory, and store employees, including 39,000 government employees in Ottawa, have been staggered to relieve peak pressure on transit facilities.
, When gasoline rationing became necessary, a need developed to utilize private passenger cars to transport workers in essential industries. Many of our war plants are not adequately served by car and bus lines. Late last year there was put into operation the wartime industrial transit plan which permits in certain approved plants the choice of a sufficient number of employee owner-drivers whose responsibility it is to provide the transportation needs of their fellow workers. In return these owner-drivers are the only employees of the plants entitled to special gasoline and tire privileges. By the end of April 1943, the plan was in operation in more than 1,500 plants and industries in Canada. 48,000 cars transport approximately 195,000 workmen, and as a result approximately 38,000 special gasoline categories have been eliminated.
Urban bus mileage curtailment now results in a saving of 4,687,000 bus miles per annum. Inter-urban bus mileage curtailment now effects a saving of 21,700,000 bus miles per annum. This is a net saving. A gross saving which includes mileage diverted to the exclusive transportation of war workers and armed forces would be considerably larger. Further savings are anticipated on summer schedules. Restrictions on the operation of taxicabs have also produced considerable saving in gasoline and rubber.
Transport. Handicapped by increasingly serious shortages of rolling stock and1 personnel, the railroads of this country have had to contend with very serious operating problems.
Restrictions such as the curtailment of extra sections, the elimination of special trains, the cancellation of special fares, including week-end rates, and the provision, to as great an extent as possible, for maximum
1 Mr. Howe.]
loading of freight cars, have resulted in substantial reductions in the use of railway equipment, and substantial increases in the movement of freight.
The railways of Canada are doing a magnificent job. Despite the handicap of less personnel and equipment, they are now handling 50 per cent more traffic than ever before in their history.
I have endeavoured to give hon. members a brief summary of the work of the Department of Munitions and Supply and to indicate the present state of war production. The day to day problems in this field do not lessen. Shortages of man-power have developed, particularly in coal mining, base metal mining, forest industries, in common labour for steel mills and allied industries, and for construction work, and are being dealt with effectively by selective service. It must not be forgotten that more than 700,000 of our younger men, all physically fit, are in the armed services, and that their loss to industry has made necessary widespread readjustments of our remaining man-power.
A recent check of our production personnel indicates that only about 4 per cent of the men in industry were on deferment from military services as of March 1 last. The percentage of deferments in industiy has been considerably reduced since then. This should disprove conclusively the statement frequently made that war industry is in competition with the armed services for men. It is quite proper at this stage of our production programme that the armed services should have complete precedence within the age group that have been called up for military service. It is our policy that deferments are asked only for men having specialized training and skill of a type that is absolutely essential to our programme. Women are playing an ever increasing part in war production and there has been no loss of efficiency on that account. Lost time as a result of labour disputes has been trivial, when compared with the record of any allied country. The output of war material from Canadian factories is a fine tribute to the loyalty and devotion of the men and women employed in our many war plants and war industries. When the history of Canada's participation in the war is written, those men and women will deserve to share with our armed services a full measure of recognition.
Canadian industry has developed remarkably under the stimulus of war. Never again will there be any doubt that Canada can manufacture anything that can be manufactured elsewhere. Our industry has pioneered production

War Appropriation-Naval Services
in many new lines of war material, and has brought about improvements in many older manufacturing processes. Its equipment has been modernized, and its productive capacity has been expanded out of all comparison with our pre-war industry.
Later in this debate my associate, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), will report on cost reductions that have been effected in our war plants.
I would like to mention especially the devotion to duty of the officers of my department, many of whom are serving without salary. I have drafted into the service of the department the men whom I consider best qualified by experience to direct its varied activities. Among them are many who came to the department with established reputations in the field of production. I am sure that industry will agree with me that their expert direction has had no small part in bringing our war programme to its present effectiveness.
The production programme of Canada has been meshed in with that of the United Kingdom, United States and other allied countries through Canadian membership on the combined production and resources board and through close contact with all allied production agencies. The Department of Munitions and Supply has branch offices in Washington and in London, England, with organizations duplicating in skeleton form our organization here in Ottawa. I feel that ours is a department of government capable of meeting the many and varied problems involved in a manufacturing and supply programme that is straining Canada's capacity to the utmost. However long the war may be, I am confident that there will be no break in Canada's production front. Therefore, I do not hesitate to ask hon. members to approve the appropriations now under consideration.



[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction, charter, repair and upkeep of ships, $157,571,202.	,
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):	I
should like to answer some of the questions which have been asked during the last few days and to which I was not able to give exact answers at the time. One question concerned transportation in Canada, the United States and Great Britain by air, water and rail. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, transportation in Canada by air cost, in round figures, $31,000; by water, $17,000, and by rail, $2,245,000. In the United States there was no charge for air or water transportation, but
rail transportation in that country amounted to $368. In Great Britain there was no charge for air or water transportation, but rail transportation amounted to $86,000. Ocean transportation amounted to $51,000.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) inquired about lubricating oils, I have here a memorandum from the director of fuel for the navy which indicates that discussions on this question have been under way for some time between representatives of the three armed services, the oil industry and the national research council. One of the main purposes of these discussions was to reduce the number of grades of lubricating oil produced. Acceptances of tenders for lubricating oils for this fiscal year have been issued for five classes only, for the mechanical maintenance of ships, but for the maintenance of ordnance and secret equipment the requirements are greater due to the varied and delicate mechanism involved.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: How many types of equipment are there?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I
cannot give my hon. friend the various types of machinery. I think that matter is not yet fully settled, but negotiations and discussions are going on with the same end in mind as prevailed in the former discussions with regard to the grades of oil for ships.
The hon. member for Yale asked whether there are deductions from the pay of ratings, and I think I replied that I did not believe there were any deductions except for income tax where income tax was exigible. I am informed that that answer is correct, that there are no. compulsory deductions except in cases of men who are liable to income tax.


Mr. STIRLING:: I asked also as to other
ranks-officers, too.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Officers as well as other ranks.


Grote Stirling: There are no deductions for officers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The memorandum I have deals with ratings, but I should think that in the case of officers there would be deductions in many cases for income tax.


Grote Stirling: I should think there
were other ones, also.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My memorandum deals only with ratings. I can look up later the question of deductions from officers' pay.
The hon. member for Lake Centre asked, I believe the day before yesterday, as to the
3558	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
number of officers to be trained this year and what facilities were available to train them. Some 1,496 new officers are to be trained in this fiscal year; in addition, some 489 officers now in the service will be taking specialist courses. As to what facilities are available to train them: they will be trained at King's, at Deep Brook, and some of them in technical schools. Some of them will receive training in the specialist branches of the navy.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: During the last
year has the navy been in the position of not having sufficient facilities to train the officer personnel required, and what is the estimate of the number of officers that will be required to be trained during the coming year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Those are the figures which I just gave my hon. friend-1,496 new officers-


John George Diefenbaker: Is that sufficient?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: -to be trained during the fiscal year. These are the men who will come into the service and receive officer training. In addition, 489 officers who are already in the service and consequently have a certain amount of training will be taking specialist training this year. This makes a total of nearly 2,000 officers either receiving their first training or some type of specialist training.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister
infer from that that there has been no shortage during the past year of facilities for the training of officers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We have done the best we could with the facilities we had. The facilities might have been improved, and we are endeavouring to improve them.
The leader of the opposition asked me as to the taxes on a certain property in Toronto, on Crescent road. That property is given to the department without any rental charge. The understanding is that we pay taxes and insurance. I understand that the cost of insuring the property amounts to $186, and that the taxes for this year are $1,368.
Some ^question was asked about buildings in Winnipeg. I made a reply to the effect, I think, that I did not know of any offer to give a house to the department rent free. I am informed that that is correct. There have been several offers to rent or sell properties to us, but no arrangement has been made in that regard.

I was asked, I believe by the hon. member for Peterborough West, as to the number of architects in the department for naval services, and offhand! I said I thought it was about fifty. I find that that is approximately the number in Ottawa. But there are architects and engineers on the Pacific coast, in eastern Quebec, on the Atlantic coast, in Newfoundland, and in what is known as the central district, so that the total of architects and construction engineers in the works and buildings branch-I am including both those in uniform and those who are civilians-is, for all Canada, 131.
The question was asked the other night by the hon. member for St. John-Albert as to the number of buildings of one kind! and another at Deep Brook. The number is 114.


Mr. HAZEN:: If I may interrupt here, I
asked the minister also what kind of buildings they were.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: All
the buildings are of wood1. I understand that the walls and roofs are covered with fire-resistant shingles. I do not know the exact term. They are not wholly fireproof, I believe, but they are of a type commonly used1 now in buildings which are not intended to be wholly permanent. There are no brick or stone buildings at Deep Brook.


Douglas King Hazen: I asked also what they would be used1 for.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
can give my hon. friend the names of the buildings. They are: the power house, two administration buildings, one anti-aircraft tower and dome, one anti-submarine school, one. clothing store, one central heating plant, one chapel, one cell block-that should not be put right after the chapel-one cooking school, one drill shed, one dental clinic, one diving shed, ten quarters for chief petty officers and petty officers, one mess for chief petty officers and petty officers, one canteen for chief petty officers and petty officers, one fire station No. 1, one fire station No. 2, one garage, one gun battery, one gunnery school, one guard quarters, one hospital, one inflammable store- which means a store for the retention of goods which are inflammable in their nature-one laundry, one lecture hall, five buildings to be used as married quarters, one magazine, one building for training of new entry men in seamanship, one mechanical training establishment, one shipwright's shop, one central post office, one auto repair shop, one chlorinator house, one pump-house, three recreational huts, one mechanical training shop, one officers' mess, one ordnance artificers' shop, one physical

War Appropriation-Naval Services
training school, one regulating office, seven regulating blocks, one railway station. The railway station, I imagine, will be on a siding. The whole establishment is quite near the railway; in fact the railway runs, I believe, through the establishment. There are also: two naval store buildings, one torpedo school, one torpedo machine shop, one victualling store and bakery, one wardroom for warrant officers, one mess room for warrant officers, four buildings to be used as quarters for warrant officers, one building to be used for nursing sisters and Wren officers as quarters; one mess to be used by nursing sisters and Wren officers; six buildings to be used for the quartering of ratings and wrens; one building to be used1 as mess for the Wrens; seventeen buildings to be used for ratings' quarters; five buildings to be used for ratings' mess; five buildings to be used for canteens, two buildings to be used as officers' quarters.
My hon. friend asked for an analysis of the sum of $1,294,000 which was expended as indicated in a return brought down some time ago under the heading, "other expenditures". That amount, in round figures, is made up as follows:
Purchase of new machinery	 $250,000
Mess traps first outfit	 37,000
Naval stores first outfit	 46,000
Small boats	 22,000
Charts	 1,000
Medical stores first outfit	 18,000
Anti-submarine equipment	 55,000
Fire-fighting equipment	 10,000
Training equipment	 50,000
Photographic equipment	 10,000
Motorcars, trucks and tractors....	45,000
Books of reference	 10,000
Typewriters and office machines...	10,000
Armament stores	 728,000


Mr. EMMERSON:: The list of buildings given by the minister gives those that have been newly constructed. What has been done with the original residence at Deep Brook, the large, magnificent property there, which was taken over?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is being put to use. There were two garages, and those and any other buildings on the property are being put to use.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: When the minister gave answers yesterday he said he would tell us how many commissioned officers of all depots were located at headquarters in Ottawa.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Either yesterday or the day before I put on Hansard the number at headquarters.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If the minister has already answered the question I am going to ask, or if he thinks it is not in order, he need
not answer it. Approximately how many Fairmile boats are at present operating on the sea? How many are in the harbour for repairs? Has the Fairmile squadron, if that term may be used, a commander of its own looking after all Fairmiles? If so, what is his name; how long has he been in charge of the operation of Fairmiles and what is his experience?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall have to look up the number of ships and find out whether they are in harbour or at sea.


Douglas King Hazen: The other evening I mentioned the question of pensions for men serving in the navy in territorial waters. The minister referred me to section 2, paragraph 3 of the Pension Act, which provides for service in Canada in such coastal or inland waters as may be designated by the governor in council to be service in a theatre of war, and consequently the insurance principle applies in such cases. Has any order in council been passed designating any coastal or inland waters as theatres of war? If so, what coastal and inland waters are included in the order?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think any waters have been designated as a theatre of war in the sense of the order in council, but any men serving on a Canadian ship of war in any of our coastal waters would be on active service and would automatically be pensionable. That is the view which the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) holds, and I think it is quite right.


Douglas King Hazen: That changes the picture a little. Has any order in council been passed under section 2, paragraph 3?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think not.


Douglas King Hazen: If that is so, is it not very much open to question at the present time if the insurance principle is applicable to men in the navy who are serving in the territorial waters of Canada or in inland waters? It seems to me that unless there is an order in council, that principle is not applicable to these men.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is quite correct. The insurance principle applies to those outside Canada in the air or in the navy, or with the land troops, and disability or death incurred during such service is pensionable. For those who have served only in Canada, death or disability is pensionable if it arises out of service or is attributable to service. The insurance principle does

War Appropriation-Naval Services
not apply to those who have served! only in Canada, but applies to anyone in the navy, the army or the air force who has served outside Canada and returns to the country for any service whatever.


Douglas King Hazen: Would the Minister of
National Defence for Naval Services look into this matter and give it further consideration? Men who are serving in the navy in our territorial waters or perhaps, in some cases, in our inland waters, should come under the insurance principle. These men are just as much engaged in protecting our coasts, and many of them are just as much subject to submarine .attack as men outside territorial waters. I think the insurance principle should apply to these men.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In 1940, I believe, Commander A. C. Turner, R.C.N.V.R., held some important post in Toronto for the department, and it is said that he was later moved to Halifax. May I inquire if he is now in Halifax, and, if so, what post he holds?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, he was moved to Halifax to take a post at the dockyard. I am not able to say just where he is within the last week or two or within the last day or two.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I was home I passed by a new factory being erected south of the Canadian Pacific railway track just southwest of Leaside station and on making inquiries was told that it was for the purpose of building boats of some description. I am not just sure What the type was, but if my memory .serves me aright, it was the kind of boat that is used in connection with aeroplane crashes at sea or lake to save the crew. I learned that these boats were being built by some folks I have known for quite a long time. I believe he was a hot-air furnace manufacturer. I just wondered what knowledge he had of building these boats, and just what type of boat is to be built there.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That would not be under this department. The production might be crash boats for the air force, and the arrangements for that would be made by the Department of Munitions :and Supply.	[DOT]


John Ritchie MacNicol: These boats are not in the minister's department?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Dunenburg is not in his seat at the moment. If he were, I do not think I would have to ask this question. It pertains to a Nova

Scotian, Captain P. E. Walters, of 25 Waverley street, Toronto. I do not know him, but from the letters he writes I infer that he is connected with the well-known Walters family of Lunenburg. I believe his brother sailed the Bluenose. This gentleman has written me many letters, offering himself in any capacity to the naval service to help win the war. He gives his experience and signs himself "captain", and I have been wondering why he has not been given some employment if he is capable. He tells me that he has already taken the matter up with the hon. member for Lunenburg, who if he were here* would no doubt be inquiring about the matter himself, but in his absence I do so.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I know the gentleman. He has written to the department on various occasions, and to my hon. friend and many other members of the house. But for some reason or another it has not been found exactly possible to make use of his services.


