1943-06-21

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
national flag
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Is the union jack, national flag of England, also the national flag of Canada?
2.	If so, is the Canadian government taking measures so that Canada may possess a separate national flag?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should direct the attention of the hon. member to the wording of his question. It is not so worded as to permit of its being placed on the order paper; nor do I think it is worded in accordance wth what the hon. member himself has in mind. The first part of his question is:
Is the union jack, national flag of England, also the national flag of Canada?
In these words is an assertion that the union jack is the national flag of England. This assertion is not correct. Apart from this, questions on the order paper are not supposed to be placed there for the purpose of making statements or allegations but for the sake of acquiring information. A Scotsman might take exception to the union jack being regarded as the national flag of England^-


Mr. REID:: We do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact, it is the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am not doing more than pointing out that circumstance to the hon. member who has asked the question.
The second part of his question reads:
If so, is the Canadian government taking measures so that Canada may possess a separate national flag?
I assume that the word "separate" is not intended to have an invidious significance; it is rather a distinctive national flag I assume the hon. member has in mind. I mention this point because I feel that any attempt to raise a controversial issue over the question of a flag at this particular time would not be calculated to be helpful to the war effort of our country. It is I think desirable not to raise controvers}*- but as far as possible to avoid unnecessary controversy with respect to all matters, whether m relatioh to the answering of questions or, speaking generally, to any other subject that may come up in the house. However, I do not wish to avoid giving an answer to the hon. member which I think will provide the information that the country will wish to have, and which should leave the matter in a position that at least for the present ought to be satisfactory.
A national flag is one which normally is used by a single nation only, and which is used to distinguish that nation from others at international gatherings and to serve as a symbol of it. The red ensign, with the union jack in the first quarter next to the staff, and the Canadian coat of arms in the fly has for



Questions as Orders jor Returns
over seventy years been very generally used in situations where a flag specially distinctive of Canada was essential. It was first authorized by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald shortly after confederation for use on Canadian merchant vessels. Its use as a distinctive emblem on all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated outside Canada was authorized by order in council on January 26, 1924. It has been popularly accepted as a flag distinctive of Canada.
The union jack, while not a flag distinctive of Canada, may correctly be flown on land in any part of His Majesty's domains.
I question whether this would be a suitable time at which to have parliament determine which particular flag-the union jack, the red ensign or some other flag to be specially designed-should be declared to be the national flag of Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	How many acres of land were purchased for the airport at Carp, Ontario?
2.	What price was paid for each parcel of
land?	_
3.	How many acres were in each parcel, and from what persons were each of the parcels purchased?
4.	Was the price calculated on a per acreage basis separate from any buildings?
5.	If so, what price, or prices, were paid per
acre?	...
6.	What prices were paid for buildings?


SUPERINTENDENT OF PENITENTIARIES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Who is the superintendent of federal penitentiaries in Canada?
2.	What are his qualifications for this position?
3.	Who are the inspectors of the federal
penitentiaries in Canada?	.
4.	What are their qualifications for their positions ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Return tabled.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: We have not succeeded in obtaining much information from the government as a result of these questions. I am wondering why it was made an order for return and tabled when it applies only to one department and the answer must of necessity be very brief. I raise this as a matter of principle.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will read the question I think he will find it requires a full and truthful answer; that is what was prepared in the department, and it covers four typewritten sheets. That was why I asked that it be made an order for

return and tabled instead of being printed in Hansard. I sent the hon. member who asked the question a copy of the return. It requires almost a page for the description of the qualifications of each of the officers enumerated. That was the only reason why it was made an order for return.


ONTARIO CONTRACTS FOR TIRES
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Does the government call tenders for the supply of tires used by cars, trucks and other vehicles used by the defence departments in Canada?
2.	If so, what firms have contracts in Ontario to supply and service these vehicles?


COLONEL BELCHER HOSPITAL, CALGARY
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Is there a building in the city of Calgary known as "The Colonel Belcher Hospital" occupied as a hospital by any department of thd government?
2.	If so, what is the name of such department?
3.	For what purpose is the said hospital used?
4.	How long has it been occupied by the said department?
5.	What officer of the department is in charge of the said hospital?
6.	What is the size of the hospital building?
7.	What is the extent of the grounds belonging to and surrounding the hospital?
8.	Are such grounds sufficient to enable patients to take suitable exercise and recreation therein?
9.	How much accommodation does the hospital provide?
10.	Is there a railway line near the said hospital?
11.	How close is such railway line to the hospital building?
12.	What is the average number of times that a train passes the said hospital on the said line each day?
13.	What additions or alterations have been made to the said hospital within the space of the last three years, and what additions or alterations does the government contemplate making ?
14.	What do such additions or alterations, and/or contemplated additions and alterations consist of?
15.	When -was this building first used as a hospital?
16.	What was it used for prior to it being converted into a hospital?
17.	What is the size of, (a) the medical staff; (b) the nursing staff, in the said hospital?


CANADIAN ARMY-OFFICERS RETIRED
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many army officers above the rank of lieutenant have been retired in the period, from,
(a)	January 1, 1942, to December 31, 1942;
(b)	January 1, 1943, to May 31, 1943?
2.	How many of the retired officers receive pensions or retiring allowances?
3.	What number of officers in each rank have been retired, and what amount of pension or retiring allowance, or both, has been paid them?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL TORONTO
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Was Christie street hospital established in
what -was formerly a factory building in the city of Toronto?	_
2.	What amount of ground is available for
patients?	_
3.	Was the construction of the building of
such a character as to lend itself to conversion into a hospital?	_	_
4.	What was the cost of transforming this building into a hospital?
5.	Have any additions to the hospital been built on this site?
6.	If so, how many, and at what cost?
7.	How near does the railway line run to the northerly boundary of the hospital site?
8.	Are there any factories in the neighbourhood?
9.	In what proximity is the nearest factory to the hospital?
10.	Does the government consider this a suitable site for a hospital for our returned men?
11.	Has any protest been received by the government from veterans' organizations in opposition to the use of this site for an additional building?
12.	Has the government considered another more suitable site for the hospital?
13.	Have any complaints been received by the government as to the unsuitablity of Christie street hospital for the purpose for which it is now being used?
14.	On whose recommendation was it decided to attach this new wing to the present Christie street hospital?
15.	How many beds are provided in the present building?
16.	How many additional beds will be provided by the new wing?
17.	Is provision being made in the new wing for, (a) operating rooms, and if so, how many; (b) an X-ray department; (c) pathological laboratories?



FEES FOR LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What legal counsel or solicitors in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, have received payment for legal services rendered to the federal government, and what sum has been paid to each during each of the years 1940, 1941 and 1942?



PURCHASE OR LEASE OF PROPERTIES AT HALIFAX AND DARTMOUTH

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What properties have been purchased or leased at Halifax and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, by the government since the beginning of the war?
2.	From whom were such properties purchased or leased, and what was, (a) purchase price; (b) yearly rental; (c) legal and agents cost, and to whom payable?
3.	What has been the cost to date of repairs and improvements to each such property, and estimate to complete?
4.	What is the name of contractor and amount of tenders for each property?
5.	Where work is done by government, what are the names of foremen in charge, and number of men employed on each property?
6.	What is the cost of furnishings, equipment and supplies for each such property?



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH-HOSPITALS

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many hospitals are operated in Canada by the Department of Pensions and National Health, and where is each hospital located?
2.	What is the total bed capacity of each hospital?
3.	What is the approximate number of pensioners of world war No. 1 now being cared for in these hospitals?



INTERN MEN TS-RELEASES

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many internees have been released in Canada?
2.	How many of these, if any, are employed by the government?
3.	What are their duties?
4.	How much are they paid?
5.	Are any of them employed in censor work?
COLIN MaCKENZIE


Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Is Colin MacKenzie, of Sydney, N.S., in the employ of the government? If so, in what capacity is he employed?
2.	Since when has be been employed?
3.	Is he employed at a fixed salary?
4.	What sums were paid him for his services during each of the years 1939-40-41-42-43, and for what particular service?
5.	Has he been retained for service by the Exchequer Court of Canada?
6.	What amounts have been paid him for such service in the exchequer court during the last five years?



INTERNATIONAL NICKEL COMPANY-PATENT RIGHTS-FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL COMPANY

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any patent rights licensed by the government, or any department or branch thereof, to the International Nickel Company, expired? If so, on what date or dates?
2.	If the above-noted company has any unexpired patent licences, when will they expire?
3.	Have any patent rights been licensed to the Falconbridge Nickel Company? If so, what processes are covered by the same?
4.	Has any capital assistance been provided by the government to the Falconbridge Nickel Company since the outbreak of the present war?
5.	Have any special depreciation allowances been granted to the Falconbridge Nickel Company since the outbreak of the present war?
6.	Are there any known deposits of nickel in Manitoba? If so, w'here are they located, and who owns the same?



HONEY CONSUMPTION

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What was the average monthly consumption of honey during the last fiscal year, 1942-1943, for, (a) households; (b) canning factories; (c) wineries; (d) breweries and distilleries;
(e)	soft drink manufacturers; (f) candy manufacturers; (g) ice cream?
2.	What is the estimated consumption of honey in each of the above classifications for the fiscal year 1943-1944?
3S26
Motions jor Papers



MOBILIZATION ACT-CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Mr. HANSELL:: _ 1. How many men, claiming to be conscientious objectors, have been, called by the mobilization board in each of the provinces of Canada?
2. How many of these men in each province have been given postponements, and how many have been interned or sent to work camps?



SUGAR CONSUMPTION

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What was the total amount of sugar consumed in Canada during each of the past five years?
2.	What percentage of this amount was, (a) produced in Canada; (b) imported?
3.	What is the estimated consumption for 1943?
4.	What percentage of this amount will be, (a) produced in Canada; (b) imported?
5.	What are the possibilities of increasing Canadian production in 1944?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: For a copy of all orders in council, agreements, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in the possession of the government or any branch thereof, relating to the Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited, or any official or employee of that firm.



SELECTIVE SERVICE-COAL MINING INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other communications which passed between J. Stokalulc, vice-president, district 18 United Mine Workers of America, and the minister or deputy minister of labour, or any official of the said department, relating to the coal mining industry advisory committee of national selective service.



MILITARY SERVICE-POSTPONEMENTS TO FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS

Mr. DORION:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, dated during the twelvemonth period to June 10, 1943, addressed to the government by any provincial government, public corporation or professional body, regarding the postponement from military service of those engaged in the farm industry.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Subject to the reservation with respect to privileged documents.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

Thomas Reid: 
Mr. ILSLEY:: I have no objection to this
passing, but the practice is to consult the provincial governments as to whether they are willing to have certain of their communications laid on the table of the house. There is no objection to putting on the table any of the rest.


Thomas Reid: I simply point out that the
other day the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) had a question regarding Saskatchewan and it passed without any such provision.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on Wednesday, the 23rd day of June, 1943, and all subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I direct the following
question to the Prime Minister. Reports from Ankara, Turkey, indicate that the Turkish government intends to appoint a minister to Canada. When this announcement was made over the week-end, a spokesman for the Secretary of State is alleged to have told the press that the appointment by Canada of a minister to Turkey was not under active consideration here and that such an appointment was not immediately practicable.
I should be glad if the Prime Minister would amplify the above statement which is alleged to have been made by one of the government officials.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind
enough to send me a copy of his question. As I read the last part of it I thought the question was whether the Prime Minister would simplify the matter a bit-


Gordon Graydon: I have no objection if
the Prime Minister wants to do that too.

Communist Party


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably I
can do both in the following reply. I have no information whatever about press reports that the Turkish government desires to appoint a minister to Canada. Neither, I am sure, had the so-called "spokesman for the Secretary of State" to whom the comment in question was attributed.