Douglas King Hazen: Just another word about pensions. I would like to direct the minister's attention to his remarks as reported on page 3454 of Hansard at the top of the first column. I am not going to quote them, but it would seem to me that that statement should be corrected a little. As I understand it, if a man in the navy has served in any theatre of war and then suffers a disability while serving in Canada or in the territorial or coastal waters of Canada, the insurance principle is applicable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It applies anywhere if the man served outside Canada in any of the three services.


Douglas King Hazen: But take the case of a man who has not served outside Canada, but has served on a ship in the territorial waters of Canada; the insurance principle is not applicable in his case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is very largely discretionary how far the principle would apply. I understand that the naval authorities advise the' pension commission as to whether the man's service was outside Canada, and that is taken as a statement of fact and the pension law applied accordingly.


Douglas King Hazen: But the words used are "coastal or inland waters". As I understand it, a man on a naval ship serving in coastal waters where he may be subjected to submarine attack does not necessarily get the benefit of the insurance principle. I think the minister might very well give further attention to that matter.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to look into and discuss it with my hon. friend and make a fuller statement next week.
hir. HAZEN: There were some questions of mine which the minister did not answer. I asked him how much was spent last year under item 4 on Deep Brook. I also asked him to tell us when it was decided to establish a training centre at Deep Brook.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry if I missed answering those questions. The amount expended on Deep Brook is $3,742,000.


Douglas King Hazen: Is that out of last year's vote?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That would, I take it, be up to the end of the last fiscal year. I would have to look up the minutes of the board meetings to ascertain just when the decision was reached, but I think it was about a year ago. I know the contractor got on the ground and began his excavations in July or August, so that I imagine the contract was let in July, which would bring the date of the decision to build just about a year ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
11.	Naval stores: small boats, minesweeping degaussing, anti-submarine, fire-fighting and training equipment, et cetera, $57,651,110.
Douglas King Hazen: Would the minister give us a break-down of the $19 million expenditure for 1942-43, and the break-down of the expenditure for 1943-44?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend an analysis of last year's expenditures. That is a bit difficult to do in view of the new method we have adopted of presenting the estimates in accordance with the desire to have a uniform type of presentation by the three departments, but I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend the main items for this year. The item of $57,000,000 includes the purchase of stores, small boats, charts, medical stores, wireless telegraphy equipment, mine-sweeping equipment, degaussing equipment, anti-submarine equipment, radio direction finding equipment commonly called r.d.f., fire-fighting equipment, training equipment and photographic equipment. I have not the figures for each item; it will take me some little time to get that information, but I shall be glad to get the figures and place them on Hansard. I have figures here which show the cost per man per ship, but perhaps that is in too much detail. I assume that my hon. friend would
like to know the amount under each of these headings. I can get that for him, and it will be more convenient than to attempt to give him a great deal of detail which he may not want.


Douglas King Hazen: Are there included under the heading "small boats" any of the 550 ships to which the minister has referred?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; those would be what we call pulling boats, whalers and that sort of thing. They would not be included in the 550.


Douglas King Hazen: Have there been any shortages in naval stores during the past year, or have any alleged shortages of naval stores been brought to the minister's attention?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does my hon. friend mean a shortage in supply or a loss of stores through defalcation, or something like that?


Douglas King Hazen: I am referring to naval stores.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: But does my hon. friend refer to any difficulty in obtaining them?


Douglas King Hazen: No; I mean shortages through defalcations, or something like that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There have been a few minor cases, very minor, investigated by the mounted police and the naval police. They have been very few, I am glad to say.
Mr. ADAMSON1: The minister mentioned degaussing equipment or apparatus. Is there a ship-wiping station on this side, to depolarize the magnetism of the ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: On both the east and west coasts they have what is called a degaussing range where the Ships go up and down. I assume it is this equipment that my hon. friend has in mind.


Mr. ADAMSON:: They bring the ships alongside and depolarize the magnetism.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I would assume that was part of the arrangement, but I am not sure. I know the ships do run over a certain measured distance in the'harbour to try out their equipment, and I assume that what my hon. friend has in mind forms part of that test. I shall look into it and make sure.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I just wondered whether there were complete facilities on this side.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I would think so. We took up that work very early both at Halifax and near Victoria. We
3562	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
had some very able scientists working on it who did some extremely valuable work, beginning early in 1940. So that I think I can sai'ely assume that all modern methods and appliances are available in each case.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is included in the words "fire-fighting"? Does the department have its own fire brigades? If so, where are they, on the docks or in stores?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: At many of our bases we have fire engines, stirrup pumps and all that sort of thing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And are they operated by firemen trained by the department or firemen drafted or accepted' from fire departments thoughout the country?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should think they would be our own ratings, who receive some special training in firefighting.


Douglas King Hazen: Is any investigation, checkup or audit being made at the present time to ascertain if there have been any shortages in naval stores?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Test checks or spot checks are being made constantly by our own men, and sometimes by outside men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.-
12.	Miscellaneous stores and services: printing, stationery, laundry, office machinery, teletype rental, etc., $6,552,959.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Would publicity come under printing? The other day I asked a question in regard to public relations and I was given the personnel in that branch, but nothing was said about publicity.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I can give my hon. friend the items making up this total; printing and stationery, $617,000; books for service use, which would be largely manuals of instruction issued to ratings, books used' on ships, code books and the like, $258,000; books for naval libraries, $25,000; typewriters and office machines (new equipment), $110,000; typewriters and office machines (replacements), $10,000; laundry and dry cleaning, $202,000; wages for storekeepers and armament workers, the men Who work in the stores at various places and the men who work, in the armament depots all over the country, $3,451,000; storekeeping contingencies for new equipment, $184,000; storekeeping contingencies for repairs, replacements, supplies and so on, $201,000; general miscellaneous services, including dockage,

towing and so, on, $316,000; water for ships, $141,000; inspection and testing, $5,000; rental of teletypes, $318,000; carry-over from last year, $311,000; contingencies, $367,000.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Are such books as the manual of seamanship printed in Canada now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not sure that they are. We are beginning to do a good deal of printing both for ourselves and for the British admiralty, in the way of confidential books and that sort of thing, and I think it is a good arrangement for both of us. I am not sure about the manuals of seamanship; there may have been a considerable store of those on hand in Great Britain, and they may be still available.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is the money for teletypes for purchase or rental?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: For rental.


Agar Rodney Adamson: To whom is the rental paid?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Generally to the communications companies. There are teletypes running from here to Washington, from here to Halifax and to St. John's, Newfoundland; and I think we have another one to London, England.


Agar Rodney Adamson: A direct one to England?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, I think we have, at this moment. We have them to various places throughout the country. Rentals are paid to the cable, telegraph and telephone companies.


Gordon Graydon: In connection with the matters contained in this item, was the minister's department under the jurisdiction of the director of economies control, about which we have heard something this session.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, I think so. I have never been sure, but 1 think I was.


Gordon Graydon: And how did the minister get along -with him?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think I had much occasion to apply to the director of economies control. I believe I did make application to him, but it was in connection with a matter which really did not require an application. He was pleased to grant the request. I think I had occasion only once to write to him.


Gordon Graydon: Just a little pleasant formality.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; to show there was good feeling between us.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Recently and since the beginning of the war we have read in the papers about the hardships suffered by survivors from torpedoed ships, and the difficulties they have in feeding themselves. I understand that in the United States rafts and boats are now fitted' up with light fishing tackle. Has this department done the same thing?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; we have a complete kit for life-saving. As I said the other night, it includes concentrated food, such as chocolate, and that sort of thing. Then I believe a fishing line and, some hooks are included in the kit.


Angus MacInnis: It would be very light, and would not require much space.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It would not take much space.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There was an article in this morning's newspaper about a new suit invented by a Canadian.


Agar Rodney Adamson: A zoot suit.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The navy is very much against the zoot variety.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The article states that the suit was invented by a Canadian in Toronto. It is equipped with considerable apparatus, and packed with kapok, to keep afloat those who may fall into the water. Among other things it is equipped with a flashlight attached to the top of the cap, and this light flashes on and off. The article states the authorities are purchasing quite a number of these suits. Is a number being purchased by the minister's department, and, if so, under what item?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Various designs of life-saving suits are constantly before the department. I am not aware that we have actually made any agreement with the gentleman from Toronto for the purchase of the suit about which the hon. member speaks. I know that a year or two ago, Mr. Gordon Leitch of Toronto was interested in a certain kind of suit which he felt would be helpful to shipwrecked men. From time to time various designs of belts, clothing and pullovers which will help to keep a man afloat have been submitted. I am not sure, however, that we have made any definite commitments for the suit mentioned by the 'hon. member.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The flashlight is in the
cap, and operates on and off. When the man
falls or is thrown into the water from a ship he pulls the cap over his head and the light goes on and off, like a lighthouse light.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes;
I know about it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Dehydrated rations were
a Canadian invention, were they not? Has this ration been adopted by the Royal Navy, andl, if so, with what results? Has it been as successful as we hoped?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In
one form or another life-boat rations have been tried out by various countries. Great Britain had a life-boat ration. Our men studied' it, and made some changes in it. They were very successful in providing water and food Which would not go stale. I know that the ration designed here by our naval medical research unit attracted much attention in Great Britain andl the United States. I am not in a position to say whether they have actually adopted it, but I know they were keenly interested and asked for samples, which we were glad to send them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The British navy have
adopted our dehydrated' food on all ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Doctor Best of
Toronto deserves great credit for the fine work he has done in connection with perfecting life-boat rations. He has been living on submarines and on ships, under the most trying conditions, and I am happy to pay him tribute for all he has done in this connection.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
agree, entirely. His work has been of a very high order.


Douglas King Hazen: I understood the minister to say that $258,000 was spent on code books. Are those books manufactured in Canada? Are they purchased from firms in this country?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They are not purchased from firms. They are being printed by the naval department, itself, in Ottawa.


Douglas King Hazen: What does the laundry item include? Does the navy launder sailors' uniforms?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
think this laundry item includes sheets, pillowcases, blankets, hospital bedding and supplies of that kind. I do not think it includes the personal laundry of officers or men.


Douglas King Hazen: Do sailors have to look after their own uniforms? How about the white uniforms?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; they have to scrub them diown and- press them out.
Item agreed1 to.
13.	Sundries: postage, pilotage, prize funds and other costs not included in above items, $3,261,237.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an omnibus item, and offers me an opportunity to bring a matter to the attention of the minister. All of us agree as to the wonderful development which has taken place in the Canadian navy. However, there is always room for improvement, and one matter has been brought to my attention by a number of naval officers. I refer to giving greater consideration to officers of the R.C.N.V.R. in the matter of promotions, and the like.
Is it a fact that there is any difference between pay received by officers of the R.C.N. and those of the R.C.N.V.R.? My further argument will be based upon the minister's answer.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is no difference in the pay of R.C.N. and R.C.N.V.R. officers of the same ranks.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any difference in the allowances?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I am advancing the argument I intend to advance not by way of criticism but in an effort to secure information on this subject and thus be able to reassure these RC.N.V.R. officers who represent about eighty to eighty-five per cent of the men in the navy. They feel that they are deserving of greater representation on the naval board than they have had heretofore. Has the minister given consideration to increasing this representation? Is there any representative of the R.C.N.V.R, on the naval board?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The secretary of the board is an R.C.N.V.R. officer.


John George Diefenbaker: That is Captain Pennington.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it expected that he will shortly leave the board?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If he does, I should think we would probably replace him with another R.C.N.V;R. officer.


John George Diefenbaker: How many members are there of the naval board? Is there only the one man representing the R.C.N.V.R., who make up about eighty-five per cent of the personnel of the navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The naval board consists of the chief of naval staff, the vice-chief of naval staff, the chief of naval engineering, the chief of naval equipment and supply, the chief of naval personnel, the deputy minister, the secretary, and I sit in with the board myself. My hon. friend will understand that the board is made up of the senior officers of the department, the heads of branches and that sort of thing, and it is not always possible perhaps to get a R.C.N.V.R. officer who has had the necessary training, and experience to fit him tc be the head of a department. There are some departments that R:C.N.V.R. officers could head very well.


John George Diefenbaker: What departments would they be?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That would depend upon the experience of the particular officer. It is obvious that the chief of naval staff would be expected to be a permanent officer, and I think that would apply also to the vice-chief of naval staff who must take the place of the chief in his absence. The chief of naval engineering and construction, Admiral Stephens, is an engineering officer of something like thirty-five years' experience, and it would be quite difficult to find a R.C.N.V.R. officer with the necessary naval engineering experience. Many of them are qualified engineers, but ' they have not had the naval experience that Admiral Stephens has had. Personnel might be a place where a R.C.N.V.R. officer of the right type could perform satisfactory work.


John George Diefenbaker: If that were done, I think it would remove a lot of the reason for complaint.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The secretary of the naval board is a R.C.N.V.R. officer. The deputy minister is a civilian, and if there is such a thing as a civilian viewpoint, he would have it. I must say that I have not heard of the complaints to which my hon. friend referred, but I might not hear of them. A lot of the R.C.N.V.R. officers who come back from the sea to Ottawa call in to see me and they talk quite frankly. I always encourage them to do that, but I must say that I have not heard of these complaints. I should be very sorry to think there was any feeling: between the three branches of the navy. In this regard we follow the Royal Navy's system which has the same three branches. Our navy is only about thirty years old; it is Obvious that we should have some model and guide,, and I do not know where we could get a better model and guide than the British navy' itself.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


John George Diefenbaker: Has any consideration been given to appointing a R.C.N.Y.R. officer as personnel representative on the naval board? The navy is the only service in Canada where any distinction is made between officers who served prior to the war and those who have volunteered since. I am placing this matter before the minister in all sincerity. He says that none of these complaints has come to him, but I can understand that. If the naval regulations are similar to the army regulations, an officer would have no right to make a complaint except through the regular channels.
In making the suggestion that there should be a greater representation of the R.C.N.V.R. on the naval board, I do so out of consideration for the wishes of a number of these officers who have spoken to me. In the course of conversation with at least ten of them the same matter was raised. The minister says that the secretary of the board is a R.C.N.V.R. officer, but ordinarily secretaries have little to say. We all want to see the navy built up; we all want to see it achieve greater efficiency and cbntinue the magnificent work it has been doing; but if there is any ground for the complaint made by these R.C.N.V.R. officers that they are not receiving fair and proper representation on the board, that their ideas do not receive the proper attention, the minister should give it attention. If this is done, I feel that there will be great dividends in the way of morale, and it certainly would do no harm in connection with policy. The majority of those on the board would be permanent officers, but at the same time there would be brought into the discussions of the naval staff the viewpoint of those who had been civilians previously. The civilian viewpoint, the viewpoint of the man who has entered the service since the outbreak of the war, would be refreshing and might do a great deal to improve conditions which in many instances are not known as well by those who make a profession of the service.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I thank my hon. friend for what he has said. He has made a constructive and helpful suggestion. I shall bear it very carefully and very fully in mind. I might say that in all those branches which are headed by members of the permanent service of the Royal Canadian Navy, there are a great many Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve men serving. A goodly number of the officers serving with the head of the naval personnel branch would be R.C.N.V.R. officers; and in that way their views, I should think, would become well known to the head of the branch.
As I said, however, I shall be glad to consider the whole matter with the utmost care, and once more I thank my hon. friend for what he has said and the spirit in which he has said it.