Mr. McLARTY:: My hon. friend's remark doubtless refers to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No official of the department of the Secretary of State would comment on such a matter.


Gordon Graydon: I rather fancied that would be the answer, but the press report said "the Secretary of State," and I was anxious to find out, because I am always jealous of the Prime Minister's rights in these things and I thought it was time to call a halt in matters of this kind.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Will the Minister of Labour inform the house as to what steps have been taken to settle the dispute between the management of the Glace Bay Glory cafe and its employees?


Humphrey Mitchell: The attention of the federal Department of Labour was drawn to the dispute to which the hon. member refers. An official of my department happened to be in Sydney on the day in question and we got in touch with him. There were twelve waitresses involved in the dispute. Some have already gone back to work. It was agreed by the union and conciliation officials of the federal Department of Labour that the dispute came within the jurisdiction of the provincial government and the matter was left at that. The provincial authorities, I understand, are trying to reach a settlement.



THE COMMUNIST PARTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). In view of the fact that the communist party has been banned in Canada, will the minister allow that
party to hold a national convention on August 21 and 22 next, as announced by the headquarters of the organization?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I was
just about to reply to the question put by the hon. member in my absence last Wednesday and which was couched in terms somewhat different from those he used this afternoon. I quote:
Even though the communist party has been banned by the Minister of Justice, has the minister authorized or will he permit the holding of a national convention by that party on August 21 and 22 next?
The form of the question conferred on the Minister of Justice jurisdiction and authority which he does not enjoy and which he dees not intend to assume. The Canadian communist party was declared an illegal organization by authority of the defence of Canada regulations, and the Minister of Justice has but to apply and carry out the existing regulations. I might add that these regulations have twice been submitted' to the hon. members of the house for examination, and from what I have learned, they were approved and concurred in by the house.
Now, the Minister of Justice has not authorized and cannot allow any organization declared illegal under the defence of Canada regulations to hold a convention or to do anything within the limits of the law.
I think that the hon. member's question was prompted by a news item which appeared in certain newspapers stating that people who had belonged or who still belonged to the group known as the Canadian communist party had announced that they intended to meet-towards the end of August, I believe-for the purpose of laying the foundations of a new political organization. Evidently, the Minister of Justice ' cannot prevent Canadian citizens from calling or holding a meeting for legal purposes. If those who formerly belonged to the communist party, recognizing that the Canadian communist party is banned, now wish to form another group whose constitution, object and actions are not contrary to the provisions of the law, it does not concern the Minister of Justice. If, however, the party were formed with the intention of operating in a manner declared illegal by section 133 of the criminal code, it would be the duty of the attorney-general of each province, on the strength of the responsibility vested in him by the constitution, to prosecute them, and if prosecution seemed to depend on intervention by the Department of Justice, it would not hesitate to

War Appropriation-Supplies
intervene. I should like to recall that, according to section 133, a seditious intention is made manifest by the publication of a document of some kind encouraging, or by otherwise encouraging the use of violence to bring about a change in the set-up of the government of the country. If anyone should attempt to . form a group for the purpose of preaching such ideas, there is not the shadow of a doubt that someone would bring to bear upon it the provisions of the criminal code.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 17, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the cariying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley -Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
2. Cargo vessels-operated by Park Steamship Ltd., $45,000,000.
["May I say that three or four months ago these men came to see me and told me that they were likely to go out on strike, and that they could not continue on account of the inefficiency of the management at this plant, that there was bound to be a strike for that cause alone.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Crerar the 'house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.\nTuesday, June 22, 1943"]
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister of munitions proceeds, with the permission of the committee I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) a question which he might treat as a notice of motion and bring down the reply before the resolution is carried. . I should like to know how many officers there are in the Royal Canadian Navy with the rank of commodore and above. I am told that the rank of commodore in the navy is equivalent to the rank of brigadier in the army. I undertook to get this information from such records as were available to me, but I was not able to compile it. I should like to know if the number of those in the Royal Canadian Navy with the rank of commodore and above is greater comparatively speaking than the number of the same high ranking officers in the Royal Navy. I am told that the number of these high ranking officers in our navy is out of all proportion to the total personnel and when compared with the Royal Navy or the United States navy.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I
shall have to look into the latter part of my hon. friend's question in order to bring my information down to date. About a year ago the same question arose and after some study I was satisfied that the proportion of high ranking officers in our navy was relatively less than the number in the British navy or 
the Australian navy. There are seven officers in the Royal Canadian Navy of the rank of commodore or above.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
just at headquarters, or is it the total staff?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is the total for the Canadian navy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
going to check on thlat. I do not believe it, to be candid.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Last week the Minister of Munitions and Supply promised to table certain agreements with the Aluminum company. Is he prepared to do that? Could he also give us information as to the adjusted prices of the aluminum we are buying and what we have paid at various periods since the contract was entered into?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and SuppljO: I am sorry I cannot table the contract between the Canadian government and the Aluminum Company of Canada because there never has been such a contract. The aluminum is bought by our contractors from the company at a price that has been agreed to by the department and the Aluminum company. The government as such has never bought aluminum from the Aluminum Company of Canada, and therefore there is no agreement.


Mr. COLDWELL:: What about the prices?


Mr. HOWE:: I can give you the prices.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said last week that we were paying two cents a pound more than the base price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The escalator clause for the first quarter of 1942 provided for two cents per pound to all countries; the escalator clause for the second quarter of 1942 provided for three cents a pound; for the third quarter, four cents a pound; for the fourth quarter, four and a half cents a pound and, for the first quarter of 1943, five and a half cents a pound.


Major James William Coldwell: As I understand it the base price is fifteen cents a pound, Canadian funds, and that to-day we are paying twenty and a half cents a pound.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right, except that fifteen cents is United States funds. The base price in Canadian funds is sixteen cents per pound.


Major James William Coldwell: What does the minister mean by escalator clauses if there is no contract?

War Appropriation-Supplies


Clarence Decatur Howe: The escalator clauses apply to the United States and British contracts. They represent the difference in production costs between the basic period-my hon. friend will ask me when the basic period was, but I do not remember; I think it was 1940, and I shall be glad to look it up-and the particular quarter. The amount of escalation represents the differential in the cost of three items, labour, power and transportation.


Major James William Coldwell: Is insurance included?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Insurance on transportation, but insurance on plant in Canada would not be an item. Insurance costs bears heavily upon the cost of transportation.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood that there were four items in the United States contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps there are. I do not remember what the fourth would be, but I know that labour, power and transportation are the three principal items. There may be a fourth, but it would have only a minor effect. There has been a tremendous increase recently in the cost of transportation. Ships used to come direct from British Guiana to the Saguenay, but now water shipment is limited to a port in the United States, it may be New Orleans, New York or Portland, Maine, and then the cargo is shipped by rail to the Saguenay. Transportation cost has gone up steadily in recent years.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said that the escalator clause to which he referred was in the United States and British contracts. Is the agreement with regard to the price of aluminum governed by the United States and British contracts? If so, does the clause in the United States contract which refers to prices apply to Canadian contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our contract is for fabricated aluminum, and the price of fabricated aluminum has not been made subject to the escalator clause. It was agreed on some time ago and still stands for our customers. It happens to be the lowest price at which anybody is buying fabricated aluminum in any part of the globe. I think it is lower than the price at which fabricated aluminum is sold in the United States. By fabricated aluminum I mean aluminum sheets, extrusions and aluminum in the form in which it goes into an aeroplane.


Major James William Coldwell: Then do I understand that we buy only fabricated aluminum?
Mr. HOW'E: I would not say "only". By "we" I mean the Canadian contractors; I do not mean the Canadian government. I would say that ninety-five per cent of the aluminum our contractors buy is in the form of fabricated aluminum.


Major James William Coldwell: Where does the escalator clause come in with regard to fabricated aluminum? The minister quoted a price of five and a half cents a pound over the base price.. Would that apply to virgin aluminum?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is for aluminum ingots.
Mr. COLDWELL-:	Our contractors are
buying sheet aluminum?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: And the price of sheet aluminum would be the base price plus five and a half cents?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Our purchases are not large, comparatively speaking. I think I can speak with some authority because I went into this matter a short time ago. Our prices have never been made subject to the escalator clause; that is, the prices of fabricated aluminum in Canada have not been made subject to the escalator clause. The escalator clause is written into the contract for ingot aluminum with the United States, Great Britain and Australia. I happen to know of these contracts, because at the moment I am agent for the British government in the carrying out of their contract and it is my duty to check with the auditors. The aluminum is sold to Canadian manufacturers at a price which was agreed upon some time ago and which has never been changed. I assume this is so because in relation to the amount of aluminum sold by the Aluminum company it is not an important matter. So far as I know, there has been no application made to change that price in the last year.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that a price per pound, or a price per square foot?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Per pound.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the price per pound of the sheet aluminum?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to get that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have had some information about these aluminum contracts and I do not rise for the purpose of interfering with the cross-examination of my hon. friend, but in an effort to elucidate the situation if I can. The minister has made certain things very clear. The Canadian government as such does not contract with the
War Appropriation-Supplies

Aluminum company for any production at all, but certain Canadian consumers are buying sheet aluminum from the company. As agent for the British government the minister has a great deal to do with these contracts for the British government. He is their agent; he has told us that. What I want to know is this. With the huge increase in production and consumption the basic unit price has remained more or less constant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hold on, now; the basic unit price has remained at about 15 cents, according to my understanding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was it at the beginning of the war?


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the beginning of the war-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was 21J cents.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes; less an adjustment made at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price of aluminum has been reduced with every contract renewal that has been made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then let us have that information. That is not my understanding, from the remarks of the minister. Now would the minister allow me to proceed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just let me correct this, because I do not like these statements going out all over Canada without being corrected. The cost of aluminum to Canada and her allies has decreased steadily. It was 20 cents in 1940 and 18^ cents in 1941, and it has been 16 cents since July, 1942. That is in Canadian funds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; I am prepared to accept the minister's statement, because he has the facts and I am looking for information. The minister should tell this committee what was the production of the plant prior to 1940; what was the unit price, and what was the unit cost of production prior to the fixing of the price in that year. Then he should tell the committee what the production is now and what the unit cost of production is now. It is my understanding that the production has increased by many times what it was in peace time, and of necessity the cost per unit must have fallen to a very considerable extent. Yet the price has decreased only to the figure just mentioned by the minister, 16 cents, plus whatever increase might be allowed under the escalator clause. I am quite prepared to accept the minister's statement in regard to the increased cost of production

being added to the base price, because anyone who has made a study of the situation knows what the minister said in regard to the increased cost of transportation is in principle absolutely correct. They can no longer transport the bauxite direct from British Guiana to Arvida, as was done before the war; it must come in with a long rail haul from the gulf ports, and that circumstance must have added a substantial amount to the cost of production. But I should like the minister to make clear to the committee and to the country-and I think it would be to the advantage of the Aluminum company-what was the unit cost of production per ton or per pound or whatever unit you wish to use, prior to the war. If the facts are as the minister suggests, he should make this clear to the country. This information must be available to the Department of Munitions and Supply. Then he should state what is the unit cost to-day. I am told that to-day the unit cost is in the vicinity of 5 cents, plus these extras which come under the escalator clause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why would my hon. friend make a statement like that? He knows nothing whatever about it, and I can tell him that that is wholly untrue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister need not get hot under the collar; if I am wrong he can correct me, but it seems reason- . able to me, as it must seem to any business man who makes any study of it, that if you have a unit cost pre-war of x dollars and you increase your production by millions of pounds above the pre-war level, the unit cost of necessity must come down. That is what I think the country would like to have some information about.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: It must be different from anything else in a war, then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
not a very great knowledge of economics, but I do know that if you produce things on a mass production basis, as compared with a small, peace-time basis, the unit cost ought to fall. That is true in other classes of production, even though the cost of labour has gone up; and the increased cost of labour is taken care of in the escalator clause. All these increased costs are taken care of in the 5i per cent; the minister made that abundantly clear. I am not blaming him for it; I think he should not-I was going to say he should not lose his temper. He did not do that, but he rather quarrelled with the position I was trying to elucidate, by indicating that I was talking nonsense. I am not

War Appropriation-Supplies
talking nonsense; I am asking pertinent questions for the purpose of elucidating the situation.