Douglas King Hazen: Last evening I asked the minister what was the tonnage of the corvettes, Fairmiles, and some of the other ships in the navy. The minister said he did not know whether he should answer that question, and I did not press it. I ask him now if he would be prepared to tell us what is the tonnage of the smallest class of ship in the Canadian navy.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I mentioned, I think several times, that we had fighting ships, and ships which, while very useful, were not of that type. Does my hon. friend mean the smallest vessel of any sort that we have, or is he referring to combat ships?


Douglas King Hazen: What I really had in mind was the fighting ships in the 550.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I fancy the smallest of the 550 would be some of the armed yachts. Some of these are larger than Fairmiles; there may be some which are smaller. I am not exactly sure whether our smallest fighting ship is the armed yacht or the Fail-mile. I would have to look over the tonnage of all the armed yachts and compare them with the Fairmile tonnage in order to answer that.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall item 13 carry?


Douglas King Hazen: I would ask for a breakdown of this item.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The item of sundries includes, as is natural, a great many small items. There is first of all a small item, capitation allowance, which is made to certain ministers of religion, who perform their ministrations for men of the service in cases where no regular chaplain is available. The amount is $706. Then there are costs of courts-martial and subsistence of prisoners, $28,000; apprehension of deserters, $1,412; prize funds, that is, prizes given for proficiency in such matters as rifle and pistol shooting and so on, $706; funeral expenses, $14,000; money paid to the national research
3566	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
council for scientific services, $539,000; unemployment insurance stamps, $95,000; temporary civil servants, $54,000, which is for the unemployment insurance scheme; casual labour, $33,000 at Halifax and $7,000 at Esquimalt; bonding premiums, $3,000 to pay for bonds held on naval personnel who handle public funds; administration of merchant seamen's order, $46,000; rehabilitation grants, $141,000; small grants for Prince Robert house on the west coast, a hostel there,, $1,200; pension to ex-skipper White, $363; unforeseen expenses, $568,000; contingencies, $130,000,


Grote Stirling: Is that $1,200 the total contribution of the government to Prince Robert house?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: So far as I know, it is. The navy league have an interest in that house and I believe we undertook this to help them out.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain just what happens to a suggested invention that is sent in to the department? What exactly is done with it? Is there an inventions board or an inventions branch in connection with his department, or does the national research council deal entirely with it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We have a man to whom such matters are frequently referred. There is also an inventions board which is attached to the national research council, and they are the people who pass on a great many of these inventions.


Grote Stirling: At some stage the navy must give its opinion on that, and I wondered whether it gave its opinion before the invention went to the national research council or at a later stage.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Sometimes before and sometimes after.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall I report progress?


Gordon Graydon: Before the estimate
finally goes through, this seemed to me to be an appropriate occasion, at the conclusion of the consideration of the estimates of the three defence departments under the war appropriation bill resolution, for the members of this house to pause and to reflect for a moment upon the giant contribution which the officers and non-commissioned officers and the men and women of all three branches of our armed forces are making in a cause for which this nation and empire in collaboration with the other united nations are fighting, for the preservation of a free, democratic way of life.

Well over a month has been consumed in the consideration of the appropriations which will enable our forces to continue to make that contribution. During the debate there has been active and constructive criticism by members of this house. On mafly occasions there has been disagreement both as to policy and as to detail. On several occasions this disagreement has reached a high pitch. I rather think, for instance, that the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will, upon reflection, agree that one of the most dangerous and perhaps one of the most delicate positions in which he found himself during the consideration of his estimates was when he singled out for special mention the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church); for this member's name may properly be said to be synonymous with the armed forces and their dependents for whom he has worked indefatig-ably for well over a quarter of a century.
However, we of the Progressive Conservative party have only attempted to meet the government in debating collision where we felt that the government in the interests of the nation and particularly in the interests of the armed forces, required that type of criticism in order that it may itself be rendered more capable, more competent and more efficient to do the services which the people of Canada desire it at this time to do.
There is something about'democracy, however, which must not be overlooked. Right in this chamber are the representatives of the people who, while differing as to policy, method and detail in many instances, will rise up in one concordant unit, one member vying with another, on the one and only important issue facing Canada to-day, namely, the bringing of the present hostilities to a victorious conclusion.
We as civilians in Canada during this wartime period try to do our best, but that best falls far short of our armed forces' best. The achievements of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force have aroused in Canadians an enthusiastic, justifiable pride in' the heroism and the valour of the men and the officers of all three services.
I think, therefore, that this parliament should at this moment put aside all its petty cleavages, all its little thoughts, and concentrate upon tendering our appreciation to those hundreds of thousands of our men and women who are prepared to lay upon the altar of sacrifice, if needs be, all that they have, including that dearest of all treasures, life itself. To them in the midst of [DOT] our deilberations with respect to the financial requirements needed to support them, I desire to place upon the record of parliament, not

Supply-The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell
only on behalf of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition but on behalf of the entire membership of this House of Commons, a tribute of grateful recognition of their high position in our thoughts and in our minds to-day.
We solemnly recall and remember the sacrifice made by those who have fallen in this war; and to those of their kin upon whom their loss falls most heavily, we express our heartfelt and genuine sympathy at this time.
This can be little more than a gesture of this house, but we who are not privileged to serve in the more dangerous fields of conflict, at least owe it to those who do, to display to them this unity of thought and purpose, which goes much more deeply than any inadequate words of mine can properly express.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
wish to tell my hon. friend the member for Cumberland that in giving him last night the cost of buildings at Point Edward I may have left the impression that the total cost for the completed work was $5,701,000. On checking it over I find that the whole cost will be a good deal more than $5,701,000. That is the expenditure only to a certain date this year. I desire to make that correction.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I wish to thank the minister for that information. Has he an estimate of the cost of the whole project when completed?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The estimate for the total cost when the project will ultimately be completed-of course, that will be some considerable time-including the work done and work yet to be done this year and in future years is $11,566,000. The figure which I gave my hon. friend was calculated some time back this year for the total cost up to that time.


Percy Chapman Black: I made one other inquiry of the minister as to the actual tonnage of coal used. There are almost 6,000,000 barrels of oil and 5,336,000 gallons of gas used as fuel, and the minister said last night that from one to ten thousand tons of coal was used as fuel, but he would give the exact figures later. I should be glad if he would put them on record.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I told my hon. friend that I was not sure, that it might be one or ten thousand tons. I had the figure of ten thousand tons in mind because I was thinking of ships that go well out to sea. That is about the right figure for those ships. What I omitted to take into account was a considerable number of ships in harbour, such 72537-226
as gate vessels, harbour tugs, fire boats and that sort of thing, which I find consume a great deal more coal than ships that go out to sea. The total for all ships, certain minesweepers and patrol boats, which are open seagoing vessels, and the harbour craft is 62,000 tons. That is the estimate for the year. The estimated cost of the coal is $711,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister able to answer my question as to the number of Fairmiles at sea and undergoing repairs?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I suppose there is no harm in giving my hon. friend this information.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If it is not in the public interest I do not insist.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are, three in for refitting or repairs at the moment; the rest are all operating. The rest would number approximately fifty.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I also asked a question about the commander of the Fairmiles.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The commander of the Fairmiles is now Captain Heenan of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve. He is a man of considerable sea experience. He began as a boy in sailing ships and has followed the sea ever since. He is the senior officer of the Fairmiles, and with him he has as staff officer Commander Powell of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve.
The hon. member for St. John-Albert asked as to the tonnage of ships. Without going into the tonnage of all ships, I may tell him that the largest ship of war we have is 7,000 tons and the smallest seventy-nine tons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
.	SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Administration service.
1. Departmental administration, $130,406.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, since I was last before the committee with my estimates I was called upon to attend the funeral of the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell, who had preceded me as Minister of Agriculture. The fact that during the almost eight years that I have had the privilege of being Minister of Agriculture four men have passed away who had

3568	COMMONS
Supply-The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell
formerly occupied this position in earlier days, suggests to us the rate at which time passes. No life could have exemplified more completely the importance of making full use of the time that is allotted than the life of Hon. W. R. Motherwell. He was given thirteen years longer than the allotted span, and during the whole period of his life has been busily engaged in doing those things which he considered to be in the interests of agriculture.
He was born a few miles from this city, in Lanark county. He won a scholarship which took him early in life to the Guelph agricultural college, where he graduated with honours as one of its first class. Shortly after graduation he journeyed west to locate as a practical farmer on a piece of raw prairie which, in a period of about twenty years, he converted into one of the finest farm homes in Canada. He made the trip west from the end of steel by ox-cart and turned his first sod with oxen, but he lived to see the farm equipped with the most up-to-date machinery and farmed by the most modern and most up-to-date methods. Mr. Motherwell accomplished the difficult task of remaining a practical dirt farmer while keeping up to date as a technical agriculturist. This part of the story comes to me second hand, but the remainder of his life was so closely intermingled with my own that his passing has removed a faithful friend and a helpful adviser.
In 1904 I went to what is now Saskatchewan. My first political experience was in assisting to elect the first government of Saskatchewan, in which Mr. Motherwell was minister of agriculture, in 1905. In 1911 I became principal of a school in his home constituency and in 1914 entered the legislature as his representative, supporting the government of which he was a member. In 1921 he became my representative in the House of Commons for the federal constituency of Melville, and in 1940 I became his representative in the House of Commons for the federal constituency of Melville. For thirty-two years we lived within sight of each other's home. I therefore speak of him to-night as a close neighbour, as a long-time political friend and as my most valued tutor in matters pertaining to agriculture. He was a man with whom one could feel honoured to be in agreement and with whom one hesitated to be in disagreement because of his wide experience, great knowledge, unquestioned integrity and his conscientious pursuit of his convictions.
Mr. Motherwell's service to agriculture is written into the records of farm organizations, first in the province of Saskatchewan, later

across Canada and, -while Minister of Agriculture of Canada, across the world. His great energy and organizing ability found expression in the territorial and iSaskatehewan grain growers' associations, which laid the community foundation for every cooperative farm organization in western Canada. During his period as minister in Saskatchewan he laid the legislative base for every cooperative farm organization in that province, and brought arts, science, engineering, law', medical and agricultural students together on one campus. During his service in Ottawa he promoted cooperatives, encouraged the grading of farm products and fought in a practical way every parasite and disease which attacked animal and plant life, crowning 'his efforts by organizing an attack upon rust in wheat. His outstanding international achievements were those of arranging to have the world poultry and wheat conferences held in Canada.
His long and useful service in agriculture was acknowledged by his friends while he still lived, in two ways: first, by hanging a life-size portrait of himself in the agricultural college he established at Saskatoon, and second, by gathering in his long cherished Qu'Appelle valley, the beauty spot of the prairie west, to present him with a substantial purse and express their appreciation of his services. But his greatest joy came from the fact that his only grandson, who had reached the age of maturity and who graduated with the highest honours from the institution Mr. Motherwell had established at Saskatoon, did him the honour just before his death of taking over the old homestead, thus keeping in the name of its creator the farm which has meant so much to Canada.
I was gratified to have the privilege of representing the government of Canada and you, the agriculture committee, before which he stood so often, at the graveside of a matchless farmer, a technical and practical agriculturist, a Canadian statesman whose name will live in the annals of western Canadian pioneering life. It was my privilege to carry to his widow, his son, his daughter, his grandson and granddaughter, all of whom are highly honoured in their own right by all who know them, your sympathy and your appreciation of a life well lived. At the same time I should like to say to this committee that I believe the passing of Mr. Motherwell marks the end of an era in the development of agricultural life in the great central section of Canada. He was one of the pioneers. In his death we witnessed the

Supply-The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell
passing of one who did much to make possible the settlement of people in the western part of this country and to make of Canada a greater country.
While I was west I had the opportunity of attending the funeral of a neighbour of Mr. Motherwell, whose life marks, I think, the beginning of a new era, not only in the agriculture of the west but in the experiences of Canada as a nation. This man, Doctor Hiel, had not reached an age at which we expect men to pass on. He was a young man, only thirty-three years of age. Into his life, however, he had crowded more than most of us are able to crowd into a span of seventy or eighty years. He was the youngest person ever to graduate from the university of Saskatchewan, entering that university before he was fifteen and graduating in due course. He took a course in medicine at the university of Toronto and passed with honours. He spent a year as an interne at the sanatorium in the province of Saskatchewan, a year as an interne at the Civic hospital in Ottawa, a year as an interne at the Bedford hospital in Great Britain, and took a post-graduate course in Vienna. Then he spent a year as surgeon on a British ship sailing out of Liverpool. Two years before the war he came home and began to practise medicine in Timmins, Ontario. When the war started he enlisted, and two weeks ago passed away in a hospital in Toronto, following an attack of pneumonia. He was brought to his old farm home to be buried, in the same neighbourhood in which Mr. Motherwell had lived.
As a comment on the statements made the other evening by the hon. member for Vegre-ville I should like to describe to this committee what I experienced at that funeral. This young man was one of a family of ten; he was the fourth boy of a group of seven, all born and raised on a farm in Saskatchewan; On this occasion he was dressed in the uniform of a captain of His Majesty's forces; over the coffin in which he was placed was draped the union jack, and the coffin was carried by his six brothers. Of those six brothers the first two were in uniform; one was a lieutenant in the army, serving on the Pacific coast and the other was a private in the army also serving on the Pacific coast. Of the two brothers immediately following, one had a teacher's degree, and had taught school in Saskatchewan, while the other had the degree of M.A., and is principal to-day of the high school grades in a school of which the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) was principal until a short time ago, and of which I had the privilege of being principal some 72537-2261
years previously. Behind those two were two other young men, one a farmer, farming in his own right, and the other a grain buyer who had farmed for a number of years and then taken up the position of grain buyer.
But a most important fact is that following these six young men were the father and mother. And that father and mother .were over seventy years of age. With them were two daughters, the third being in eastern Canada, the wife of a young man of foreign nationality who came east to take his part in making munitions, in order that this war might be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.
The point I wished to make particularly is that the mother and father came to this country from Europe. They were of German nationality, having come here from Austria before they were twenty years of age. They married in Canada, raised their family on a farm in western Canada, and made their living from the soil, soil which had never been broken before they broke it. They worked out of that soil the education of that family, consisting of the group of boys and girls I have described.
The further point I make is this: We were led ipto a church of the Lutheran faith. The service was conducted in the German language, and the hymns were sung in both German and English at the same time. A thousand people attended that service-Poles, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and people of other nationalities. But I am sure hon. members in the committee will agree with me that an incident of that kind in a country such as ours, under these conditions, does mark the opening of a new era, an era of international understanding among all the nationalities who have come to this country, an understanding which will result and has already resulted in the building of a lasting Canadianism.
I recite these two incidents, one to mark the passing of the great pioneering age in western Canada, and the other to mark what has become a united feeling among our people in support of the institutions of government which make freedom possible in this country, and out of which true Canadianism will grow. The men we honour by mentioning them here were builders of a better and greater Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, I rise at
the request of my leader, who was not as well acquainted as I was with the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell, to say a few words at this time. Perhaps it is fitting that I do so because my people came from the county of Lanark, Ontario, in which county the late minister was born.
I like to think of the late Mr. Motherwell as he sat in opposition during those days when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was
3570	COMMONS
Supply-The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell
Prime Minister. One would have had to see Mr. Motherwell in opposition to appreciate fully just what a bonny fighter he really was. Certainly he had great debating abilities. His arguments were always presented in a kindly and generous way, and all hon. members liked to hear him speak. He advanced his points in good order and bolstered them with great strength.
I remember his last speech in the house, when he was sitting on the government side. On that occasion he disagreed with government policy. A man who can view any issue in a broad and unbiased manner, and who can take a stand against those whom he is supposed to support, is a good man indeed. When I say that I am referring, not to the correctness or otherwise of the arguments he advanced on that occasion, but rather to his spirit of independence, a spirit which was exemplified in many battles in which I have seen him take part.
In the last few years I have made a study of the great province from which Mr. Motherwell came, in the hope that as a humble member of parliament I might do something for its greater development. In, my studies I came across the names of two other men, each of whom rendered great and lasting service to that province. I have in mind the, father of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) and the father of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). I believe at one time the late Mr. Ross was a senator as was the late Mr. Perley. That part of the late Senator Ross' career with which I made myself familiar was the part in which he acted as commissioner, and travelled to the Northwest Territories to negotiate treaties with the Indians. I spent some time in the same area last summer.
These three men all pioneered in the west. I like to think of the pioneers, and the hardships they overcame. My own people, who came to the county of Lanark in 1820, and these pioneers of whom I have been speaking, and who went to western Canada, suffered hardships we find it difficult to understand. They faced most unfavourable circumstances, but succeeded in overcoming them.
I know the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell had the tenacity to overcome any difficulty with which he was confronted. I was pleased to hear the minister say that the late Mr. Motherwell settled north of the valley of the Qu'Appelle, because after much travel I can say that, despite its lack of trees, when compared with the valleys in eastern Canada the valley of the Qu'Appelle is one of the most beautiful I have seen. It has a beauty and a glory all its own, and I should hope that the
	,
present Minister of Agriculture, should he remain in office long enough, would do something toward providing a better water supply, through storage facilities, and thereby make a contribution which would result in even greater beauty to that valley. I was thrilled with the beauty of the Qu'Appelle, because I had not thought that in that part of the country, on the prairies, one would find such a beautiful spot. I could say more about that part of Canada, but possibly on this occasion I should not speak at greater length.
I realize I have spoken altogether too imperfectly, and feel that my leader might have spoken with greater eloquence than I have in paying this tribute to a distinguished statesman who has passed on. I understand he received his education in the county of Lanark, just outside the town of Perth, and it is altogether likely that he went to western Canada as a young man. A reference to the Parliamentary Guide discloses that in 1894 he contested the constituency of Qu'Appelle. That being the case, he must have gone out there when quite a young man. He must have been an able young man to receive the nomination for Qu'Appelle on that occasion. I am happy to make these few observations about the dear old gentleman. I feel I can call him "dear old", because he and I were great friends. I can remember, when the last redistribution bill was being considered and I was chairman of the main committee, he came to me and said, "I know I can trust you." I said, "You surely can." The result was that he got his way, and I am happy he did even though he did not come back here any more.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think it is fitting and proper that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in introducing his estimates to-night, should pay the tribute he did to the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell. I was never on the same side of politics as Mr. Motherwell, but in common with all those who were on the opposite side, I admired the great work he did for the western farmer, particularly the farmer of Saskatchewan. In the life of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell we have the story of the Saskatchewan pioneers. As the minister has stated, along with [DOT] several other old-timers he founded the grain growers' association. From their work largely came the cooperative elevator company and throughout the years he was a doughty representative of the western plains.
I came to this house when he was a man of very advanced years and I can remember hearing him express his views. They were not always in consonance with the views of the government which he supported, and that fact

Supply-The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell
made me admire him all the more. Sometimes it takes a great deal of courage for a man to disagree with old friends. On several occasions it must have been more or less painful, not only for Mr. Motherwell but for his friends when he felt compelled, to disagree.
The Minister of Agriculture said that the passing of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell marked the end of a pioneer era. The minister spoke of the members of the family who were present at a funeral. My years in western Canada have not been as many as those of either the Minister of Agriculture or Mr. Motherwell. I have been there for some thirty-four years. I can remember quite well the coming of these later, but still pioneer people from central and southern Europe. Only to-day I was remarking how I had watched the immigrant trains come into the town where I was teaching, with the women wearing shawls on their heads. They were often representative of a depressed humanity from central Europe seeking a way out in the new land. Although I have spent fewer years in the west than the Minister of Agriculture, I have seen a boy of one of these families become a member of the Saskatchewan legislature and eventually an officer in His Majesty's forces, although he was originally of German-speaking origin. Others, too, are making their contribution to the new Canada in many ways.
We who live on the plains owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to men like Mr. Motherwell, to the late Hon. George Langley, to A. G. and John Hawkes, Haultain and the rest of them. We may not have agreed politically -I did not-but I pay my tribute for the foundations which they so well and truly laid in the province in which I live.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, no representative of a western Canadian constituency, no representative of any agricultural constituency could feel at ease when remaining quiet while such kind words were being said in memory of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has taken time to-night to pay this tribute which is so richly deserved. It is perhaps true that the passing of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell marked the end of an era, but there were two things , for which he stood consistently, which we must not allow to pass. One of those was a square deal for the farmer. That good man took a particular interest in me. When I came here I was inexperienced in political affairs, and he came to me several times and told me how serious was the injury that was being done to the farming population of Canada. I think he was trying to imbue me with the spirit of
revolt against what was happening to the farmer. I tried to assure him that I already was imbued with that spirit, that the only difficulty was that I could not find the means to express myself adequately in order that I might be effective in the fight for a better set of conditions for the farmer.
I think every member will remember the last speech which that great man delivered. I think we can fittingly call him a great man. At that time he protested against what had been done to the wheat growers of western Canada, what he considered to be a betrayal of the interests of the western farmer and the wrecking, so to speak of all the things for which Mr. Motherwell had given his life. We in this house should remember with great respect the efforts that he put forth on behalf of the farmer, and we should be impressed, by them. We have a long way to go yet before we give the farmer anything like the kind of deal to which he is entitled and which in the interests of the economy of this country he must receive.
Another thing for which the Hon. W. R. Motherwell stood was a greater democracy. I can remember the sternness with which he set himself against the almost panicky movement toward the adoption of the Sirois report, and I can recall the letter which he wrote to the Western Producer, calling attention to the grievous error that was being made. He was not in favour of centralization; he favoured decentralization and greater democracy for the people. We could well listen to the words of counsel of that great Canadian. I rejoice that I have had this opportunity of adding these few words of tribute to a man whose name was almost a household word in western Canada. His name was associated' in my mind with the good things of life before I had any realization of why they were there.


Mr. PBRLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has provided an opportunity for us to express our appreciation of the splendid work done by the late Doctor Motherwell and to pay a tribute to him and regret his passing. He was one of the early pioneers. One hon. member has already referred to the fact that my father had some little association with Doctor Motherwell in the pioneer days. He was bom on a farm in Ontario. He proved his initiative in going to western Canada and applying there the principles of sound agriculture. He started on a farm near Abemethy, which is north of the Qu'Appelle valley. The farm of the Minister of Agriculture is nearby, and I might mention that my own farm is less than twenty miles from Doctor Motherwell's farmstead;
3572	'	COMMONS
Supply-The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell
I knew the property very well. I well recall having been present, when a mere boy, at the first meeting in Indian Head attended by Doctor Motherwell, and I was proud of the fact that my father was there in association with him in forming the first grain growers' association, which was organized at that meeting to fight for a square deal for the farmer. In those days the main issue was the right to ship grain in cars and get better service. Mr. Motherwell was elected on that occasion to head that organization. I think he did a good job.
Much has already been said of what he accomplished on behalf of the farmers. He fought for them right through. Those were the days of the buckboard and pony. Jn the winter time Mr. Motherwell hauled his grain across the Qu'Appelle valley. I remember on one occasion, when I happened to be in Sintaluta, which is a little east of Indian Head, he arrived with a load of grain in bags, drawn by a team of horses; the grain was not even in bulk. He was a pioneer. It is not necessary for me to enlarge upon what has already been said with respect to the part he played in political affairs and in the public life of Canada. I had the honour of sitting in this house with him for a number of sessions, and I cannot help but say that he was a fair fighter. We did not always agree, but he was always willing to be fair, and beyond doubt he made a great contribution to public life and set a great example to those who sat with him and followed him. I am pleased to have had this opportunity of paying my respects and expressing a word of appreciation of this splendid character.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, as one who can lay claim to be a pioneer in the prairie country, I should like to add my word to the tributes which have been paid to the late Mr. Motherwell. He went to what is now Saskatchewan in 1883. My father settled in western Manitoba in the autumn of 1881. I often reflect upon the debt which we in western Canada owe to the pioneers, the people who went out to the far-flung spaces of the prairies, often remote from a railway, getting mail perhaps once or twice a month, without medical services, without the amenities which we now consider necessary for a full life. They possessed qualities which it is well for us to think upon. Those who go to the far places to develop and build up a country must possess qualities which are among the greatest in the human scale of values. Mr. Motherwell possessed those qualities. He had character and integrity; he had public spirit, whether in his school district, in his church, in his municipality, or in the 
larger fields of provincial and federal affairs. He had, as the hon. member for Davenport said, the quality of being a bonny fighter. He battled intensely for what he believed in. He did not hold his opinions lightly; he was willing at all times and in all places to stand up and fight for the convictions that were in him. That is a quality I always admire, whether I agree with the convictions or not.
All over the prairie country to-day the pioneers are passing off the stage; the little cemeteries are filled with them; but the qualities of faith, of courage, of self-reliance, which they bequeathed to their successors are ones which should not be overlooked or forgotten. I am glad indeed to pay my humble tribute of respect to the memory of a great westerner, a fine farmer and a devoted public servant.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Since last the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was before us we have had statements from the ministers representing the army, the air force, the navy, and industry, and we have viewed every one of their problems from the point of view of war industry. The last minister to address the committee was the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), and he outlined the progress in the manufacture of war supplies and showed what a height of development the industry had reached. It has come practically to peak production, and its labour problems from now on will, I suppose, be readily manageable. The army is in need of men and is making a stand in that regard. The air force was probably the most outspoken with respect to man-power of any of the departments so far before the committee. I admired the way in which the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) spoke about man-power as it affects his department. He said without hesitation, "We are not going to fool around with this problem any longer; men are either going to be in the air force or on the farms, but once they are in the air force they are going to stay there." The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) took practically the same attitude.
As we know, the army is in need of men, and agriculture is in need of men. With all due respect to what the minister said the other day about his not being on the manpower committee and this not being his problem at the present time, I think he must take a definite stand on this question, because we are coming to the stage in agriculture when probably the greatest demands are to be made upon it. As I pointed out, in industry we are at a point, so far as the equipment of

Supply-Agriculture
our armed forces is concerned, when probably we can slacken down or at any rate will not need to increase the pace. But in agriculture that is not true, because the more progress we make and the more victories we achieve in this war, the greater the demands on agriculture will be. We anticipate that Italy will soon be forced out of the war. It will then become an obligation on agriculture to feed the Italian people, and we in this country will have to supply a share of their needs.
Someone asked the other day where we were going to be short of food. I say that, if there is any shortage, the place where we would be short of food is right in Canada, because I believe agriculture has a definite obligation. Having made definite commitments to supply foodstuffs for overseas, these commitments must be fulfilled, and we shall have to divide among ourselves what is left. If we have to come to rationing, that is what it will have to be, and the greater our success overseas, probably the greater the shortage of food here will be. Therefore everything points to the necessity of placing agriculture on a war-time basis, and the minister will have to come out and declare emphatically what labour he requires for the farms, and will have to put those requirements before the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). There the problem will rest, and the Minister of Labour will have to deal with it in the same way as he is dealing with similar problems in the navy, the air force and the army. He cannot fool around with this problem; it has to be solved.
The Minister of Agriculture, when he was speaking the other day, rather shifted the blame for man-power on to someone else's shoulders. He was asked whether he was on the man-power committee, and he made this statement, as reported at page 2894 of Hansard of May 21, 1943:
Yes; there is a man-power committee and I am on that committee.
Then further on:
I have explained to the committee on two occasions that this is not my problem and has nothing to do with my estimates.
Whether it has to do with his estimates or not, it is certainly his problem, and it is his problem in two ways: first, because agriculture is his problem, and agricultural production is his problem, and he cannot and will not get production unless help is there on the farms; and second, because he is on the man-power committee.
The other day I received a letter that illustrates some of the difficulties that confront
us. I wish to put a part of that letter on the record. It comes from a lady and is dated April 13:
Did you get my letter of recent date telling you of my son's-
Here she names her. son.
-short leave or rather visit home? He went back to Victoria on the 4th April and applied for 60 days agriculture leave but was turned down. All miners and agricultural leaves were called off, so he was informed.
When we expect that these boys in the army will get agricultural leave that is what they are faced with, and apparently there are to ibe no more leaves either from the air force or from the navy. I received a letter from the Department of National Defence for Naval Services the other day, and in effect that is exactly what it stated, that these leaves for agricultural purposes would have to be stopped. The Minister of National Defence for Air said the same thing. Last year we had some recourse to that method and could get employment from the armed forces, but that is a thing of the past. This lady continues:
Here we are with practically 500 acres of crop to be threshed before we can commence seeding operations for the new crop. You know, too, all the work there is to be done, cleaning all the seed for 600 acres and treating it too. At present we are absolutely without help. My husband himself looks as if he were due for a break-down. Can you wonder at it?
I have three more letters in the same tone, just received, to which I replied to-day. One is from a fellow who is in a much worse condition. He has a mortgage of $7,000 on his place. He paid $3,700 interest and another $2,200 in interest this year, but he still owes $9,000 and the mortgage company is now clearing him off the farm. With his son taken away, what will he do?
These are the conditions we have to face. The minister, when he was speaking the other day, made further reference to this question, as recorded at page 2893 of Hansard of May 21. On that page will be found certain figures in regard to employment, but before I refer to those figures I might quote something the minister said as reported at page 2896:
To an extent, of course, the figures based on the 1941 census must be estimates. The figures with regard to the placements are actual figures and the figures with regard to the applications which are in the offices are also actual figures. I scarcely agree with those who seem to feel that the figures do not mean anything.
The minister is right in the last statement. They do mean something, and I shall refer to that later on. Further on he said:
What these figures do mean is that people have not been sufficiently anxious about the employment situation on their farms to appeal
Supply-Agriculture