Mr. SLAGHT:: You are quoting figures
which are not correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I beg
the hon. member's pardon; I do not know what he knows about it, but perhaps he will correct us all.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Will you assert that your
statement is true?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do
not know. I have been told, and I am asking the minister for the purpose of obtaining information. I suggest to the hon. member for Parry Sound that I am quite within my rights in doing so; that it is quite a proper thing to do, and that I should not be scolded by him or anyone else for doing so.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What I object to is the hon. gentleman putting the statement on record and into the press that he understands 5 cents is the cost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that is my understanding.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member is quite
in error. He may get that information from fishwives' tales or something, but figures should not be stated in this house unless there is some reason to believe their accuracy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is all right; the hon. member has come to the rescue of the minister but I do not think the minister needs any help. He will be able to give us the exact figures and I shall be quite satisfied. I am prepared to accept the minister's statement, but I want an authoritative figure. I think we should have the cost per unit over this period of time together with the pre-war price, the basic price and to-day's price based on the escalator clause. That is a reasonable request. If the unit cost has remained constant in these three years of huge increase in production, then let us know that. I cannot conceive that this should be the case. Anyone engaged in a manufacturing industry knows that if you double, treble, quadruple or multiply your production by one hundred, your unit cost automatically should come down. The minister must have the figures from the chartered accountants or the cost accountants, or some authority, to show just what that position is; and if the minister is prepared to tell me that the price to-day is based on a constant cost price, I am prepared to accept his statement, but I do think the public should
have that information. I am not one of those who joined in the hue and cry against the Aluminum Company of Canada for political purposes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
have not, though I think that is one of the main objectives of the hon. gentleman who brought forward this matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman has no right to impute a motive of that sort to me because I brought this important matter before the house. I may say that there was no political motive behind this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: There was an endeavour to serve the best interest of this country which, as I have said before, I think has been sold down the river.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
quite appreciate what the point of order is.


John Gordon Ross: I would rise to
another point of order. This item was passed the last time we considered these estimates, and we are now supposed to be dealing with cargo vessels.


Thomas Miller Bell: What is your ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: If the hon. member for York-Sunbury wishes to speak on the point of order he has the right to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it is out of order to suggest that a topic was brought up here by the leader of a political party and to say that it was done for political purposes. I do not think that is any reflection on him at all; he would be asleep at the switch if he was trying to make political capital to-day. What was he doing yesterday, the sabbath day, in Montreal, if he was not trying to make political capital; and what was he doing the day before?	-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a question of privilege. I was not in Montreal on the sabbath day; I was here in Ottawa the entire day. I left the meetings Saturday night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then his friends were desecrating the sabbath day by holding a political convention yesterday in Montreal. I accept the hon. member's statement, absolutely, that he was not in Montreal yesterday; and I respect him much for it. But I do suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not out of order to suggest that a political

War Appropriation-Supplies

party is raising an issue for political purposes. And I just wish to say that I do not join in the hue and cry against the Aluminum company, notwithstanding the fact that I recognize, as I think most of us recognize, that it is one of the greatest monopolies in the world, and that it has come to Canada-I think we will all agree with this-it has come to Canada, notwithstanding the championship of the minister, to escape in a degree the jurisdiction of the United States courts.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, what is your ruling on the point of order? The hon. member has concluded his discussion of it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Big-gar (Mr. Coldwell) may I say that I understood the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) had accepted the statement of the hon member for Rosetown-Biggar relating to a personal statement.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not hear him say that. I did not hear him withdraw it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is what I heard, if I heard it correctly I thought the hon. member for York-Sunbury had accepted it.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That there was no ulterior motive so far as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: If the hon. member rises and says he withdraws that imputation, that ends it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is what I heard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The basis of my statement was a broadcast statement by a member of this organization, that this was the greatest issue before the Canadian people to-day, and that they were raising it. I am not withdrawing that part of it.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a different thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I am out of order the chairman will rule me out of order, and I will accept his ruling. But until he does, may I say I am not imputing any dishonest or improper motives at all, and that is the basis of the rule. To say that a man brings forward an item for the consideration of the House of Commons, parliament and the country, and is doing it for political purposes, is not imputing any improper or dishonest motive.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is quite a proper motive.


Major James William Coldwell: What is your ruling, Mr. Chairman?


Thomas Reid: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I think the house should be asked to say what are political motives. What is the definition of a "political motive"?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, I think the point was well taken by the hon. [DOT]member for Rosetown-Biggar, originally, if there was any motive imputed in the statement made in the House of Commons with respect to the hon. member's actions. But when it comes to be applied to a whole party, then there is no ulterior motive, and there is no point of order.


Major James William Coldwell: I am referring to myself.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then there was a point of order in that reference,, and I understand the hon. member for York-Sunbury has accepted the statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and has withdrawn that particular statement.


Major James William Coldwell: But he has not withdrawn it yet.


John Gordon Ross: What is your complaint?


Major James William Coldwell: My complaint is that the hon. member for York-Sunbury said that the leader of this group had introduced this matter of the Aluminum company for political purposes.


John Gordon Ross: Is there anything wrong with that?


Major James William Coldwell: I am asking the hon. member to withdraw the imputation. The hon. member for Moose Jaw asked if there is anything wrong with it. Of course there is something wrong. The hon, member is imputing motives to me which are not proper motives-that it was done purely for political motives.


Gordon Graydon: Are you going out of politics?


Major James William Coldwell: I deny that I did that.


Thomas Reid: Perhaps the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will agree that it will have that effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To settle this matter I shall be glad to withdraw that remark with respect to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar himself, personally; but I will assert that the political party of which he is the leader has brought forward this topic for political purposes, and for no other purpose.

War Appropriation-Supplies


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I point this out, that the political party of which I am leader did not bring this forward in the House of Commons; the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the imputation, so far as the bringing forward of this matter by me is concerned, and to withdraw unreservedly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not intend to do anything of the kind unless I have to. And I intend to assert that the socialist party in this House of Commons, led by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, has (brought forward this attack on the Aluminum Company of Canada for political purposes, and for no other purposes. And I put mysellf in the judgment of hon. members when I say that.


Major James William Coldwell: I say that the party of which I am the leader, through me, brought this forward, if you like, purely in the public interest.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, in the public
interest.


John Gordon Ross: Is that political?


Major James William Coldwell: And I say that the accusation made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury should be withdrawn, under the rules of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, no; I want to answer that point of order. It is a fundamental principle of the law of defamation that you cannot defame a political party. You may defame an individual, but you cannot defame a political party.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be true of the Progressive Conservative party.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I put myself in the judgment of hon. members of the house when I say it is not defamatory to impute dishonest motives to a political party. If we did, the courts would be full of cases of that kind. But of course it is defamatory to impute dishonest motives to an individual. Surely we have discussed that far enough; I shall now return to the other matters-


Major James William Coldwell: May we have a ruling?


Mr. McGEER:: If I understand the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar it is that he feels it to be an offence to bring a matter into the house for political purposes.


Major James William Coldwell: Purely for political
purposes.
72537-243}


Gerald Grattan McGeer: All right, purely for political purposes. I have always understood politics to mean the business of the nation-the public's business. I have always understood that members of the house are here for political purposes.


Major James William Coldwell: But that was not the meaning given to it.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: That is a different thing altogether. We have been rather loose in our use of the expression "political purposes", failing to recognize that politics and political purposes are the public business of the nation. We have come to use the word "political" in the sense of partisan politics, every time the word is used. For those who are desirous of destroying our constitutional methods of conducting the political business and political affairs of our country, that of course is the correct interpretation to put upon it, and in that light everything of a political nature should be condemned and scorned. Now, to rule that it is improper to say that a man is bringing an issue before the House of Commons for political purposes would be to convert the meaning of the term "political" into a meaning it never possessed. Surely we are not going to have any such ruling as that. If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar can accuse the hon. member for York-Sunbury of charging him with bringing this matter up for political partisan purposes-


Major James William Coldwell: That is what he meant.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: and for purely partisan purposes, then I think the point of order would be well taken. But there is no such charge. And no one would have ever thought about it if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had not put that unfortunate interpretation upon it. But I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will not be led into that trap by ruling that we cannot discuss purely political matters in the House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We would be out of luck, would we not?


Mr. ADAMSON:: On the point of order, to my mind the definition of politics is the science of the well-being of the people. If that is not our duty in the House of Commons, then I should like to know what it is we are doing here.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Speak for yourself; you cannot speak for the rest of us.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have already given my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I believe the first objection taken by the hon. member was a proper one, because it was supposed to be almost a personal attack as
War Appropriation-Supplies

far aa his political activities were concerned. Then the hon. member for .York-Sunbury withdrew the statement he had made.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, he did not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I did.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The second statement of the hon. member for York-Sunbury was to the effect that the whole party led by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was using the Aluminum company question for political purposes. I believe the point was well taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) because this is out of the realm of a personal matter. It is a general statement, about a party, and surely we cannot stop an opposition party, or in fact any party, from making a statement of that kind so far as the political party is concerned. I do not believe the rules were ever meant to be applied in that way. I cite standing order 41, citation 297 of Beauchesne's Parliamentaiy Rules and Forms:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
Again my ruling is that there is no attack, and no point of order, so far as the statement made applies to a party as a whole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me enlighten the membership of this house with regard to the attitude of the political party on this question. I refer hon. members to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June 19, entitled "A 'Political Scandal'", which quotes a prominent member of the socialist party in this country, as follows:
For Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, M.L.A., in British Columbia, and wife of Angus Maclnnis, M.P., for Vancouver East, told an Ottawa C.C.F. meeting on Thursday night that "Shipshaw is one of the most valuable pieces of ammunition for the C.C.F. in the forthcoming elections."
Let us strip off all this sham-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise, Mr. Chairman-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have the floor.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say this?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, you have taken enough of my time.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of
privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was questioning the minister when the hon. member for York-Sunbury rose and interfered with what t was saying, and out of courtesy I sat down.
[The Chairman.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have the right to stand and speak.


Major James William Coldwell: I have that right too. I rise now just to say that I take no responsibility for statements made by persons other than myself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not intend to follow that further. The whole incident speaks for itself and the Canadian public can judge of it just as well as the members of this house.
I should like the minister to give the committee from the records of his cost accountants, or better still from the records of Price Waterhouse and Company, who are the auditors for Aluminum company, and a reputable firm-make no mistake about that-the unit cost price of aluminum at the beginning of the war and the unit cost price to-day, with a greatly increased production. That will, I think, be illuminating-I am not trying to make a pun. We ought to know if the price being paid for aluminum by the allied governments to-day, with the greatly increased production, is too high. After all, it, is their business. There is, I understand, in all these contracts a provision for renegotiation, and if the unit price to-day is too high I would say that the minister was derelict in his duty if he did not renegotiate that price. But if the unit cost to-day is substantially the same, then the minister has a clearance, and he will have a clearance in the mind of the public too. I am not approaching this thing by way of an attack on the minister at all, and he must not misunderstand me in that respect. If I wanted to make an attack on the Aluminum Company of Canada I could do so. Anybody who wanted to go into the muckraking business could find enough in the aluminum business to stage an attack any time. Just read the history of the Mellon family-you will find it in any standard work in the library-and you will find that the Mellon family and the aluminum business are entangled together. They control a great proportion of the deposits of raw material for aluminum. I have indicated why they came into Canada. There was the question of cheap power. How they got that power is a matter which I think will have to be settled with the government of Quebec; I do not think it is within our jurisdiction to question the terms upon which they got their power, though I have my views on that.
I want to say this further. If the price agreed to be paid by the allied nations at the beginning of the war was not a fair price, that is their responsibility, but the Canadian government has some share in it

War Appropriation-Supplies
even though we are not the direct contractors. If the price paid was fair I do not think there is any great cause for complaint on the part of anybody, because, as the minister said, this material was absolutely essential for carrying on the war, and the Aluminum company has a monopoly, or very largely so, of the production of aluminum. The first consideration in my mind at least has always been and still is the carrying on and winning of the war. But I am going to add this. As the war has proceeded, in other lines of endeavour prices have been reviewed from time to time, and properly so, with a view to cutting down costs of these essential materials required for the manufacture of aeroplanes and other war munitions. It will not do for the minister to say, as I think he did say, and I do not agree with him in that attitude: Oh well, we get it all back in taxation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the effect of what the minister said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Never.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the company is making a lot of money and it is paying huge sums in taxation. But on the other hand this government has agreed to give to a subsidiary of this company a generous depreciation allowance, to say nothing else, and I think I could go a good deal further than that. But what I would like to know from the minister is the basic unit cosfi-


An hon. MEMBER:: You have said that four times already.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
will say it five times because I am thinking of the taxpayers of this country. I want to . know from the minister what the basic cost was pre-war, then at the beginning of the war, and in each year of the war. If the minister will give us those figures substantiated by the certificates of his chartered accountants, I shall not have another word to say.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I understood that when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar rose this afternoon it was to ask a question, on which he had been promised an answer from the Minister of Munitions and Supply. We have dealt with the activities of the Aluminum company at great length on previous occasions. We are now on item 2, dealing with cargo vessels. I think I am expressing the desire of the committee generally when I say that we should stick to the item before us; otherwise it will be impossible to make that progress
which the committee and the country expects. The committee has already had a lengthy and fairly thorough discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: I rose to ask the minister to table some documents which he had promised.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The Chairman said that you were in order.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear his remarks. May I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the record is there. The Aluminum company stated that including the profits of the bauxite and power companies the cost of production in 1938 was 8-93 cents, *when the plant was operating at only 50 per cent capacity. In 1929 the company got a price of thirteen cents, for 75,000,000 pounds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what they sold for? It is not the cost.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, that is the selling price of the article. The hon. member for York-Sunbury spoke of a price of five cents. To be perfectly fair about it the price quoted to me, and I was cautioned that with the usual terms of amortization-and the terms are unusual now

which would enter into the cost of production the price would be in the neighbourhood of six cents a pound. But as I said the other day, I had no figures to substantiate that although it was given to me by somebody who I thought would know what he was talking about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, just to show
how far afield hon. gentlemen are, I will give the production figures of the Aluminum company for the years beginning with 1939. In 1939 Aluminum company produced 82,800 short tons of aluminum; in 1940 the production was 109,200 short tons; in 1941, 212,300 short tons; in 1942, 335,800 short tons; and it is estimated that this year the company will produce 503,000 short tons, or over 600 per cent of the production in 1939, which was Capacity production.
I might say that I am the custodian of the British contracts in Canada at the present time. That is a confidential mission which I have. I was appointed agent of the British government with the distinct understanding that I would not disclose any contracts that I made on behalf of the British government or any facts which I obtained in that connection.
I have followed very carefully the costs of producing aluminum, and I am satisfied that the price has been kept in a reasonable relation thereto. The British government, having all the facts, have come to the same conclusion; at least I have heard no complaints. So
War Appropriation-Supplies

far as the government of the United States, the other large customer of the Aluminum company, is concerned, they have direct contractual relations with the Aluminum Company of Canada. I am not associated with that contract in any way, but I assume that there again relations are satisfactory. As to price of fabricated aluminum that is purchased by Canadian contractors, I know about that, and I am satisfied that that is a fair and reasonable price.
My hon. friend said that he thought the cost of manufacturing aluminum was five cents a pound. The profits of the Aluminum company, or Aluminum Limited, which incidentally include the profits from a number of operations outside Canada, are known every year; they are published. My hon. friend reasons that, forgetting the escalator clause, if the cost of producing aluminum is five cents on a prewar basis the profit would be eleven cents.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I said I thought to-day the cost was five cents-not pre-war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member says that the cost is five cents. Well, the cost, of course, would take all factors of cost, including the increased costs appearing in the escalator clause. But I say, drop that out, go back to the unit costs of pre-war, the cost of labour, of power, and transportation; if these are assumed, on that basis the suggestion is that aluminum can be produced for five cents a pound, and the profit would represent eleven cents a pound. If the hon. gentleman will check the profits per pound on the tonnage of aluminum I have given him, against the balance sheet of the company, he will see that he is very far afield indeed in his assumptions of cost. I am afraid that is all the information I can give him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
understand the situation. The minister says that because of his financial relationship with the British government he is not able to reveal the figures of cost of production. I would not quarrel with the minister for taking that attitude so far as the British government is concerned; but in his capacity of minister of munitions and in view of his familiarity with the contracts for Canadian consumption in a semi-processed state, possibly that secrecy would: not obtain. Now if the minister has said-and he has in effect said

that because of his commitments to the British government he is not able to give us the real cost, I am not going to ask him to break his plighted word to the British government, because after 
all it is their responsibility and their business, and their money is paying for this. But what has been bothering me all along, in reading the discussion, including the speeches of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar here and outside the house, and the minister's reply, is this, that if the production is increased by 600 per cent the unit cost must have fallen very substantially, and the taxpayers, not only of Canada but of the United States and Great Britain, should have had the benefit. That is the only point I desire to make. If I am wrong in my assumption, why, I am wrong. I may say to the minister that the figure which was quoted to me was given by a man who said that he knew something about the aluminum business. I am free to tell the minister that I cannot adduce proof in support of that five cents a pound; if I had it I would produce it; make no mistake about that; I would have been camping on the minister's trail a good while ago. I rose for purposes of gaining information and an explanation as to why, if production has been increased 600 per cent, the price has not gone down. We have not had an answer on that, and apparently we are not to get it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend cannot assume that because volume goes up prices necessarily go down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The base price-with the escalator clause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The base price has gone down, of course. Nevertheless the freight per ton on bauxite is the same for a million tons as it is for a hundred thousand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, but you cover that in the five and a half cents.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not talking of the war increase. I say, had prices remained stable the cost of transporting bauxite, which was a large operation before the war, would not have changed materially for an operation six times the size. The cost of transportation would not have changed, nor would the cost of power. It takes so many kilowatts of power to smelt one pound of aluminum, and the price per kilowatt hour is usually a constant price. Any saving will have been in labour, through the larger operation, and the distribution of overhead, and I think the reductions in the base price which have been made take care of that item.
I have watched this situation very carefully. I have taken into account the obligations of the Aluminum company-obligations taken on in the interests of winning the war, and with my approval-and I am satisfied

War Appropriation-Supplies
that the price of the aluminum contracts today is a reasonable price, and one which does not allow an undue margin to the shareholders of the Aluminum company after their obligations have been discharged.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the minister a question about the transportation of bauxite? I read an item a few days ago to the effect that it is being landed at New Orleans, transported by canal boats up the Mississippi to the Ohio canal, thence through the Ohio canal to a final connection, I assume the Erie canal, and down the St. Lawrence river by boat to the Saguenay.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did my hon. friend in his travels ever cover that route?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it go by canal boat or by rail?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It goes almost every other way, and in almost every kind of boat, including canal boats, but it does not go up the Mississippi river. My hon. friend would not expect it to go through the Chicago barge canal, which is hardly a route.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It has a nine-foot draft.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hardly that. About six feet, on the Mississippi.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. Chicago has a nine-foot draught.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has never gone that way. As a matter of fact it has gone by rail from gulf ports. A certain amount comes from New York up the barge canal to Oswego, where it is transhipped and brought down to the Saguenay by boat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The barges on the Mississippi are 500-ton barges. They have a nine-foot draft. They come up the Ohio river.


Major James William Coldwell: I think we can arrive at some idea of what is going on by looking at page 3631 of Hansard where, in the table given on that page, there is an item, "Provision for depreciation and depletion." There is another item giving the net profit of Aluminium Limited for the year transferred to earned surplus. The total of the two items is $56,870,784. The minister has given the number of pounds involved in this, and if you allow for the normal depletion you can arrive at what the profit per pound is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: After excluding earnings of a number of other companies.


Major James William Coldwell: The major portion is earned by the Aluminum Company of Canada.


Mr. KNOWLES:: One other question with respect to the effect of the escalator clause. The minister said that the amount of adjustment in the first quarter of this year was 5i cents. That, added to the 15 cent base rate, meant that the American government was paying 20i cents. The question I wish to ask with respect to the 20 per cent of the contract which was being paid for at the rate of 17 cents per pound, according to the letter which Mr. Jesse H. Jones wrote to Senator Truman on March 24, is this: Does this mean that the American government is paying 22\ cents for twenty per cent of the aluminum purchased?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it does not mean that.


Thomas Reid: I wish to ask a question with regard to information given to the press to the effect that Austin C. Taylor of Vancouver had been appointed special representative of D. W. Ambridge, director-general of the naval shipbuilding branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply. Are there two branches, one for the building of cargo boats and one for the naval shipbuilding branch, and does Mr. Taylor represent Mr. Ambridge or the minister of munitions in Vancouver? The article states that he represents Mr. Ambridge. I always thought that when a man was appointed he represented the government, but according to this item Mr. Taylor represents Mr. Ambridge. Will the minister give the house some particulars with regard to the naval shipbuilding branch and the appointment of Mr. Taylor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The merchant shipbuilding programme is under the supervision of wartime Merchant Shipping Limited, of which Mr. H. R. MacMillan is president and Mr. Austin Taylor vice-president in charge of operations of the west coast. All other shipbuilding is under the naval shipbuilding branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply, of which Mr. Douglas Ambridge is director-general. The branch has only one large shipyard on the Pacific coast, namely, Yarrows Limited, whereas Wartime Merchant Shipping have, I believe, five large operations in the Vancouver area. It was felt that in the naval activities there, having to do with Yarrows Limited, one shipyard could be better coordinated under the direction of Mr. Taylor, who would thus have the whole steel shipbuilding industry on the Pacific coast under his responsibility. It was considered that a more equitable distribution of labour and a better servicing would result from Mr. Ambridge's delegating his responsibilities on the Pacific coast, in regard to steel shipbuild-
3S38
War Appropriation-Supplies