to the employment offices to a greater extent than they have done. They have been directed to do so by everyone who has been talking to them about these matters. I am sure that members have directed them to do so, as I have done every time they have written to me inquiring about the matter. . . .
I would point out to the minister, however, the futility of applying to these offices, because, according to the table to which I have referred, on March 1, 1939, the estimated number of male farm workers, including operator, in thousands, was 1,080; in 1940, 1,065; in
1941,	1,000; in 1942, 910, and in 1943, 880. That shows a yearly decrease of about 50,000. If that rate continues I wonder what the condition will be next year when the figure is reduced by another 50,000. And that includes the operator himself. The same condition is true so far as hired help is concerned. In 1939, taking the same date, in thousands, the figure was 285; in 1940, 270; in 1941, 220; in
1942,	175; in 1943, 140. In other words, we have a yearly decrease there of about 36,000. That is hired help, so that hired help will be practically non-existent for this fall's work, because the Minister of Labour is taking all casual workers who used to work during the agricultural season and putting them into industry, and industry, it is hoped, will continue on a fairly level base from now on. Well, we shall have to take some from the armed forces and probably industry and put them into the mining industry, but there will be no help from that source for agriculture; and when you reduce the actual male workers on the farm by 50,000 a year and the hired help by 36,000, you will find agriculture this fall in a most precarious situation.
The Minister of Agriculture suggested that the farmers should avail themselves of the services of the employment offices. That is all very well as far as it goes, and probably they will be assisted to the extent that their applications can be filled. But if you look at the table for Saskatchewan and Alberta- I will not refer to the other provinces-you will find that the placements were 115 males and fifteen females for the month of March, 1943; and in April of the same year the number of males was 298 and females sixteen. But the unfilled orders that were sent in numbered 942 males and 135 females.
What good purpose would it have served for the people in that district to take advantage of the employment services or of the selective service agencies? They could not begin to fill the vacancies that already existed, and there was no use in appealing to them because they did not have the men. In Alberta we find a similar situation. You cannot therefore pick out one province and

say that though the condition I have described existed' there, it was simply a localized affair. In Alberta, in March the placements numbered 304 males and 39 females, and in April it was 714 males and 43 females. For Alberta the unfilled orders from April 29 were 576 males and 125 females. That was last year. If the same rate of depletion continues as in the last three or four years, and there is no reason to believe it will not, the situation is going to be aggravated almost twofold this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend said, "That was last year". But the figures he was just reading were for March and April of this year, 1943. I am sure my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent things.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not want to misrepresent anything. It is quite true, as the minister says, that the figures I have just given were for 1943. But the fact remains that there will be fewer men on the farms this fall than there were March 31, 1943, because they are being taken away from the farms now. I have just stated that some of these postponements are not being granted any more. The minister for air said quite definitely the other day that he was not going to fool round any more with ipost-* poneanents from the air force, that the men had either to be in the air force or on the farm, and that if they wanted to be on the farm they would be discharged from the air force.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are all voluntary enlistments.


Charles Edward Johnston: It depends upon what is meant by voluntary enlistments.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not depend upon anything. They are voluntary enlistments.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course the minister knows that we have come to understand voluntary enlistment now as a modified form, and a strong form, of conscription. The minister knows quite well that when these boys on the farm know they will be called up into the army, just before that time comes they volunteer. That is not voluntary enlistment in the ordinary accepted sense of the term; that is coercion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to argue the question of military enlistments, because I do not think this is the proper time. That question has already been argued for three weeks, but I think it is only fair to say that many of the men enlisting in the air force to-day are eighteen years of age, and no one has been compelling them to go anywhere.

Supply-Agriculture


Charles Edward Johnston: They wait until they are about to receive their call-up notice and then they enlist, for the obvious reason that they know they will have to go. I could give the minister many instances where that has occurred. As I told him, I have three letters on my desk that I answered just to-day in regard to that very matter. The minister might say that if they are essential to agriculture they will get off, but that definitely is not so. As I pointed out to another minister the other day, when a member of this house attempts to get a postponement for one of these farm boys what happens in some cases-I will not say in all cases-is that as soon as the commanding officer finds out that he may lose one of his boys, the boy is shipped away; he is put in a draft for overseas. I have known that to happen twice within the last month and I read a portion of a letter about it the other day. So that we cannot depend upon possible postponements for our agricultural help. I am not blaming the armed services, because you cannot have an air force, or an army, or a navy, if the fellows are going to be in the armed services one day, home the next, and back in the armed forces the next day.
Obviously something definite must be done to ensure agriculture the man-power it requires. We must view agriculture as an essential industry and treat it as such. Otherwise, this fall and next spring when we are seeding another crop we shall find ourselves in the greatest difficulties. Agriculture must be treated as a war industry.
I can see a great deal of benefit in having a defence force and in giving everybody a certain amount of training. I would suggest that the boys from the farm be given their training for home defence purposes during the winter or in between seasons for agriculture, and it should be definitely understood that when their services are,required on the farm in the spring and in the fall they will not even have to ask for leave and be worrying whether they are to get leave or not. Let it be definitely understood that in the busy seasons on the farm they will be sent back on the farm. Then the farmers can make their plans accordingly.
Take the case I gave a while ago. This farmer is about fifty-five years old. I know him quite well. He has about six hundred acres yet to be seeded. His boy has gone. His son has been transferred to another ship. His nephew, who was helping him before, is on the Atlantic coast. They applied for leave last spring, but their cases were put off and put off until now this farmer is up against an impossible situation.
A lady from Quebec wrote me that her son had been taken into the air force and that, in consequence, she had to dispose of her great dairy herd. They are now milking only one cow. She gave me the names and addresses of several families within fifty miles of Montreal which have had to dispose of large dairy herds. The situation is becoming so serious that we shall have to take a longer range view, and I think the Minister of Agriculture should definitely state some concrete policy in regard to farm labour. The boys in the army who are essential to agriculture will have to be sent home to the farm to stay there, and the only military training for them should be for the reserve army, the training to take place during the off seasons for agriculture.
Another thing that has been pointed out to me and, I am sure, to other hon. members, is that hired help is asking such tremendous wages that the farmers simply cannot pay them. The price the farmer receives for his products is not sufficient for him to pay the high wages that are being asked to-day. Ordinary farm labour this spring was asking for seven dollars a day. That was in threshing time this spring. With present prices the ' farmer simply cannot pay it. Then what is going to happen? Just what happened last year. The farmers are not going to pay such wages because their returns are not sufficient to enable them to do so; it is not because they do not want to do so. The result will be that this year there will be a great drop in the production of foodstuffs. If somebody suggests that instead of raising so much wheat the farmers should go into mixed farming because that does not require as much labour, he is definitely wrong. Anyone who has had to feed cattle during the winter would never make a suggestion of that kind.
We shall have to control the wages the farmers are asked to pay, or we shall have to increase the prices which the farmer receives for his products, so that he will be able to pay these high wages. I am not blaming the fellows who are out working for hire, because they see men who are working in industries in the cities getting high wages. Mind you, they do not work as long as the fellows who have to work on the farms. When you get up at five o'clock in the morning and work until ten o'clock at night you earn your $7, but when you work in an industry you do your eight hours and then go home. Of course some farmers are a little better off than others; they may have a little more power equipment, but there will have to be an adjustment in the prices of farm products. I do not think the bonus scheme is at all satisfactory. I believe the principle is wrong, when you give farmers bonuses for not raising wheat. I think if you

Supply-Agriculture
paid them a decent price for their produce they would not require nor ask for bonuses, and you would overcome a great deal of the difficulty.
In the last two or three months I have received several resolutions, some of them rather in the form of petitions, signed by large numbers of ratepayers protesting against the prices, received for two commodities, namely, pork and eggs. I was asked to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. They say they can see no reason why there should be such a fluctuation in. the prices paid to producers of pork, since the price is set for the packers at seaboard. If that condition still prevails, and I presume it does-


James Garfield Gardiner: The fluctuation is all above the price set.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes; but the point is that there should be some stabilization, so that the farmer might know definitely what he would get. In all these resolutions I have received, in regard to both pork and eggs, the request was made that there should be stable prices so that they might know exactly what was coming to them. One of the great handicaps to farming is the uncertainty of it; uncertainty regarding weather conditions, uncertainty regarding the length of the season, uncertainty regarding help both in spring and fall, and then, on top of that, uncertainty as to price and whether or not they will be able to sell their grain at all. In addition to all that, there is the tremendous worry of how the mortgage is to be paid.
Let me give an illustration to-night. This man has been farming for about thirty-five years. He had a mortgage of $7,000 on his farm. He paid $3,500 in interest in one shot and $2,200 just a little while ago, but he still owes $9,000 and he is going to be foreclosed. Show me an industry in this country that has to put up with these conditions. Why, industry would not stand for it for a moment. Those of us who were on the war expenditures committee last year know definitely that wages do not concern the industrialist very much because they are all figured in the cost of production. When industry has to hire unskilled help, that extra cost is figured in. It will be remembered that last year we sent schoolboys out west to help the farmers, and those schoolboys had to be paid $.4 and $5 a day. But the farmers were not allowed to add that extra expense to their cost of production.
What happens at the Fairchill plant in Montreal, or at any other place; I do not pick out that one particularly? When they have to take on new hands, is the price of their commodity raised? Yes, it is raised, not by $1,000

a plane but by much more than that, due to the extra cost of this green labour they have to train. I am not complaining about that; but I do say that if industry is to be treated in that way, surely there is an obligation upon the Minister of Agriculture to see that agriculture is treated in exactly the same way. That is not asking too much. I do not see what objection the other members of the cabinet could have if the Minister of Agriculture were to say: We are not asking any favours for agriculture; we want it placed on exactly the same footing as other essential industries. No logical, sane individual, even though he happens to be a cabinet minister, could possibly object to that. Is it not discrimination to the nth degree when we ask the farming people to pay double the wages they have been paying, yet say that they dare not add that increased cost to their cost of production, and that we will not compensate them in any way for it?
As a result of the labour condition that existed last year, farmers were not able to have their grain threshed, and in my district, owing to mice, they suffered a definite loss of ten bushels to the acre. Why? That was no fault of their own; it was partly due to the weather, but it was partly the fault of the Department of Labour, because the farmers did not have the help they needed. If an industry in this country is held back through no fault of its own, that extra cost is immediately added to the cost of production. We never ran across an industry in all of Canada that had to stand those losses, and moreover we did not run across one instance in all our travels across the country last year in which an industry was even asked to stand that loss. It was a foregone conclusion that all these added costs were to go into the cost of production, and then, in addition, industry is given what it considers a reasonable profit. Surely it is not asking too much to say that agriculture should be treated in exactly the same way. It is not a case of pleading for agriculture; it is a case of stating the facts, and hon. members of this house should demand of the government that this be done.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I wish to say a word
in regard to the farm labour situation. I come from a constituency in which the only industry is farming; there is no other industry at all, only the small villages which exist to meet the convenience of the farmers. While labour is not abundant in my constituency, still there is no labour shortage. The farmers all have their crop in again this year. It is true that last year we had a big crop and

Supply-A gricul ture
we were not able to get it all harvested, but that was not on account of any shortage of help. There was plenty of help; people were walking the streets, unable to get any work, and that condition was owing to the weather. During the month of September we were able to work on the land for only four days; the rain prevented us from doing any harvesting. During the month of October we were able to use a combine for only eight days, and the result was that our crop was left on until this spring. But some weeks ago all our crop was in, and it is looking well; there 'has been plenty of rain.
I wish to say also that throughout my constituency there will be found very few boys remaining on the farms. They are practically all somewhere in the forces, in the army, the navy or the air force. The only boys left there now are not able to go into the forces on account of their physical condition. Most of our boys were volunteers, and I do not think it is fair or right for the hon. member for Bow River to say that these young men enlisted because they were afraid they might be conscripted. The boys in my constituency did not enlist for that reason; they enlisted of their own accord. They were not afraid of conscription or anything else. Many of them enlisted long before they became twenty-one years of age, when they might be conscripted. Many of those boys who volunteered have gone overseas, and they are there willingly, not because they were afraid of anything.
Farming conditions in western Canada are now quite different from what they were. When I went to western Canada and was farming in the district of Abernethy, wdien we would farm a half-section of land, 320 acres, we would put about 200 acres in crop and would summer-fallow 100 acres. In the spring of the year a man would have to hire another man to help him. He would get his crop in, and then summer-fallow his own 100 acres himself. When the fall came he would have to hire another man to do the stocking, and half a dozen or a dozen men would come in to help him take it off and thresh it.
To-day farming conditions in Ihe district I come from are the very opposite. We can now farm two and a half sections, 1,600 acres, with just as little farm help as was required on half a section some years ago, and we can do the farming in the same time. We take 1,600 acres to-day, and pay a man to work the combine. We seed 800 acres, and one man can do it all. When he hqs done the seeding he turns round, takes off the seeding attachment, uses the one-way and sumfner-
72537-227^
fallows the other 800 acres, keeping it black all summer. When the crop is ready to harvest, a man is hired to run the combine and another to drive the truck. They can take off a crop that required ten or twelve or fifteen men in earlier times.
To-day we do not have those big harvesting excursions coming from eastern Canada that we had years ago. Any who came into my district last year were not needed.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why did you not get your crop harvested?


James J. Donnelly: On account of the
weather. That is the same reason why many people in eastern Canada have not been able to put in their crops this year-the weather. If they were able to get to work on the land for six days, they would get their crops in. But where you can work for only one or two days in a week it is a different proposition. It is the same way with us. We had adverse weather conditions. If we had had more combines, then in the days we could work we would get more off. But men were no help to us. We wanted machinery. We want weather; and if we do not get the weather, and enough machines to take off the crop, then it cannot be taken off; that is all there is to it.