ing, to Mr. Taylor, who will report to Mr. Ambridge as far as naval shipbuilding is concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has become of Mr. Desmond Clarke?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has changed his position. He is now assistant to myself in charge of certain special duties.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the building of cargo vessels and the like, it is said that the increase in expenditures during the coming year will be approximately 300 per cent over the figure to-day. I would ask the minister to advise the committee how many men are to-day employed in cargo shipbuilding, how many men will be required during the next year in the expansion of the present programme, what measures are being taken to recruit the necessary man-power for this particularly specialized type of work, and what assistance the selective service authorities are giving the minister in securing the necessary man-power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as merchant shipbuilding is concerned, my hon. friend will understand that the appropriation before the committee is in payment for that portion of the ships we build that will be operated by Park Steamship Limited. As to merchant shipbuilding, it is actually stabilized. The yards devoted to merchant shipbuilding are yards that will continue in that work, so far as we can foresee at the moment. They are well staffed, and the components position is first-class. So far as I know there will be no great demand for men in the merchant shipbuilding field, 'but we are not so happy in the naval shipbuilding yards. That situation is being handled very well by selective service.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister
sufficient man-power now without recruiting any further man-power to continue the present plans for merchant shipbuilding as well as the building of cargo vessels by Park Steamship Limited?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Park Steamship limited does not build boats; it operates boats. We are turning out merchant ships at the rate we have scheduled for the current year. We are quite happy about our production in that field. My hon. friend suggests something about not hiring more men. We are always hiring men, because there is always a turnover in these yards, too much of a turnover; nevertheless if we could be sure we could maintain the number of men in merchant shipbuilding that we have to-day until the programme is completed, we would be happy.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has
raised another point there. He says there is far too much of a turnover, if I heard him rightly. Approximately what proportion of the man-power is leaving the production of shipbuilding and going elsewhere from month to month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is really a question for the Minister of Labour to answer. I have not the figures here and there is no reason why I should have them, but he will be glad to give my hon. friend that information when he is discussing selective service.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not exactly the position. There must be some coordination here between these departments. When the Minister of Agriculture had his estimates before the house the answer he gave, when the question of man-power was raised, was to the effect that he could ask for the assistance of the Speaker to deny the right of members to ask the question, because after all that was the problem of the Minister of Labour. The Minister of National Defence more or less adopted the same attitude, and now the Minister of Munitions and Supply, where there is a very particularized form of demand for labour, gives the same answer. Surely when this question of manpower has to be faced we have the right to know the picture in each of the departments. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister said the other day, if I remember correctly, that one of the reasons why it was necessary to have the Minister of Labour come at the end of the parade of ministers was the fact that by doing that members would have a true picture of the man-power situation. I feel that we are not getting that picture.
There is nothing more important at the moment than the production of vessels both for war and for transportation. The minister made a most significant statement when he said that there is altogether too much change in the personnel of this industry. What is the change he refers to? Where is the coordination between the different departments? Are men engaged in the shipbuilding industry still being called upon under the National Resources Mobilization Act for service in Canada? Has some arrangement been made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply to secure the continuance of the man-power necessary for this production? Has he made arrangements with the Minister of Labour so that trained men will not be taken from shipbuilding where they are performing specialized work and placed in the forces for the defence of Canada? The committee is entitled to this information. These are things which members

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
should know before the Minister of Labour comes along. We are entitled to have information from each department so that we may have a picture of the man-power situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already told my hon. friend that we are quite happy about the man-power situation in merchant shipbuilding. We advise the Department of Labour of the number of men we need in each shipyard, and so far as I know the men are forthcoming. At least we have no serious shortage in any yard building merchant ships at the present time. I have no complaint to make to my colleague at the moment about the man-power situation in shipbuilding. I am sure I do not know whether men are being transferred. All I know is that the required number of men are in the yards to turn out the work on the schedule we have put before the shipyards. That schedule is being maintained. Who the men are, where they come from or where they go, is entirely a matter for the Minister of Labour. I am sure that he will be able to give you full information.


John George Diefenbaker: That answer may satisfy some, but it does not satisfy me. I want to know if men are still being called up from these specialized jobs and being put in the army in Canada. If so, how many have been called up from shipbuilding since the beginning of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that he has no information as to whether men are being called up? Is that the answer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are being called up if they are in the proper age groups. I made the statement the other day that at this stage we are making no demands on the army, navy or air force for the deferment of any man unless he has a very unusual skill which we cannot obtain otherwise at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the minister mean by the statement he made earlier in the discussion that the proportionate rate of change in the personnel of the shipbuilding yards was too great, or words to that effect? Did he mean that it is difficult to hold the necessary trained men in the industry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Men drift from yard to yard to some extent. It is a thing we would like to discourage; we would like to keep them where they are.


Thomas Reid: Are the ships under charter to the Park Steamship company insured? If so, who bears the loss, if any?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ships are insured against what is called "P and I", that is protection
and indemnity. They are not insured against war risk; but they are insured against a third party risk. These ships are operated for the account of the government, and any profits go to the government. The government has decided, as it has in most insurance matters, that it is willing and able to take the risk on individual ships rather than spend the money that would be required to insure them against war risks.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Has there been any hold-up in supplies, such as engines and other equipment, for ships that are being built? I think about two weeks ago the Toronto Star stated that a number of ships being built for the government were being held up because they could not get equipment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the merchant shipbuilding programme components are well ahead of hulls; there has been no delay for many months.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the minister or his colleague give us a statement with regard to the present labour relations in Toronto? I understand there is a considerable lay-off there at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Toronto shipyards have an agreement with the American Federation of Labour which covers all workers in the yard. One day last week a group of 289 workmen, affiliated with a rival union, which is also an affiliate of my hon. friend and his party, as I understand, held a meeting on company time in the shipyards in flagrant violation of the agreement covering the relations between the yard and its employees. Those men were promptly dismissed, and I think properly so. If the men wish to come back individually, they will probably be rehired, but we cannot stand for jurisdictional disputes on company time in any shipyard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3.	Housing development, $30,000,000.
['The Toronto shipyards have an agreement with the American Federation of Labour which covers all workers in the yard. One day last week a group of 289 workmen, affiliated with a rival union, which is also an affiliate of my hon. friend and his party, as I understand, held a meeting on company time in the shipyards in flagrant violation of the agreement covering the relations between the yard and its employees. Those men were promptly dismissed, and I think properly so. If the men wish to come back individually, they will probably be rehired, but we cannot stand for jurisdictional disputes on company time in any shipyard.']
Mr. NICHOLSON:: On a number of occasions I have discussed this important question of housing. When Wartime Housing Limited was established the minister reported to his colleagues, as outlined in the order in council of February 24, 1941, that there existed at various points throughout Canada such a lack and serious shortage of housing or other living accommodation for persons then engaged or likely to be engaged in the near future upon war work in connection with the production of munitions of war and supplies or upon defence projects, or for the families of such persons, that the war effort of Canada was
3840	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
likely to be jeopardized unless steps were taken immediately to remedy the situation. The administration deserves credit for recognizing that the amount of housing available for the people of the country will directly affect the production of munitions. In the United States during the last war they found that the lack of housing accommodation in some of their munitions centres resulted in a very large labour turnover and wastages of upwards of twenty-five per cent.
I have in my hand a copy of the brief presented to the committee on reconstruction and re-establishment by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, in which reference is made to the serious housing shortage in Canada as revealed by the 1941 census. One statement is to the effect that twenty-five Canadian cities with populations of over thirty thousand reported that sixty-one per cent of their people lived in rented quarters. Of these tenants 53-6 per cent paid less than $25 a month rent, 36-3 per cent paid less than $20 and 16-5 per cent less than $15. More than 17 per cent of the houses had neither bath nor shower, while 30 per cent had no means of refrigeration, either mechanical or by ice. In mentioning this very serious situation the brief goes on to state that in the city of Hull, for example, 25 per cent of the houses are in the category of those for which the rental is less than $15. Anyone who has had any experience in looking for housing accommodation in Canadian cities can picture the sort of quarters available at $15 per month. The mayors' association made some valuable recommendations, which I shall discuss a little later.
The bureau of statistics reports that urban centres would require 143,314 new housing units to give each family a separate unit; and the estimate of the family units required in rural Canada shows that 82,612 units would be required to provide separate family units. The total number of houses required to give each family in Canada a separate unit would be something over 225,000. In view of this very serious shortage one might anticipate that Wartime Housing Limited could embark upon an ambitious house-building programme without creating a surplus of houses for the post-war period.
I have some reports from typical Canadian cities to which I should like to refer; one very illuminating report deals with the city of Ottawa. Hon. members of this house are so familiar with the shortage here, however, that it is unnecessary for me to quote these comments. Then I have a report on housing
I Mr. Nicholson.]
in Halifax, made in 1932 under the direction of the citizens' committee on housing. This report contains these words:
And well it may, for Halifax is infested with a high percentage, per house population, of tumble-down shacks where whole families eat, sleep, bathe and live in a single room, where cellars reek with filth and vermin, where sewage runs riot-hovels unfit for human habitation, and typical of the worst slum conditions to be heard of anyrvhere. "One-half the world doesn't know how the other half lives," said Jacob Reis.
Something over two years ago the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had occasion, to refer to housing conditions in Halifax. At that time the senior member for Halifax made an emphatic protest, pointing out that Halifax was a city of beautiful homes. Doctor H. B. Atlee wrote the Halifax Chronicle on Wednesday, June 4, 1941, after the hon. member had made his comments here, and in his letter he said:
Your columns this morning contain the information that Mr. M. J, Coldwell has been "censured in some quarters" for bringing to public attention the condition of the slums of this city. Surely this represents ostrichism in its blatant and unabashed form-that ostrichism which, head hidden in the sand, declares that the thing it does not want to see should not be seen even by more intelligent birds. Mr. Cold-well made no extravagant statement about our slums. No statement could be couched too extravagantly to describe their loathsome squalor. I have worked in the east end of London and in some of the less salubrious environs of Manchester, and I saw nothing there any worse than exists in Halifax. Our slums are a disgrace and a shame to us-a disgrace abounding and a shame reproaching. In tolerating them we have shown a criminal indifference. For they are more than a shame and a disgrace; they are a cancer, eating into our very life and health.
A report from Winnipeg covering the year 1942 states:
. . . it will be seen that we have reached an all-time low in the number of vacancies, which means that more and more families are having to crowd together. This condition is, of course, in conflict with our health and other by-laws, but it is evident that there is little we can do about it. . . .
The shortage of accommodation for the low-income group has been acute for years and I have referred to this over and over again in these reports. The present plight of the average working man to find moderate but satisfactory living quarters for his family is lamentable. . . .
Surely our present housing shortage cannot continue much longer. The risk to health of our sub-standard housing, not to mention that of the fire hazard in our nondescript tenements, may be brought home to us with painful remorse. Already, we have much evidence of the toll in moral and mental standards, also the cost of crime, in our blighted districts.
My attention has been drawn to a report appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
April 23, 1941, with regard to rural housing. This statement is made by a Church of England clergyman, in reference to conditions in northern Saskatchewan, where many heroes of the last war have lived. He said:
I have seen the slums of London and our eastern cities, but I have never seen the abject poverty and want that exists among the settlers of northern Saskatchewan.
In the past, as those responsible for the affairs of our country, we have not faced up to the cost of maintaining these slums. I have here a report on municipal housing by Helen Alfred of the national public housing conference of the United States, in which she says:
American slums are among the worst in the western world. From coast to coast, from Canada to the gulf, the housing conditions which families in the lower income brackets are obliged to occupy are a shocking commentary on what we like to call the American standard of living. Toward no other form of economic maladjustment have we remained more archaic in our attitudes, less progressive in action. While imagination, skill and boldness have marked the attack of American cities on problems of health, education and recreation, the housing problem-the inability of low-income wage workers to secure homes of modern standard at rents within their means, has been treated w-ith vacillation, subterfuges or complete indifference.
A study was made in Winnipeg back in 1935 in regard to the cost to the taxpayers of that city of maintaining their slums. They took into account the cost to municipal hospitals, social welfare agencies, the police department, the children's aid society, the children's bureau, the Winnipeg general hospital and the St. Boniface outdoor clinic, and compared the cost in the worst slum area with the cost in the rest of the city. They found that in this worst slum area the cost of maintenance amounted to $639,000. Had the cost in that area been at the same rate as in the rest of the city it would have amounted to only $189,000, showing a difference of $450,000. In other words it cost the taxpayers of the city of Winnipeg, the gateway to the west, nearly half a million dollars to maintain the slums of that city.
The special committee of this house which investigated housing in 1935 reported that a survey made in Cleveland indicated that where 2J per cent of the population lived, 22 per cent of the murders were committed, 6-8 per cent of juvenile delinquency existed and 121 per cent of deaths from tuberculosis occurred. Although the per capita cost of fire protection in Cleveland is only $3.12, the cost in the slum area is $18.12. The estimate for the total cost of the slum area is $1,740,000.
I mention these two or three specific cases to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the creation and maintenance of a slum area is a costly business. Unfortunately I am afraid that as part of our war-time housing programme we are building some new slum areas. Wartime Housing Limited deserves credit for entering the field fairly early in the war. Houses have been provided in a number of areas, where, had they not been built, there would have been a serious shortage of housing accommodation. I am quite prepared to admit that the houses which have been built by Wartime Housing Limited are superior to a great many other houses found in cities in which there is overcrowding. But I come back to the point I made a year ago, that many of the temporary houses being built by Wartime Housing Limited will be the slums of to-morrow. The taxpayers of Canada have spent a large sum of money to build houses. I am not complaining about the amount of money spent for this purpose. When one considers that this year the Minister of Munitions and Supply will supervise the expenditure of $3,400,000,000, the fairly modest estimate of $30,000,000 for housing seems like a small sum indeed. But as a taxpayer I am concerned that the people should receive good value for these houses. I am also concerned that houses which will be slums in a few years should not be built in areas in which a permanent housing shortage exists.
I have before me some correspondence which passed between the president of Wartime Housing Limited and the Toronto Globe and Mail, and I have also an article which appeared in News on Saturday, April 3. In this article a good deal of space is devoted to a description of the cost of houses built in Hull. It states:
A return brought down in the house showed 150 houses erected in Hull at a total cost of $577,604. Of the total $117,179 went for land, sewers, water, road-making, street lighting, electric poles and cables. That left $460,425 as the actual cost of the houses. The Hull development, according to Wartime Housing in Toronto had 100 six-room storey-and-a-half houses, of a unit size 24 by 28; 50 four-room one-storey houses, 24 by 24. The Toronto officials estimate the difference in cost between the cost of four-and six-roomed houses at $300. The total outlay of $460,425 for the 150 units works out at $2,968 each, for the 50 four-roomed houses, and $3,169 apiece for the 100 six-roomed houses.
A second return to the House of Commons regarding the same development gave the unit cost of the four-roomed houses as $2,941 and of the six-roomed houses as $2,937, and the cost of land and exterior improvements as $760 per house.
3842	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
The article goes on to give the cost of a house built in Galt 'by a firm known as the Franklin Lumber company. It states:
Land for the experiment was bought from the city, close to the Wartime Housing development. It cost $50. The house, a four -room cottage of the same ground dimensions as TV artime Housing's four-roomer, was built to the specifications of the National Housing Act. These require a foundation and cellar. Wartime Housing dwellings are set on posts and have no basements.
The cottage built for comparison with the Wartime Housing model has a 10-inch cement foundation and a dirt-floored cellar. Both houses have bathrooms and electric wiring. Neither has a furnace, but Wartime Housing provides a convection heater installed on the ground floor of each of its dwellings. The cottage the lumber company built was of frame construction, wood sheeted and plastered inside. Wartime Housing units are also of frame, wood sheeted, but are finished inside with plaster board.
The Galt cottage completed, was sold with its lot for at least $569 less than each four-room temporary dwelling at Hull cost the people of Canada. Its sale price netted the builders "a good margin of profit", to quote "Timber", which published a report on the experiment in a recent issue.
The report indicates that a temporary house built without cellar and on posts cost $569 more than a permanent house, on a ten-inch cement foundation, of lumber construction.
The president of Wartime Housing, Mr. Pigott, found occasion to write to the Globe and Mail in reply to the article appearing in News. In his letter Mr. Pigott states:
The author of these figures states the cost of the house in Hull, Quebec, exclusive of land and exterior improvements, is $2,869. Where this figure was obtained it is impossible to say. The truth of the matter is that the cost of this house in Hull, figures of which cost are available to any auditors, is $1,889.13, quite a different figure from $2,869, which has been given to make the comparison.
On the question of cost: For your information, the average cost of 15,392 houses in various parts of Canada is $2,229 and this average price includes a large percentage of houses with four bedrooms. The average cost of the house under discussion, that is the two-bedroom house, of which we have completed 6,773, is $1,959. This is on the basis referred to in the article "exclusive of land and exterior improvements." This house costs as low as $1,836 in British Columbia, and is lower than this again in North Vancouver. The average price of this house in Ontario is $1,927.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I happen to have some returns here brought down in the house. The minister has supplied them, so that it is not necessary to go to Mr. Armstrong and ask where he gets his information. According to returns brought down, two hundred houses were built in North Vancouver at a cost [Mr. Nicholson.l
of $599,395, or an average of $2,996. In turn I must ask the minister where the president of Wartime Housing Limited got the figure he quoted in his letter to the Globe and Mail.
With regard to houses in Hull, if the minister will turn to page 951 of Hansard for this year he will find the answers to questions I had placed on the order paper. I have also sessional paper 122-i, a return asked for by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) and dated May 17, 1943. This return shows the cost of a great many of these units. For example, the Hull costs are given. According to this information, 100 houses were built on a lump sum basis, and 50 on the day labour basis. The actual cost up to February 28, 1943, amounted to $530425. The actual cost per unit for the 100 houses was $2,750, and the actual cost of the 50 houses was $3,935. If one multiplies $2,750 by 100 he gets $275,000, and if he multiplies $3,935 by 50 he gets $196,750, or a total of $471,750. But the total in the other column, up to February 28, is $530,125. That makes a difference of $58,375 in the two totals. That is not a lot of money compared with three billion dollars, but $58,000 is still a lot of money. If you average this difference of $58,379 among the 150 houses it means an extra of over $385 per house. Add that to the cost of the smaller house and you get a total of $3,139, and for the larger house a total of $4,324. I suggest to the minister that he and the president of Wartime Housing should get together and see if they cannot get their figures to tally so that we may know just what these houses cost. As I said, the cost has been very, very high.
I urge members of this house to spend a nickel and ride across to Hull some Saturday afternoon. The members of this house have a responsibility to find out whether we are getting good value from our wartime building. We are spending this year over $30,000,000 and hon. members have a right to find out whether we are building a new slum area within a short distance of this capital. I take it that the administration would want to do a very good job within such short distance of the capital, that they would want to put up the best possible house at the least possible cost. But when I was over in Hull recently I noticed that several of these houses have had repairs made to them already, although they have not yet been occupied for a year. Some of the houses had ply board around the base; it has been found necessary to put boards around there because apparently the children were able to kick holes in the wall, and something more substantial had to be provided.
My chief complaint regarding the administration of Wartime Housing has been that the taxpayers are paying a very high unit price