Mr. McIVOR:: Cannot the government do anything about the weather?


James J. Donnelly: Sometimes we think it should. It is nice to have the weather with us, anyway.


Mr. PERLEY:: The hon. member might be a good minister of weather.


James J. Donnelly: The hon. member for Bow River has referred to bonuses, and has said that the bonuses were not satisfactory. I want to say to him that I lived in a district where for ten years we had no crop, and almost ninety-nine per cent of the farmers were on relief. It was God's blessing when we got off relief and received the bonus.


Charles Edward Johnston: You should have farm insurance, not a bonus.


James J. Donnelly: We received the benefits of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which is a sort of insurance against crop failure.


Charles Edward Johnston: What we should have is complete crop insurance.


James J. Donnelly: That was one of the best pieces of legislation for the farmers of western Canada ever passed by this House of Commons. And I defy the hon. member, or anybody else, to go into my constituency and tell my people it was not.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Edward Johnston: I would be delighted to.


James J. Donnelly: Come on and tell them, and see how you will be received.


Charles Edward Johnston: I probably
will.


James J. Donnelly: They believe it was the best piece of legislation ever put on the statute books as insurance against crop failure. A man does his work, puts in his crop; then Providence is against him, and he gets nothing. It is not his fault. . This is some sort of insurance against that very thing. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act does relieve the burden, a little. Nothing had a greater effect in undermining the morale of our people in western Canada than had relief. This is one method whereby the necessity for relief is lessened, and we are getting away from it.


Charles Edward Johnston: A poor method.


James J. Donnelly: It is for the poor man, or the rich man, or anybody else.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said it was a poor method.


James J. Donnelly: The big farmer suffers the same as anybody else. It is just as bad for him as it is for the other man.
Then the hon. member for Bow River mentioned a while ago that wages in industry had increased, but that farmers are not being treated in the same way. I suppose my hon. friend is a wheat grower, and he surely knows that in the last three or four months the price of wheat has gone up over ten per cent. Surely he knows that the price of wheat is now $1.01 or $1.02 a bushel, whereas not long ago it was only 90 cents. If that is not operating on behalf of the farmer, the same as it is for industry, I should like to know what it is.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why has it gone up three cents in the last three days?


James J. Donnelly: Some hon. members have been asking that the grain exchange be closed. What will they do when it comes to that? If the grain exchange had not been open we would not have known that the price was $1.01 or $1.02.
I do not intend to take up the time of the committee any further. I wish only to say this, that so far as farming conditions in western Canada are concerned this year, we still have plenty of help in the section of the country from which I come. We have our crop in, and we will take it off.


James Arthur Ross: I had not intended to say anything about man-power, because I have said something about that already. But when the hon. member for Wood Mountain was talking about that one-way seeder attachment I was wondering how he was going to fill the bacon and dairy quotas. I happen to live in western Canada, and I am sorry to say that in my constituency we have a distinct labour shortage. We do operate more than the one-way and a combine, and I think that condition prevails throughout most of the area where diversified farming is practised. I know something about the conditions which prevail in my hon. friend's riding, and I think what he said is correct, so far as it applies to that part of the country. But that certainly does not prevail throughout western Canada. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would not say he was satisfied with that kind of production.


James J. Donnelly: I did not say that was the only thing we did.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member was not able to say much else, either.


James J. Donnelly: My hon. friend might be surprised at what I might say.


James Arthur Ross: I do not wish to repeat any argument that has been made, both at the last session and at this one, as to the condition agricultural producers face to-day. I am sure we expect a greater effort on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in this respect. Not long ago I said we were going to get our crops in, but I did not know how we would take the hay off, and the other crops in the fall.
It is a sad picture to go to some farms in my constituency and see old people looking after the stock, and the conditions under which they are carrying on to-day.
I have another point to bring before the committee, although it may not be quite in order. The committee on agriculture was not called until June, but in the past two days it has held meetings while the house has been in session. At one of the first meetings I said that when the chairman of the wheat board was here I would wish him to make an explanation of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce respecting durum wheat. The other afternoon I happened to be in the house when that particular matter was explained before the committee on agriculture. I raised the question next, day, and the chairman, for whom I have great respect, said that the chairman of the wheat board had made a very full statement, one

Supply-Agriculture
which he felt would satisfy me when I read it in the proceedings of the committee. I received a copy of those proceedings this afternoon, and I wish to assure him that the statement did not satisfy me, at all. In fact, it is not as full a statement as the minister made on March 29-and that did not satisfy me, either.
Since then I have received a return dated April 14 as to the total acreage of durum wheat grown in Canada in 1942. There were some 259,000 acres, with a yield of 6,800,000 bushels. The amount of the 1942 crop marketed from August 1, 1942 to May 1, 1943 was 2,578,000 bushels. The amount exported in the same period was 526,000 bushels.
I have a return dated April 1, asking for the number of macaroni manufacturing firms in Canada, and I find that in 1941 there were twenty such firms. The total amount of flour used annually for macaroni is forty-six million pounds, which is less than one million bushels of durum wheat. Of the 1942 durum wheat crop, over two years' supply for macaroni had been delivered, and exports had been made during that period when the minister made the statement on the last day of March. According to the facts we are able to obtain, the percentage of durum wheat available over annual requirements is just as great as that of hard wheat. I know it is stated by the officials of the board that the reason for the recommendation to the government was that durum wheat delivered under the quota had been pretty well exhausted and that, in view of the prospect of meat rationing and the necessity of the encouragement of the use of other foods, it was recommended to the government that durum wheat, which is not used for bread making hut entirely for the manufacture of macaroni and other allied products, be delivered irrespective of the quota.
During the interval I have checked things in my constituency which is in southern Manitoba, and I have found that the producers there have grown considerably over 12,000 acres of duium wheat and have received a return of some 300,000 bushels. When the statement was made at the end of March, over three-quarters of that durum wheat had been marketed and there was very little left. The fact that this statement was made has created quite a change in seeding operations in southern Manitoba. This is directly the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture which ' has to do with matters of production, and since the Minister of Agriculture is a member of the wheat board, along with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance-


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat committee, not the wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: I mean the wheat
committee of the cabinet. I think the minister should enlarge upon the statement which was made. It does not bear out what we were given to understand by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the great bulk of this durum wheat is produced in southern Saskatchewan. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is conversant with the whole picture. We may not have another opportunity to take up this matter before the seeding operations of 1944 are under way. We may be able to make a statement on the speech from the throne, but I doubt if we shall be able to go into this matter and question officials before it is too late next spring. I think the minister should enlarge upon the reasons for issuing this order, because the facts I have been able to obtain from the returns placed before the house do not bear out the situation as pictured by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Garfield Gardiner: Replying to what has been said by the hon. member for Souris, I can only say that the matter to which he has referred would be dealt with entirely by the Department of Trade and Commerce and not by this department. Therefore I would hesitate to attempt to make a statement to-night without the records in front of me to show the exact situation. If it is thought wise that I should do so at some later time in the discussion, I shall be glad to look up the records and familiarize myself with them, and discuss the matter in so far as it relates to these estimates.
A number of other statements have been made with regard to the situation, and I should like to say something about them. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) appealed to me to take some stand in connection with farm labour. All I can say to him with regard to that is that we had a discussion about farm labour back in March, 1942, when it was discussed at considerable length on my estimates, as well as at other times during this session. The figures he has quoted to the committee give some indication as to what has happened as a result of the discussions which took place at that time. As has been stated already by the hon. member for Bow River, on March 1, 1939, there were 1,080,000 male family workers on the farms of Canada. In the year following, six months of which was during the first year of the war and before we became very active in making munitions or in the enlistment of men, this number was reduced to 1,065,000, or a reduction of 15,000. In the following year
Supply-Agriculture

there was a further reduction of 65,000, and in the year following the reduction amounted to 90,000. That was as at March 1, 1942. It was in March, 1942, that we took action to halt the increase in the number of those who were leaving the farms, and the result was that as between March 1, 1942, and March 1, 1943, only 30,000 male family workers left the farms.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the average yearly decrease?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not speaking of the average, because that does not meet the point I am making. The point is that in 1941-42 a total of 90.000 left the farms, and then, on account of the action that we took in March, 1942, only 30,000 left in the next year.


Charles Edward Johnston: Because the surplus had already been drawn off.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not according to the argument my hon. friend was using. He was arguing that if we went on at that rate we would have all the people off the farms. We [DOT]did not go on at that rate. Wliere there had been an increase from 65,000 to 90,000, in the following year there was a decrease to 30,000, a direct result of the action taken by the government following the discussions which had taken place in the labour committee, of which I happen to be a member.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: That is stall twice as many as before the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had discussions early in this session, and I think every hon. member, even those on the other side, who come from western Canada, will agree that since the discussions took place early in February there has been a marked change.


Charles Edward Johnston: We could not stand another 30,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just replying to the statement my hon. friend made that the Minister of Agriculture ought to do something about the matter. The Minister of Agriculture did not wait until June, 1943, to. do something about it; the Minister of Agriculture acted in March, 1942, and the government, along with the Minister of Agriculture, took action. When we were not getting the results we wanted from that action I did not remain in Ottawa;
I went out to Saskatoon and met the farmers; I went to Regina and met the board.
I then came back to Ottawa and placed the situation before the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who immediately took action. I think every hon. member from western Canada on the other side of the chamber will admit that since that action was taken, the condition has been considerably different from 
what it was before the action was taken. I make this statement to indicate that we have not been resting on our oars in connection with this whole matter.
Referring to the other question which was raised as to whether the farmers are going to the labour bureaux w-hen they are short of labour, I submit that nowhere in Hansard can it be found that during this discussion I said that the farmers ought to go to these bureaux. What I did say was that they actually do go to these bureaux. I administered the labour bureaux in Saskatchewan for five years when I was a member of that government. I know that during that period the farmers came to the labour bureaux when they were short of men, and I know they have followed that practice ever since. They have been coming to these bureaux continuously and asking for help. As for the hon. member who is just rising in his place, I am going to say something which may convince him that he had better wrait until I am through.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I was going to ask the minister if he had the figures of the percentage of farm help in the western provinces that is hired through the bureaux.


James Garfield Gardiner: When I was west I took occasion to get the reply to the statements which were made by the hon. member for Melfort during the discussions which we had some three weeks ago. I got the report on his own municipality, and I found that, according to the statement of the secretary-treasurer-


Percy Ellis Wright: What municipality is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The municipality in
which my hon. friend farms. He knows the name and number better than I do.


Percy Ellis Wright: I doubt if the minister knows it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the record, and I can place it on Hansard at any time. But my hon. friend knows what municipality it is.


Gordon Graydon: It is not far from Tisdale, anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not very far from Melfort. The facts are these, that 150 or 151 men were placed in that municipality by the individual there who acted on behalf of those who were taking care of employment in Saskatchewan. The statement which was made here was that men were asking $100 a month, and I took it from what was said that some of them were getting it. The information I got from the records was that one man had been paid $85; that that one man was an expert operator of a tractor, and that the man

Supply-Agriculture
who employed him was quite satisfied to pay him $85; he wanted this man for employment. Then I got the further information that a number of others were paid $75 as operators of tractors, but that the general wage paid in that municipality for farm labour was from $60 to $70 a month. That is a fairly high wage, and I would not try to build an argument on the supposition that $60 to $70 a month for farm labour in western Canada at present, and more particularly in Saskatchewan, is not a fairly high wage under all the conditions.
An lion. MEMBER: And board?


James Garfield Gardiner: And board, yes. But I would say this, that if a farmer is going to hire a man for only the two months during which he is busy seeding, and then is going to let him go, and hire another man for two months while he is harvesting, the story is entirely different from simply saying that a man is getting $60 or $70 or, $85 a month to do a particular job. If he is to be hired through the whole summer he might be paid one wage; if he is to be hired through the whole year he might be paid another. But simply to rise in the house and say that somebody was paid $100 or $85 does not prove anything in connection with this discussion.


Percy Ellis Wright: If I might correct the minister. I did not state that any man was paid $100 a month. I said the man was hired at $75; he asked $85 after working for two weeks,
, and the farmer agreed to give him $85; when he increased his price and wanted $100, the farmer refused to hire him at that figure. That is the statement I made. The minister has not yet answered my question as to what percentage of the farm help hired in the western provinces is hired through the employment bureaux?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a question of
the percentage hired through the bureaux. I know that percentage is low. The average farmer in western Canada, like the average farmer in eastern Canada, hires his help without having to go to the. employment bureau at all. It is only when he is finding difficulty in obtaining help that he goes to the employment bureau. But if, after all those have gone to the employment bureaux who have felt inclined to go, the results are as indicated by the figures I put on Hansard, those figures do not indicate any great shortage of labour in the particular area covered by those figures, and that is all they were intended to indicate. When we go beyond that, I think every hon. member will admit that there are farms all across Canada upon which there is a shortage of labour, and the fact that any
hon. member gets half a dozen or a dozen letters in a week indicating that there is a shortage of labour on some farms is something to be expected- We have in Canada 750,000 farmers. If out of those 750,000 some few thousands are short of labour, letters will come to hon. members from those who are short of help. But I must say that, of the letters which I get with regard to shortage of labour, by far the greater number come from people whose sons have volunteered either for the armed services or for some work in munition plants or in shipyards or somewhere else; and there are a certain number too who write in on account of something which has happened in the calling up of men which is not fully understood, and about which sometimes action has been taken that should not have been taken. But I repeat what I said the other night, that by far the greater number of the cases which come to me, even yet, deal with situations which were created before the first of February last. There is the occasional one which was dealt with after that date, but that is not true of much the greater number. I quite agree that hardships are brought about by situations such as were outlined by the hon. member for Bow River. Any man who was put on a ship and sent to Britain after being fully trained must have been in the armed services before the first of February last, and was there under the conditions which existed before the last action was taken by the labour department to deal with them.
I must say, too, that a certain percentage of letters which I receive come from people who have been doing more than the country expected of them in connection with the prosecution of the war, and doing it conscientiously. For example, two or three days ago I had a letter from a woman in Saskatchewan whom I know very well, calling my attention to the fact that her son had enlisted very early in the war and was still in the service. She called my attention to the further fact that she and her husband over a considerable period of years have not been in good health -*which I also know to be true-and then she says "Our son thought that he could go over with a group of other men and clean up this fellow Hitler, get the war over and come back here to work," but, she said, "it is taking much longer than he thought. It is now going on four years, and he is still away, and we are unable to carry on longer." Well, I did what other hon. members do; I sent the letter to the military people; they have taken it up, and I am quite satisfied that in cases of that kind action is taken, and has been taken
Supply-Agriculture

regularly ever since the war started, in order to deal with such situations and make it possible for men who are in the army under those circumstances to go back to the farms and give assistance.
However, after all these individual cases that we oan bring up have been dealt with, a very large proportion of the 750,000 fanners have made no complaint whatever. If the facts were otherwise, the situation would not be what it is to-day. I have here the last figures in connection with production and the storage of farm products. They are not yet in print; but they indicate, as all the figures down to the present have indicated, that there is not this reduction in the production of farm products which is hinted here in practically every speech delivered by those who are critical of the present position.
In cheese there is a reduction in production; but in milk there is no such reduction and, after all, the foundation of all production of dairy products is milk. So that if more milk is being produced this year than last year or the year before, we are certainly not going down in our production of that particular product. There is more whole milk being consumed in Canada to-day than at any other time in our history, and the consumption is going up day by day. There may be reasons why the government might want to change that; but if they did attempt to change it, I am sure that everyone who is trying to do something to assist in seeing to it that our people, and more particularly our children, are better fed, would immediately complain about our attempting to cut down on the consumption of milk in order to get an increased production of something else.
However, in spite of the fact that cheese production is down this year as compared with last year, it is not down as compared with any other year recently in our history apart from last year; and in spite of the fact that our production is down, our exports are higher this year than they have ever been in any year since the war started. In other words, if what my hon. friend the member for Bow River is concerned about is the feeding of the British people, we are still sending them more food each year than in the previous year, and that applies not only to cheese but to pork products. And we are making preparations for sending beef, which we have never sent since the war started. We are sending, and have available, more wheat than we have been called upon to send previously. And so on. I could go through the whole list.
I say this in order to point out that the statements which were made continuously, 
and which were called to the attention of the house the other night by the Minister of Labour, have no foundation at all in fact. The hon. member for Lethbridge was holding forth on his fear that we would have shortages, and the Minister of Labour said, where, or what does he mean by shortages? If I remember the words of my hon. friend, they were to this effect: If the minister does not know what I mean by shortages, then I am not able to tell him.
His next question was, do you expect us to feed all the Chinese people? Well, now, that question was a reasonable one. Most of the discussions that are going on with regard to a possible shortage of food in Canada are related to the feeding of the whole world, and I do not think anyone in this house or in this country, who is well informed, will take such a ridiculous position as to maintain or try to maintain that a country with eleven million people, even if they were all farming, could feed even those people in China who are suffering at the present time as a result of lack of food. We are attempting to send food over to Britain in a volume which will be sufficient to keep the British people and the armed forces working out of Britain supplied with food.
Someone-I believe it was the hon. member for Bow River-said that, if necessary, we should ration ourselves down to the point where we are going short in order to save the people in Britain from going short; and that is exactly the policy the government has been following ever since the war started. From time to time we have found it necessary to ration, but I am afraid that members in this house, on account of the fact that we have never been short of anything, have an entirely wrong idea as to what rationing is put into effect for.
Britain rationed cheese last year in order to try to increase her consumption of cheese. She put the ration up to the figure of eight ouqces in an attempt to get it up to eight ounces, but it only went to five ounces.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is that what we are doing here? Does the minister suggest that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It might be a good thing to do it with some products which we have rationed and are now piling up in this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was just asking for information.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me answer my hon. friends in the words of the hon. member for Lethbridge. If he does not understand it after the number of times I have explained it in the past, I am sure my explaining it again would not help him. The situation is simply

Supply-Agriculture
this, that ever since this war started we have been giving Britain all the food that we could possibly give her and at the same time keep our people fed with the minimum they require. In 1941, for example, we took all the cheese off this market during the summer months and sent it to Britain and told our people to eat something else, and they ate something else and had no difficulty in finding it.
Every year since the war started we have said to the farmers, "We do not want you to produce more butter than the people here eat", and down to last year they produced a little more than the people wanted and last year a little less than they wanted to eat, and accordingly we rationed butter. This year we have a greater amount of butter in storage than we have had over a long period of years, some four million pounds more than we had over an average of five years preceding 1940. In other words, the situation has righted itself in a very few months so far as butter production as compared with consumption is concerned. We can right any situation that may be created in connection with food in this country, so long as the situation is as it has been since the beginning of the war.
Something was said with regard to prices. It was said that we should have better returns. We have had increased returns from the production of munitions and machines of war; the companies that are producing these things have increased returns. I am not going to try to convince members of this house that farmers are getting all they ought to get in the way of prices for farm products. I do not know that anyone gets all he ought to get during war time; and if anyone is getting all he ought to get in ordinary peace times, then somebody ought to do something about it and see to it that at least we all make sacrifices during the war.
Let us look for a few moments at prices. Take butcher steers at Toronto. In 1939 the price was 86.77 per hundred and in 1942 it was $10.29 per hundred. Figure that increase, from 86.77 to $10.29. And the average of the years from 1926 to 1929 was $9.04.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister must, of course, make allowance, and I think he gladly will, for the fact that in 1939 the farmer who was going to feed would pay a lower price for his beef before he started to feed, whereas in the fall of 1942 he would pay a high price, and his actual returns from feeding in 1939 might be greater than his returns in 1943.


James Garfield Gardiner: I agree. I have all the prices here and I can quote them to show the relationship. But my hon. friend, who comes
from an area where they feed cattle, knows as well as I do that when cattle are selling at present prices there is money in feeding grain to those cattle at present ceiling prices.


John Horne Blackmore: Provided they do not pay too much for the cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a matter of choice which they make themselves.


John Horne Blackmore: There was no choice last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, there was a choice.


John Horne Blackmore: In my district there was none.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will deal with that later.


John Horne Blackmore: They could not get the cattle except at a certain price.


James Garfield Gardiner: The average price from 1926 to 1929 was $9.04. The average twenty-year price was $7.04, and at the present time the price fbr the same grade of cattle is $12.38. All I am pointing out is that the price has increased. There is no use in trying to give the impression that prices of other commodities have gone up and that prices of cattle have not gone up. They have gone up. Let us look at hogs. In 1939 the price was $8.91. The average for 1926-29 was $11.61, and the average for 1942 was $11.72. In other words, the price had gone up from 88.91 to $11.72, and it was eleven cents higher per hundred than the average price for 1926-29. That is on the Toronto market, and the other markets compare with that.
The price of cheese in 1939 was 12-7 cents, .and in 1942, 21-5 cents. The average price for the four years 1926 to 1929 was 18-9 cents. In other words, the price was 2-6 cents higher last year than what we call the parity basis, and there has been a difference of 8-8 cents since the war began. The jobbing price of creamery butter in 1939 was 23-8 cents, and in 1942, 35-1 cents. The parity basis was 38-2 cents. But on top of that price of 35 T cents is the bonus of 8 cents in summer and 10 cents in winter, which brings the return to a higher level than the parity basis.
And so on. I could go through all the prices for all the products and show that the government has not lost sight of the fact that there must be increased returns for farm products.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister deal with the price of wool?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure that I have that here. But I can tell my hon.
Supply-A gricul ture

friend this, that I have the relationship between the price of wool in this country and the price in the United States, which we discussed last year, and after you have made allowance for freight and for the tariff on wool going into the United States you will find that the Canadian farmer is getting a higher return in Canada than he would get if he were permitted to sell his wool in the United States. We are paying him a subsidy on his wool, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is on account of the duty.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact that another country puts a duty on is the reason that they have a higher price than we have. They do it to get higher prices for their own product.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not an excuse for our not having a better price.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not an excuse at all. It is a reason for our not having that higher price.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is hardly the case with beef, is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a condition existing with regard to beef, and there is a condition existing with regard to wheat, which my hon. friend was speaking of a few moments ago. The price of wheat which prevails on the Winnipeg market is exactly the United States price less the cost of taking the wheat to the United States and after accounting for the duty and exchange. It works out to almost identically the same price that, you have on the Winnipeg grain exchange to-day. And so on. You can go through all the prices. As a matter of fact, I have gone through them to try to satisfy myself to what extent we might benefit if the United States boundary were open and we could ship our products in there, over whatever obstructions there might be against our doing so. When you take into account freight, tariff and other costs, there is nothing like the advantage in the price on the other side which some of us seem to think there might be.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the price to the United States farmer and the price to the Canadian farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: You have to take into account wages, the value of the land, overhead and so many other things before you can figure out just where the two stand on different sides of the line. Wages in the United States are higher than ours in spite of what has been said here to-night, and other

costs are similarly higher on the other side. I want to impress on the committee that the situation which was emphasized by the hon. member for Bow River is one to which the government has been alive for a considerable period of time, and it has been doing something about it. The results are something that we are not ashamed of, although we may not be satisfied with them. I think that is all I need say at the moment. We have had a long discussion on this whole question, and I would suggest to the committee that we might now carry the item.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to say just a word with regard to quotas on farm machinery and farm machinery repairs. First, however, I should like to say a word on the farm labour question which the minister has been discussing again to-night. He stated that conditions were considerably better now since last March when the government issued orders to the boards suggesting that postponements be granted to those engaged) in agriculture. I think that can be said generally of the whole dominion. But I have a return here which was brought down to the house on May 31, 1943, which gives the number of postponements requested and granted between December 1, 1942, and April 30, 1943.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: I wonder if we could not keep to this item for granting to His Majesty $130,406 for departmental administration. We have had quite a lengthy discussion of the man-power problem, and I think it would be well to confine further discussion to the item before the Chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is a general item, Mr. Chairman, and second, the minister has discussed the whole question of man-power. You say that we have had a general discussion. Is that discussion to end the moment one of our group rises in his place?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might speak to this question, Mr. Chairman, I think all will agree that I sat here the other evening for several hours listening to the discussion of labour problems, and I have sat. here and listened again to-night. But I was asked questions and was urged to rise and answer them, and I hoped that when I was urged to answer, my answer would close the discussion on this particular matter. I think considerable leeway has been allowed in the whole discussions in the two days these estimates have been before the committee, and I do not think the Chairman r suggesting anything unreasonable when he suggests we should confine further

Supply-Agriculture
discussion to the item. As a matter of fact this question can be discussed on another item in the estimates, but if it is [DOT] to be discussed now instead of waiting until we reach that item, it will mean the discussion will take place over again later.


Percy Ellis Wright: The matter I wished to discuss was farm machinery, but first I just wanted to answer the minister with regard to the question he raised. This return shows that between December 1, 1942, and April 30, 1943, in the district of London, Ontario, 1,652 requests for postponement were made and 1,014 were granted, or 97 per cent; in the district of Montreal 5,478 requests for postponement were made and 5,461 were granted, or 99-7 per cent; in the district of Regina, Saskatchewan, 6,630 requests were made, of which 4,678 were granted, or 70 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: What were the dates?


Percy Ellis Wright: Between December 1, 1942, and April 30, 1943. These are the latest figures available.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will look at the figures which were put on Hansard months before, he will find very little difference between them and the figures he is now giving. In other words when you go back to December-of what year?


Percy Ellis Wright: 1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: You still have the figures which were coming along through January and that period when, as I said before, there was considerable difficulty. Many men were called up during that period who were denied postponement, but I think everyone admits that there has been quite a change from the middle of February down to the present time.


Percy Ellis Wright: This is up to the end of April.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you had it by months I might be able to answer it. If you had it for January, February, March and April separately, it might indicate something.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would judge that it does indicate something, that there has been very little improvement, though I do believe the situation is rather better. However, I am not going to discuss that further at the moment.
With regard to the question of farm labour, I would suggest to the minister that larger quotas should be established in connection with new farm machinery and repair parts. We have been told lately that we have reached the peak in the manufacture of some war materials and that in some factories men are
being laid off. If this is the situation, I believe the quotas in connection with farm machinery should be increased, which would be of assistance in meeting the labour problem, particularly in the west, where I know it will be critical this fall. If we could have a larger quota of combines and some of the newer types of farm machinery made available to the farmers, it would help the situation materially. So that I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to the possibility of making available more farm machinery at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to raise just one point on this general item. The minister may care to say something about it in more detail under some other item, but if I am in order I should like to raise it now. [DOT] I wish to say a word about the grading of hogs. The minister may have received a number of complaints; I know that in going through the country I find that many people are perturbed over the matter of deductions in regard to hogs that are overweight. This winter I have been deluged, no doubt in common with other hon. members, with letters from people enclosing their receipt forms showing the deductions that have been made for overweight hogs. The chief complaint is that the deduction is so high for just a few pounds overweight. Farmers are not always able to ship just when they wish as a result of a number of factors into which I need not go at the present time, and when the hog is a few pounds overweight they lose $1 or $2, and, in some instances, even more. I have a number of receipts which I did not bother to bring down to the chamber;
I do not think it is worth while to put them on record, for I imagine the minister has even more of them and is probably more familiar with the situation than I am. I wonder if he has given any thought to it, because in the minds of most of the farmers the conviction remains, whether or not it is justified, that this heavy deduction for a few pounds overweight is not warranted. Many of them are quite convinced, as a matter of fact, that the packer is getting it, because some of that overweight may disappear with the dressing knife; when the hogs are being dressed they can be brought within the weight limit. I have heard the suggestion, and I pass it on to the minister for what it is worth, that instead of taking off a set amount when the weight exceeds 230 pounds, as I think it is now, or 220 pounds-


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is 186 pounds dressed.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: And 230 pounds live weight?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 240 pounds.


James Lester Douglas: The suggestion is that instead of taking off fifty cents or a dollar when the hog is overweight, it might be possible to graduate the deduction, to take off perhaps twenty-five cents for the first five or ten pounds, or ten cents a pound, or something like that, so that the farmer who has gone just a few pounds over will not have the same deduction made as in the case of a farmer who has gone twelve or fifteen pounds over. I do not know whether or not the minister has given that point any consideration, but I wish he would do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: This matter has been under discussion constantly, not only since the war began but before the war. The policy we followed before the war was that of attempting to standardize our bacon so that it would compete with Danish bacon on the British market. In order to have our bacon compete with that Danish bacon we must have 200-pound hogs, not 240 pounds, and before the war we were attempting to hold the size of the hog down to 200 pounds. It was possible for a farmer to bring in a hog weighing anywhere from 190 to 220 pounds and get B-l for it. If he had it around 200 pounds, probably he would get select for it, and receive a dollar extra instead of a discount. Since the beginning of the war, however, we have increased the weight. We are trying now to keep the weight at around 220, but we do allow them to run up to 240 and still qualify as B-l hogs, which is the price always quoted on the market.