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
for these houses; the overhead is very high; and we are creating slum areas. I think I should mention that I have seen some of the hostels which have been built and I have very little fault to find with them. They seem to be well managed and remind me somewhat of my university days when we enjoyed quite an interesting life living in residence. While there were some complaints about the food, it looked as though everyone was being well fed and I am sure they had a varied diet; but where you have several people eating in the one place day after day it is bound to become a little monotonous.
Comparing the costs shown in these returns I should like to give the committee a few figures in connection with the building of permanent homes under the national housing administration. Again let me say that I am not satisfied with the National Housing Act, but this does afford a basis for comparison.
A typical borrower under the National Housing Act has a yearly income of $1,800, borrows $3,000 and builds a $3,750 home. The average cost per house is $3,250, and at that he gets a much better house than he would get in Hull even for more money. The average cost per lot, 35 x 120, including improvements, is $325. The cost of equipment, light fixtures and hardware is $100; the legal and financing cost, $75. That brings the total cost of lending value to $3,750. The lending institution's share is $2,250; the government's share, $750, and the borrower's equity, $750. The average borrower would have an income of $150 a month. He would have to pay $26.50 a month to make his monthly payment of principal, interest and taxes. If it is possible to make permanent homes available to people in Canada who are living in crowded quarters, for the payment of $26.50 a month, after the borrower has made an investment of $750, we should be promoting schemes of that sort. It really means that the house is bought for $750, because the $26.50 paid on the monthly basis is less than one would have to pay to rent such a house in the city of Ottawa. People who live in their own homes take a pride in improving the home and its surroundings. They take a great deal more interest in their own homes than they do in a rented house and have a pride in their gardens. Again I am prepared to admit that Wartime Housing has been able to select good tenants and the property is cared for by the tenants in a satisfactory manner. But people cannot look forward to having these as permanent homes. The minister said on one occasion that if it was desired to change these houses into permanent homes, it
would be an easy matter to put a cement foundation under the building, but I think anyone who has visited the Hull houses would agree that if one wanted to build a permanent home out of one of these houses in five years' time, the first thing he would do would be to tear the house down and use some of the tactics that were described by the hon. member for Macleod the other day in connection with the buildings on a farm that was taken over by the government for an air training centre. I do not think it is feasible to contemplate making permanent homes out of houses of this type of construction.
As I intimated before, I think the administration costs in connection with Wartime Housing are excessive. A return was brought down some time ago giving the administrative costs in connection with the building of wartime houses. The number of housing units completed by Wartime Housing as at December 31, 1942, was 9,510; total cost of housing units, $36,000,000, with administrative costs of $209,000. Under National Housing, according to an answer given to another question, there were built 23.606 units, with construction costs of $92,000,000, and administrative costs of $550,000. The costs of Wartime Housing administration were much higher, taking into consideration the houses built.
According to questions which were answered in the house, the general manager of Wartime Housing is now getting a salary of $12,000 a year. He started at $10,000 a year.
I shall have more to say about this when the Minister of Finance comes before the committee. I must remind him that we have an order freezing executives' salaries, and here is a man who, I am informed by another return, was receiving a better salary in the United States than he is now getting, but who was receiving from this government a salary of $10,000 a year until July 1, 1942, but is now receiving $12,000 a year. I submit that we have some very good people in Canada who might have been available to act as general manager of this corporation and l't will be difficult to satisfy some people who are working in essential industries that they are not entitled to an increase when they see other people having their salaries increased by 20 per cent. A 20 per cent increase has been given to a $10,000 dollar man- which is a very large increase.
Then there is the question of architects. I find, in reply to a question I put on the order paper some time ago, asking for the names of all the registered architects employed by Wartime Housing Limited and also the names and addresses of the architects
3844 .	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
of Canada who have been engaged on wartime housing, and the amounts paid to each for their services, that there is quite a long list of the architects who are employed, and the salaries paid. Mr. W. L. Somerville, who is a highly qualified architect, has been paid S4,375; Mr. B. H. Wright, $9,001; Mr. B. R. Coon, $4,000; Mr. D. E. Kertland, $9,487; Mr. H. H. Kent, $4,341; Mr. Abe Wilson, $3,033; Mr. L. Forstener, $3,323, and so forth.
In addition to employing high salaried men on the staff, I find that a number of firms have been dealt with very generously. W. and W. R. L. Blackwell, of Toronto and Peterborough, have received for services and expenses over $10,000; D. J. Cameron, of Windsor, $20,000; S. B. Coon and Son', of Toronto, over $8,000; George and Moorhouse, of Toronto, over $9,000; Maurice Germain' of Montreal, over $7,000; Hutton and Souter, of Hamilton, over $10,000; Norman Kearns' of Welland, over $13,000, and McCarter and Nairne, of Vancouver, over $42,000. There is here a very long list of architects, and, having visited a number of housing projects undertaken by Wartime Housing, it is hard for me to understand why such high salaried architects are required and why something more creative has not been produced by architects who apparently have been paid on a handsome basis.
As I said, I feel that the cost in connection with building wartime housing has been unduly high. I hope the minister will be able to give us some information regarding some of these specific cases which I have mentioned. I wish, too, that there should be a reversal of policy in connection with wartime housing and that more consideration be given to the place of these units in our economy of to-morrow. I understand that some permanent houses are being built at Sarnia, but apparently the minister is unwilling to give members of the house as full information as he should regarding what his plans are for permanent housing. Hon. members will recall that early in the session I asked for copies of plans and specifications in connection with housing projects in St. Catharines and in Hamilton, and a strange attitude was displayed by the minister; he refused to bring down that information. I found later that it cost the taxpayers of this country $1,449.47 to prepare the St. Catharines plans and specifications; and then a member of this house is denied the privilege of having this return brought down and made available for his consideration. Usually governments are only too glad to make available their plans for housing.

Again, if I might refer to the national housing administration, they encourage people in the country to send for their plans, and try to stimulate the interest of the citizens in building projects.
With regard to the future, I hope the administration will give more creative leadership than Wartime Housing Limited has provided. I have here a letter from the Ministry of Health of Great Britain. Under date of March 4, 1943, the assistant secretary writes:
, 4 am directed by the Minister of Health to state that, from his continuous consideration ot the housing situation throughout the country, he is fully aware of the growing ocncern of many iocal authorities at the conditions which have ensued from the enforced stoppage of housing work and of their desire to resume this work at the earliest opportunity. He regrets that he can hold out no hope of new house building at present save the provision which he has recently announced of a small number of cottages for agricultural workers. . . .
But it is clear that the need for houses is already substantial, and the minister is anxious that local authorities should now begin to formulate plans so as to be in a position to make a quick start immediately conditions permit, whether during or after the war. . . .
In a recent letter to the national public housing conference, the President of the United States wrote as follows:
The recognized need for adequate housing for all of our citizens has been emphasized by the special need of proper housing for civilian and enlisted personnel-and their families-concerned in the effort to win the war. Adequate housing is a morale builder and is essential to the speed and efficiency of our national defence work.
The programme of clearing slums and providing decent homes for the ill-housed of our nation in the years before the war laid the foundation for the intensified housing effort necessary to-day. The job of clearing the slums, which your Conference helped to begin, of necessity must be reduced substantially for the duration. With the scarcity of building materials we can now afford to build homes only in defence areas. But the goal of a slumless America must be preserved. ...
I have also the report of a speech delivered recently in the United States by the Hon. Walter Nash, who was the sponsor of a housing bill in New Zealand in years before the war. He said.
We simply cannot afford to pay the tremen-clous price we have paid in the past by leaving such matters in the hands of those who acknowledge no social responsibility. We cannot afford to leave the way clear in the future for the predatory activities of the speculator, with the repetition of the muddle and the waste that must always result from unplanned development.
There is the problem, too, of considering housing in its proper relationship to other phases of general regional planning. Industry and housing, for example, must be considered

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
for planning purposes as two parts of a single problem. A building project no longer involves merely the construction of a number of dwellings. The larger the scale of operations, the more we are compelled to pass from purely constructional fields into fields which embrace almost every phase of communal activity. When we commence to plan for housing, on any national scale, we are in effect planning for the future of the nation.
I have two or three illustrated booklets telling what remarkable progress has been made in New Zealand under a labour government in connection with the building of suitable homes for every family. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to an interesting little book entitled "Homes or Hovels", recently published by the Canadian Association for Adult Education and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) is honoured in having a sketch of himself in it. The hon. member made a telling address at the conference held in Toronto sponsored by the Ontario Association of Architects, that provided the material for this book. It is encouraging to find a representative group from various parts of Ontario showing the initiative to bring Catherine Bauer, who is without doubt one of the best of the English-speaking authorities on housing. I suggest that hon. members secure a copy of this valuable booklet and become familiar with the suggestions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Recently the mayor of Toronto, accompanied by some members of the council, interviewed the minister and the head of Wartime Housing Limited. I am sure the minister will readily admit that the requests of the city of Toronto were reasonable and were presented in a businesslike manner and supported by a well prepared brief. I shall occupy only a few moments, but I intend to read a few paragraphs of the brief, because they clearly indicate what that great city is up against, and how the city itself has tried to help the minister with a problem which now confronts him; for he has been up against a serious problem, and I for one think he has made the best effort he can to solve it. On May 13, Toronto, through the .mayor, presented a brief in which a number of reasons are stated to show why the city requires assistance in handling the serious housing problem that exists there. The first clause on page 1 reads:
We would draw to your attention the housing situation that has been created in Toronto by the great influx of people from other sections
of Canada to accept employment in the armament and munition plants located both in the city proper and in the adjacent municipalities.
I might add that immediately north of the city in York township, east of the city in East York and west of the city in West York, many thousands of people reside, a great many of whom work in the city while living in the townships or in the adjacent municipalities, and these municipalities too are congested. They have their housing problem, and for that reason the city honoured them by referring to the equal difficulties with which they are faced. The city itself tried to overcome these difficulties and to help out the minister and his board, first, by making a tabulation of vacant stores throughout the city, and with the consent of the board such stores as could be converted into dwellings were so utilized to the number of 225. But that quickly exhausted the available number of stores which could be turned into dwellings. Some of them are in my own end of the city, and while they are not all that could be desired, they do assist in overcoming the temporary difficulty that exists in consequence of inadequate accommodation. The city then made application to the board, and here I will read what the brief says:
The civic administration has conferred on several occasions with officers of Wartime Housing Limited. At a recent meeting with Mr. J. M. Pigott and Mr. V. T. Goggin, we presented the city's application for the erection of 300 houses on land provided by the city, 200 of which would be available for war workers' families certified as such, 100 for families of soldiers overseas, and civilians, this latter group to be erected and operated under a similar plan to that provided in the city of Halifax.
The difficulty is that soldiers' families have been particularly affected by the lack of accommodation. For some reason or another, which I do not consider warranted, many landlords have refused to accept soldier tenants. I have a number of them myself and I find them very satisfactory. In fact, I could have rented the buildings for much more, but I would not be guilty of turning out a soldier's wife and family, particularly when he is overseas defending, not only myself, but everybody else. However, everybody does not treat them in that way, and therefore we have a serious problem-. To continue with the brief:
We were advised that directions respecting housing for war workers should emanate from the Department of Munitions and Supply and for those coming within the other groups from the Department of Finance, or more directly the national administrator of real property.
3S46	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies^-Housing
Here is what the city submitted as some of the reasons for its urgent need of help in this regard.
Respecting the provision of houses for war workers' families, it is our intention to confer with the Hon. Mr. Howe, as His Worship the Mayor has been advised by company officers that the Massey-Harris company requires immediate accommodation for 100 families and the Toronto shipbuilding company, for at least a similar number. The problem of housing for war workers,' however, is part of the general housing prices of the city, which can be coped with only by authority of war-time powers, vested in the national administrator of real property. We therefore request that you give consideration to the problem as a whole, as well as giving particular attention to the housing problems of the specific groups namely, soldiers' and civilians' families.
That paragraph I have quoted indicates the difficulty which the city faces of providing accommodation for the large influx of workers into plants making munitions, such as Massey-Harris company and the shipbuilding company on the bay, both of which are almost wholly engaged in war production, and whose workers should be given accommodation. If they have to go a long distance out of the city, it shortens their hours or tires them out on the job. I believe the city offered to provide a piece of land, forming a part of its property, not far from the Massey-Harris or the shipbuilding company. The city has a good deal of land there which it owns through the harbour commission, and it offered to turn that land over if Wartime Housing would assist in building the necessary houses. What has happened I do not know, but certainly the problem is a serious one. People have been coming in from all over the country, a great number of them from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, and they have all shown themselves to be good workers. It is imperative that they be given adequate accommodation for themselves, their wives and families. It is a menace to health, to morale, and to the city generally that men and women should be crowded into such small quarters as many of them are obliged to inhabit. I have before me one report showing that twenty persons, of whom fifteen are children, are crowded into one small house of seven rooms. That is wholly inadequate, and if the ministers' department has not yet acceded to the request of the city, I appeal as strongly as I can that consideration be given that request. The city has contributed extensively to every cause. It contributed almost half of the amount of money raised in Ontario, which was itself about one-half raised throughout the country, in connection with the war loan, and it has also
fMr. MacNicol.]
contributed generously to the Red Cross and to every worth-while call that has been made. It has been most devoted in its support to all these causes and is entitled, therefore, to consideration.
Here is a clause that states what must be done:
Apart entirely from any further aggravation of the problem that would arise from a continued new influx of war workers, the present housing crisis must be solved either by "freezing" the present housing occupancy and prohibiting evictions for the duration of the war, except in eases where other satisfactory accommodations are available, or by the provision of new dwelling units sufficient to take care of the present excess population of the city as it is forced out of its present temporary quarters.
The magnitude and urgency of the problem is indicated by the supporting material attached hereto. In that material, we have submitted a list of some 200 families facing the immediate necessity of vacating their present premises, whose cases are in the hands of our city welfare department. There is no alternative accommodation at present available for these families. One hundred and fifty court orders to vacate are present pending. The "housing questionnaire", uncompleted, shows 603 families needing housing. Much other material is presented showing the urgent need. It has been impossible to prepare figures on the number of notices to vacate that have been served on tenants in Toronto since December 9, when the order requiring a year's notice became effective. There is good reason to believe that the number must be in the hundreds.
This is a big problem, one which has not been brought about by the city itself. These plants, many of them such as John Inglis, belonging to the government, are making munitions anc there has been a great influx of people into the city. So far as I can see, it is mainly a government problem because these people have come to the city to work in government plants. When you build a plant in Toronto; when you bring people into the city, then it becomes your problem. I admit that it is a big problem. The city is willing to cooperate in providing accommodation for its people. I do not think I need read any more from this large brief, which speaks for itself, except some recommendations that are made as follows:
1.	That the eviction of families of members of the armed forces be prohibited pending construction of new dwelling units, except in cases where other accommodation, considered satisfactory by the proper city authorities, is available.
2.	That regulations should be set up to provide that where it becomes necessary for any agency to bring additional families into the city of Toronto, or adjacent municipalities-[DOT]

War Appropriation*-Supplies-Housing
York South, York East, York North and York West.
-specific housing accommodation should be provided in advance.
3. That a proper record be established of sale of houses and the issuance of notices to tenants to vacate.
That is only reasonable. The mayor of Toronto, Doctor Fred J. Conboy, has his heart and soul wrapped up in trying to provide relief for his people. I believe he came here to see the minister and his officials after having made a survey of Toronto. I am speaking from memory, but I believe he stated that there were in the city at least 300 large houses which could be converted into apartments, three, four or five units to a building. I understand that something along this line is to be supported by the government. If so, I should like the minister to give us the details. I wish to know also if the minister can consider the suggestion the city made that a considerable number of homes be built on city-owned property.