James Lester Douglas: The deduction starts at 220 pounds, does it?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the deduction
starts at 186 pounds dressed. If the hog is properly fed, it may run up to 240 pounds live weight and dress 186 pounds; but if it is fed in other ways, it may dress over 186 pounds without going up to the 240 pounds live weight, or it might go over the 240 pounds and still dress down to 186 pounds, depending upon how it was fed and bred. However, the general practice is to try to keep the hogs around 220 pounds, which gives a leeway of twenty pounds on either side, down to the 200 at which we tried to keep them before the war, or up to 240 pounds, to which we are allowing them to run now.
I have had some experience in this connection in marketing my own hogs. The farmer says that because the hog went up to 187

pounds when it was dressed he was docked. It was not just because it went up to 187 pounds; he could have had it anywhere between 200 and 240 pounds live weight and still be given the B-l price, or perhaps get the select price, which would mean, a dollar in addition.
The question as to whether the packer or the farmer gets the dollar is not hard to answer; all one has to do is look at the record. The policy is this, that if you produce a particularly good hog you get a dollar extra. If you produce a particularly poor hog you have $1.50 taken off. When you add together all the dollars that are paid the farmers and add together all the deductions at $1.50 taken from the farmers they just about balance each other. In other words, they are making the man who produces a poor hog help to finance the man who produces a good one, with the idea of encouraging the farmer to produce good hogs instead of poor ones. That is the general policy. It is not a matter of the packer getting more. He would be much better off if every farmer produced select hogs, and so would everyone else.
As to whether or not this is a proper policy, all one has to do is look at the records across Canada and see how the standard of hogs has been improved during the period of years the policy has been in effect. Since the war started, we have been allowing the hogs to get heavier and heavier, as I have indicated. Only last week I had a report on conditions in the British market, to the effect that during the last twelve months, by allowing these increases in weight, we have greatly reduced the standard of the bacon reaching England as compared with the Danish bacon with which we must compete when the war is over. They raised another complaint as well; they said apparently our plants have not the efficient men doing the cutting that they had previously, because quite often they find a slash in the bacon that should not be there, or other marks which indicate that the men doing the work now are not as expert as those who were doing it before the war started. In other words, the experts have gone to other work, where they can get higher pay. That all indicates that we are slipping in the standard of the bacon we are sending over to Britain at the present time. If we keep on slipping until the end of the war, and are not able to raise our standards again, before the Danish people are in a position to come into the market with their product, we shall have difficulty in continuing to hold our market in Great Britain. That is the only question involved in the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister overcome the, difficulty in connection with salting?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: We have to salt more on account of the fact that we cannot always get the ships properly refrigerated to take the product over. We have to put in special refrigerators in the holds of ordinary boats, and we have to use more salt in order to keep the product in goodi condition until it arrives at its destination.


Thomas Miller Bell: And that is reducing the standard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it does reduce the standard.


Ernest Edward Perley: There is an item under which the subject of the marketing of live stock can be discussed. We wish to make some progress in committee. This is the second Friday on which we have discussed the first item. The minister has allowed us considerable leeway, and we have discussed about a thousand different farm problems under the item.
I know there is a shortage of farm labour. Even since last Friday I have received several letters pointing out that difficulty. I know of one instance where a fanner of sixty years of age lost his life because from trying to do a little extra work he caught cold, which developed into pneumonia.
The subject of man-power was discussed when the matter was raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata. The Minister of Labour will be before the committee in a few days, and the discussion will be repeated. I think we have heard enough. All hon. members know there is a shortage. From what the minister said to-night it would appear that since February the situation has somewhat improved. I would suggest that we discontinue our discussion tff the labour situation, and go on with the items in the estimates.


Mr. WEIR:: I was on the point of raising a matter of procedure. I would be one of the last to attempt to interfere with the consideration of any subject by 'hon. members opposite. To-night a matter was raised by the hon. member for Souris, and then we heard a reference to the farm implement and repair situation, followed by a discussion of hog grading. My point is that the matter raised by the hon. member for Souris was discussed in the committee to which it was referred.


James Arthur Ross: I pointed that out.


William Gilbert Weir: I raise the second point of
order, that the subject of farm machinery is in order of reference already before the house. True, it has not been passed, so that I do not suppose any point of order can be taken with respect to it. But with regard to hog
grading, I submit that it should be discussed under item 28 in the estimates. If we are to make any progress we must get down to a consideration of the individual items; otherwise we shall have a repetition of discussions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did I understand the hon. member for Macdonald to suggest that any of the items which will later be referred to the committee on agriculture cannot be discussed in committee of the whole? If that is his opinion, he is entirely in error. The terms of reference the house may give to. the committee on agriculture do not preclude the house from discussing the items in either committee of supply or committee of the whole.
May I thank the minister for his answer respecting hog grading. He did not say anything about the possibility of taking a 25-cent deduction for each pound above, say, 186 pounds. If a man had a deduction of two pounds it would be fifty cents, and three pounds, seventy-five cents, rather than 81.50 for being one pound over.


James Garfield Gardiner: We gave twenty pounds leeway.


Mr. HANSELL:: I shall not hold up the
item unnecessarily, but I notice there is an amount of $2,000 for motor car allowance. I do not object to that. But do I understand that that $2,000 is exempt from income tax?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is.


William Henry Golding: This item is statutory, and should not be discussed at this point.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not objecting to it. I think the minister should have a car. But what I wish to say-and I am going to be a bit bold about it, because no other person seems to have been bold enough to have mentioned it-


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps it could be
done again under another item.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps my hon. friend
does not know what I am going to say. I would point out that there are other people who have to run cars, too. Those other people include members of parliament. I do not know for what purpose the minister uses his oar, nor am I particularly concerned. But I will guarantee he does not travel any farther on government business, with his car, than I do on parliamentary business with my car. I represent a large constituency, and I am not the only hon. member representing a large constituency. A great deal of the travelling
Supply-Agriculture

done by members of parliament is done because they are members of parliament, and must appear at farmers' conferences, municipal meetings and the like. One may receive a telephone call to come right along to attend a victory loan meeting, a Red Cross meeting, or a hundred and one other things.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And we would not mind doing it if we could get the gasoline.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not suppose there is a western member who does not spend at least a thousand dollars each year on his parliamentary expenses.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend is
going to make a speech, I must point out that Mr. Chairman's ruling was absolutely correct. This is statutory, and is not in the item.


Ernest George Hansell: I make that protest, and if I am allowed to go on I might be able to save the minister some expense. That is the situation, just the same, and I must protest against it. We are reaching the point where the poor man will never . have, a chance to represent the people of Canada in parliament. That is the fact of the matter. If we are to fight about this, I must say that I am not in favour of the passage of the estimate. If it is to be statutory, all right. But the matter should have some consideration by those in parliament holding responsible positions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister explain the increase of $4,848?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is covered by cost of living bonus, contribution to unemployment insurance and some increases in temporary salaries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Any increase in the size of the staff?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; on temporary
salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service.
S. Advisory committee on agricultural services, $1,680.
Ernest Edward Perley: What is the function of this committee?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give us the personnel?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is an advisory committee. I understand that the secretary has joined up, which accounts for the decrease in the vote. The committee is made up of Doctor H. Barton, deputy minister of agriculture; E. S. Archibald, director, experimental

farms services; A. M. Shaw, director, marketing services; J. M. Swaine, director, science services; G. I. Christie, president, Ontario agricultural college; W. R. Reek, deputy minister, Ontario department of agriculture; L. P. Roy, deputy minister, Quebec department of agriculture; Robert Newton, national research council; L. C. McOuat, general agricultural agent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company; H. L. Trueman, assistant director, science services. They are all men who are drawing salaries from either provincial governments or corporations; we just pay the expenses.	.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How often did they meet last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: They7 did not meet last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that why the item is reduced?


James Garfield Gardiner: The secretary is not on the job at the present time. They may not meet this year.


Gordon Graydon: Has this advisory committee made a report?


James Garfield Gardiner: The national advisory committee usually meets twice a year and has been in position to consider proposals that have been made either by its own members or by others connected with different phases of the work. They have made reports, but during this last year, largely on account of the conditions under which we have been working, they have not met.


Gordon Graydon: If the committee makes a report, I suppose it could be tabled?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would think so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was any
money spent under the item last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just a small amount for travelling expenses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The committee did not meet last year, and it is not expected they will meet this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I imagine that we shall probably not appoint a secretary to take the place of the man who is in the services; but if the war were to end and we put this man back in this position, we would likely go on with the work.


John Horne Blackmore: Could the minister give one instance where this committee has given him advice?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: On one question in which my hon. friend is very much interested, wool and sheep ahd beef and things of that kind.


John Horne Blackmore: Did they have anything to do with recommending the present price of wool in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that was decided by other authorities.


John Horne Blackmore: If they made that recommendation, I say it would condemn them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems
rather absurd to be passing this item, even though it is only for SI ,680, if the committee does not intend to meet.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not say that they do not intend to meet, but it is possible they will not meet. It is only a small sum of money voted for the purpose of calling them together.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In war time I think the need would be greater.


James Garfield Gardiner: If they do not meet, we shall not spend any money.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the committee was any good in peace time, it certainly is more necessary now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the gentlemen on the committee are in the building in which I am located, and others are members of the bacon and other boards and are advising us all the time in other directions. It may be necessary to call the committee before the year ends.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister
select the personnel of this committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the final say, but I would consult quite a number of people before signing my name to the appointments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service.
Contributions to empire bureaux, $36,407.
Thomas Miller Bell: Is this work being
carried on during the war? I am not criticizing the appropriation, but I should like to. know if it is being used. Personally I think we should spend a great deal more than we do on this sort of thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are functioning in Britain as they were before. There is probably more benefit to be gained from their functioning owing to the experience they have
had. One bureau, the Famham House laboratory, has been moved over here because they can function better on this side. This covers only our contribution, because the expenses are paid by governments in different parts of the world, mostly empire countries.


John Horne Blackmore: What are the names of the various bureaux?


James Garfield Gardiner: Farnham House laboratory, imperial agricultural bureau, imperial bureau of entomology and imperial bureau of mycology.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service.
8. Botany and plant pathology, $312,520.
John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister tell us of any discovery made under this vote which would justify it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is not covering all the field in which this particular branch operates. It is engaged in the study of plant diseases across the country and in the fighting of plant diseases. It would be hard to say that, under this particular vote alone, we have discovered something, that rust or something of that sort exists in a certain area, that we have found that a certain parasite is preying upon plants in other areas.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was going to ask the minister if in the scientific field he is able to retain the staff he had before, or are changes occurring? I sometimes think that, compared with industry, particularly in its scientific branches, the men who are doing these jobs for us in nearly all our government bureaux are not receiving salaries that are commensurate with those paid by private industry for the same kind of service. I was wondering whether the war was having any effect upon the staffing of these various scientific organizations.


James Garfield Gardiner: Our losses up to date have been entirely through enlistments.


Thomas Miller Bell: You have not lost any to private industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not lost any, or very few in any event, to private industry. Of course the type of work that, is done here probably does not employ exactly the type that the hon. member has in mind.


Thomas Miller Bell: No; I realize that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Science service.
9. Agricultural chemistry, $102,881.
James Lester Douglas: This is the item, I imagine, on which the whole question of chemurgy would come up, the use of agricultural products for industrial purposes. Has the minister any statement to make as to what research is being done by the department along these lines? Some sensational results are being obtained in the United States, where they are producing grain alcohol, and from grain alcohol synthetic rubber, and also plastics, wall board and many other commodities for industrial purposes. What work is being done by the government along that line, and is any attempt being made to work out plans for post-war use of agricultural products in industry? The people on the prairies are very much interested in this question, because we recognize that after the war, if western Canada is to have a stable economy, she must develop industry, and she can only develop industry along chem-urgical lines whereby agricultural products can be used to build up some of the products in industrial demand. Early in the session the hon. member for Moose Jaw made an excellent speech on chemurgy. I understood from his speech that he was planning to move an amendment asking for half a million dollars for research to be carried on along these lines. I do not know whether he intended to move it in connection with this item or another one, but I hope he has made representations to the minister, because I know his suggestions received wide acclaim throughout the west. I hope the fact that he is becoming a rear admiral or taking an active interest in the navy is not causing him to lose interest in this particular subject.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question which has been raised has been discussed, of course, from time to time. I do not know that this item is exactly the place to discuss it. The director of experimental farms, Doctor Archibald, is chairman of the chemurgy committee, and much of the work having to do with the possible production of rubber in Canada is carried on at the experimental farms. It would relate largely to the production of plants such as the plant which is utilized in Russia for that purpose, the producing of them on our experimental farms and trying them out; also whether it would be an advantage to attempt to make rubber from wheat through the production of alcohol, and whether we should-pursue other systems of producing it if we desire to produce it in this country at all.
The question whether we should have money for this purpose has been up every year since the war started; that is, we did not wait until

the matter was raised in the house to discuss it in council and among the different departments of government; we have been discussing it constantly. But much of the information which could be made available in connection with the question is available to us at present from the United States. Our people are working in cooperation with the Americans in the production of synthetic rubber. Any information they have is available to us through the proper officials of a different department, not the Department of Agriculture. They are working along with the Department of Munitions and Supply, and our national research council, which operates in the Department of Trade and Commerce, is carrying on research work in connection with this matter and has done so for many years. Any information which one has the other obtains and utilizes it for the purpose in hand. But I would suggest that, if this matter of rubber and the possibility of the production of rubber is to be discussed, the better place to discuss it would be upon the experimental farm estimates, because the farms are doing some work which may be helpful in this direction, and if any sum were to be brought forward at any time for the purpose it would be to implement those estimates.


Charles Edward Johnston: Has the
minister the information so that it can be discussed under those items, or should it be discussed under Munitions and Supply, or Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of what is being done, it certainly should be discussed under Munitions and Supply. There is a statement published which is being sent out to those who are sending in resolutions with regard to it.


Charles Edward Johnston: As it relates to wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it would be better to discuss it all in one place, and the better place would be when we have the experimental farm service estimates before us. As I have said, Doctor Archibald is in charge of experimental farms and is also chairman of the chemurgy committee which is studying the question from every point of view. I think that if we discuss it while he is here we would be more in order and would get more information.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has the minister any idea under which item the hon. member for Moose Jaw was going to bring up the matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that likely if it is brought up, that is if sums were voted, they

Food Conference
would have to be voted under supplementaries. I can say to the committee that the question has been under discussion every year since the war started, and after discussing all features of it in past years we have not brought an estimate for the purpose, for the reasons I have just stated, that there has been made available information from elsewhere, where much more has been done than we can hope to do in the years while the war is on.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is there anywhere that the hon. member for Moose Jaw could raise the question for the purpose of the extra $500,000 item being appropriated?


James Garfield Gardiner: He could probably raise it and say that he is in favour of it, just as many things have been raised to-night.


Gordon Graydon: Did the hon. member for Moose Jaw, when he made that statement, accurately reflect the views of the administration?


Ernest Edward Perley: Some of us thought of it, but we did not care to advance it for fear it would not get the same encouragement it might be expected to receive if it were proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. EDWARDS:: It is a fact nevertheless that in the United States the federal department of agriculture have set up four experimental laboratories across the country to deal with the question of the possibility of using agricultural products for rubber. Apparently we in Canada have done nothing along similar lines. Is it felt that we shall get the benefit of the research work of the United States department of agriculture, and that there is no necessity for us doing anything here? As I appreciate the policy over there, those laboratories are set up purely and simply looking at the question from the point of view of agriculture rather than from that of industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 14, 1943