Mr. ISNOR:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words with regard to wartime housing as it exists in Halifax. I did not intend to take part in this discussion except that my name was drawn into it by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). He was referring to the difference of opinion which had existed between the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself two years ago, but I do not know that that has any great bearing upon the item we are discussing of $30,000,000 for housing development. I wish to approach this question in the same reasonable manner as that of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). The hon. member asked the minister to consider the problem they have in Toronto and he presented a reasonable case. I am sure that the minister will give consideration to this problem. I propose to approach the minister with the same thought in mind.
For at least two years the hon. member for Mackenzie has been dealing with this question of housing, but it has always been in a critical mood, he has been criticizing expenditures, overhead, stating that costs were excessive and so on. I have studied the figures he has given from time to time, as well as those presented by others who were supposed to know. The chairman of the wartime housing board gave definite figures and I am sure he had available the costs of the various units.
This is a very large project, one which has been developed during the past twenty-eight months. Practically nothing had been done when the board was appointed in February, 1941, but they gathered together the best
architects in Canada, drew up plans and decided on the types of home which would best meet the emergency. We are faced at the present time with a shortage of houses, brought about largely by the needs of war workers who have gone to the urban centres. Steps were taken to provide suitable homes of a temporary nature for these workers. Instead of being critical of the Minister of Munitions and Supply for the efforts he has made, I think we should realize that this project has been handled in a splendid manner. I realize that he has not been able to give all centres the number of houses they have asked for, but an effort has been made to meet the situation.
In Halifax attempts have been made from time to time to meet this problem. We approached the minister with the request that something like 600 houses should be erected. This would be in addition to the 1,400 to 1,500 houses which had been erected in and around Halifax. In Canada since December 1, 1942, a total of 17,441 houses, 93 staff houses, 10 dining houses, and 32 special buildings such as administrative buildings and recreation centres have been erected by the government at a total cost of something like $70,000,000. With these figures before us we realize what a large undertaking this has been. When we consider the large number of units that have been erected and the small number of complaints that have been made, I think we must agree that the Minister of Munitions and Supply should be congratulated upon the able manner in which he and Wartime Housing Limited have carried out this project.
I do not know which set of figures is correct, but I have in my hand a copy of an article which appeared in the Canadian Editorial Digest and which gives the average cost of the houses erected to date throughout Canada as $1,959. For the province of Ontario the average cost was $1,927, and for the city of Hull, to which the hon. member for Mackenzie has referred so often, the average was $1,889, as against the figure of $2,869 which the hon. member quoted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is the hon. member reading from?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am giving the figures shown in the Canadian Editorial Digest, and I believe a magazine of this kind would make sure of its figures. It goes into the development of the whole scheme in a thorough, businesslike way; it states the number of houses erected and so on, and then gives the average cost. I am not going to say anything further on that point except that these figures certainly are quite different from those given by the hon. member for Mackenzie.
3848	COMMONS
War Appropriation

Supplies-Housing


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I sat quietly and listened to the hon. member, but I shall be pleased to answer his question.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the hon. member would believe the figures if he saw them in the contracts. I have them here, and the contract price is given as $2,705, according to a return brought down a year ago. I shall be glad to send them over to the hon. member, and I feel sure he will accept these figures.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member's word that the figures he has quoted were given in a return. I am simply stating the average cost of these homes throughout Canada, and particularly in the province of Ontario and the city of Hull. As a business man naturally I would want to go into these figures which the hon. member has kindly sent over to me, in order to see whether they cover simply the cost of construction or take in other items as well. Perhaps the hon. member for Mackenzie may not have gone into all the factors as closely as he might. Recently the hon. gentleman was good enough to pay a visit to the city of Halifax. I would not, of course, think he went there for political reasons at all, at a time such as this; but with all the publicity the hon. member has obtained through his criticism of Wartime Housing; in spite of the fact that he stayed in Halifax for a few days-and I hope he enjoyed himself while there-and the fact that he was going to speak there, I venture to suggest that he was not waited upon by a delegation of tenants from the wartime houses to lodge a protest. I would go farther and venture to suggest that he did not receive ten individual protests during the time he was in Halifax, or in fact that he did not receive three protests during his stay in that city. If I am correct in my assumptions; if he did not receive any protests following the erection of 1.500 homes in that city, I say the houses built under this scheme must be carrying out the purpose for which they were intended, namely, to house the war workers and others who were brought to Halifax for a particular purpose.
Naturally I am concerned about the situation in Halifax. I want to see more houses there; I think we need more houses, and I ask the minister to give serious consideration to the erection of more homes in that city. The situation that exists in Halifax to-day has been brought about by the fact that Halifax has become a national port, and there has been an influx of an additional twenty-five to thirty-five thousand people. The hon. member referred to the building of new slums.
[Mr. Xsnor.l
I doubt if any reasonable member who studied the lay-out of that new section, who saw the care that was taken, who looked into the general construction of the homes and observed the general surroundings, would say that we were building new slums in the construction of these wartime houses. I think his statement is a very unfair one to make, and I do not think it will help us in meeting the housing situation as we are endeavouring to do at the present time. I quite agree with the hon. member as to the desirability of permanent basements and solid walls; I emphasized those points when the city of Halifax made application for the additional 600 houses to which I have referred. I suggested that they should be of a little better type and should be constructed in sections of the city which would give a greater resale value when the time came to dispose of them. I believe if the houses could be of a better type, with permanent basements or with provision for the addition of permanent basements later on, not only would it add to the resale or salvage value of the houses, but it would give the people now ocupying them something permanent which they could call their own, thus helping to make them better citizens.
Then the hon. member referred to children kicking holes in the walls. Well, if he would examine the walls of these houses, as I have examined them on more than one occasion, he would not make that statement. A child could no more kick a hole in a wall of that type than in any other wall. The hon. member also said that the overhead is high. He did not elaborate on that point; he did not say what he meant by the overhead, whether it was overhead in connection with the operation or the upkeep. My information is to the contrary, that the overhead is particularly low, as it should be at the present time. We should not have any real depreciation or expenses in connection with repairs to these houses for some four or five years. I do not think the cost of upkeep is a bit higher on a percentage basis than in connection with any other type of construction. It is all very well for us to find fault with efforts of this * kind. We can all be critical, but it takes really constructive ability to plan a venture like this, running into $70,000,000. A few mistakes are bound to be made, perhaps in selecting the type of house, or something of that kind. Perhaps the hon. member had in mind something of a more permanent nature, but that could not be undertaken on this basis because the cost would have been very much greater.

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
Then the hon. member mentioned houses built with an investment of $750. That was under national housing. The people who are occupying these prefabricated houses are not in a position to make an initial payment of anything like $750 or $500 or even $350. They are temporary employees carrying on war work. No doubt Wartime Housing had that in mind when they built houses of this type to accommodate people of this kind. Even if some of these people had $750 in their [DOT] pockets or in savings accounts, I doubt whether they would want to invest it in houses in the section in which they are now living. So that I say the national housing scheme and the wartime housing development are entirely different. Personally I favour the national housing scheme for permanent homes, except that it should start at a lower figure. I am hopefully looking forward to the day when once again we shall have a measure operating in full force throughout the dominion, and when again we shall have an opportunity to invest and to build homes along the lines laid down by the national housing scheme.
Then the hon. member criticized the Minister of Munitions and Supply for not meeting his request to supply hon. members with a plan. I cannot recall the details, but if I remember correctly that was a plan which had not yet been approved or released. In the same breath the hon, member asked why Wartime Housing did not do the same as the national housing authorities had done, and encourage the people to send for plans. I believe the encouragement given by the national housing authorities was to select a plan which could be purchased for $10.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They had plenty of free ones.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: One could look at plan 10, 11 or 12, or whichever plan he wished, and then he would pay $10 to procure a copy of it. That is quite different from the idea expressed by the hon. member.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the hon. member suggest that the national housing authorities would not produce specifications for any member of the house?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am not suggesting anything. I am just stating the facts as they exist, and explaining away some of the misconceptions which might arise from the speech of the hon. member. I could say, "We will send to National Housing and procure a set of plans and specifications." We could not get them from Wartime Housing. They are
two different things, and they must be approached in a different way.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but I do not wish to lose the opportunity of saying a word respecting the situation in Halifax. Certain groups in that city have organized meetings and passed resolutions which have been sent to the minister. This action has been taken by the city council, and by other social agencies. The minister has given sympathetic consideration and kind attention to the requests made. Some time ago he met a deputation from Halifax, and asked how many houses were required. I believe he was told that at that time the city would require 600 houses. He said, "Well, go ahead with 400, and after you have completed them you may come back and we shall see what can be done about the other 200." The big problem in Halifax, one which no doubt exists in other places, is that the city could not quickly provide suitable sites to take care of 400 houses. The result is that to-day we have only 225 of those 400 houses. So that it is not altogether the fault of Wartime Housing Limited or the Minister of Munitions and Supply that we have not sufficient housing in Halifax.
I would ask that the minister give favourable consideration not only to the recently expressed request for the speeding up of the building of the remaining number of houses, but that fire protection for those houses should be arranged. Fire protection in Halifax involves a heavy additional outlay, owing to the increased population in the city, and the additional number of war-time buildings which have been erected. Then, more police protection is required. While I do not wish to introduce another factor for the consideration of Wartime Housing Limited, still I must urge that fire protection and police protection for these homes are matters closely connected with any building scheme, and I would ask the minister to consider the providing of a lump sum to defray expenses entailed by those increased responsibilities.
There is another subject, namely, that of health protection, which I would bring to the attention of the minister.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, nearly every war-time house at the present time has a victory garden. Throughout the country, wherever there are war-time
3850	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
houses, community houses have also been put in, and they have been of great help. The people who live in the war-time houses have had meetings in these community houses, and after their day's work the men who work sometimes from seven in the morning until six at night, and perhaps go back for a while to work after supper, and work even on Sundays, have in their spare time cultivated victory gardens. In Peterborough, the city which I represent, some families moved into one section on the first of June and immediately began to cultivate victory gardens. They planted their seeds, and last week were pleased to see that the potatoes were coming up and that the lettuce, radishes and carrots would be ready, too, perhaps this week. Then, without any notice whatsoever to these people, Wartime Housing comes along and planks sheds right down on these victory gardens, tramping the lettuce, radishes and potatoes right into the ground. That was a shame. I know the minister is not to blame for it, nor is the president of Wartime Housing, but somebody is to blame for it. The people who have tended these gardens are mad. A man who telephoned me about it started out by saying, " Now, Gordon, if these telephone wires burn up before I get this thing off my chest I want you to call around and see me on the way to your train." He asked me what I would do if I had been one of these men. I hesitate to say in this house what I would have done. These people are naturally very much upset over it all, and I feel that Wartime Housing, the president of which was here to-day, should see to it that these sheds are not put on these victory gardens without the consent of these people. It is worse than sacrilege to tramp down a man's garden after he has spent hours and hours digging and cultivating it; it is just as bad as tramping on a grave, if not worse. I have no criticism of Wartime Housing. I know that in Peterborough we simply had to have war-time houses or some other kind of housing. We would, of course, have preferred permanent houses to be built under National Housing, but we were given to understand that these houses put up under the war-time scheme would be moved or torn down within six months after the war or as soon as possible thereafter. I hope that will happen.
I also hope that in the future Wartime Housing will not put their houses in restricted districts, because that always causes friction and hard feeling not only toward Wartime Housing but toward the war effort in general.
I have here a letter in regard to putting these sheds on the victory gardens which I
fMr. G. K. Fraser.l
wish to read. It was addressed to me and is dated June 20. It states:
I have been instructed to write to you regarding the practice of the Wartime Houses, Limited, in erecting outsheds in the rear of their houses. In many cases these sheds have been erected in exactly the same spot as the occupant of the house has planted his garden.
These people were evidently not advised that these buildings -were to be set up and naturally -vent ahead with the planting of their victory garden as requested to do so through the newspapers and other publicity. It seems too bad to have these gardens destroyed in this manner especially at a time when the production of food is so urgent and we -wish to protest strongly this action of the part of the Wartime Houses, Limited.
This action on the part of the Wartime Houses, Limited, certainly does not lend itself to encouraging these people to go ahead with their gardens.
Yours very truly,
G. G. Torrence,
Secretary-Treasurer, Peterborough, Branch No. 52, Canadian Legion.
Another point that I want to mention in regard to Wartime Housing is that there have been requests from time to time from soldiers' families to occupy these houses. I hope that in the future soldiers' families will not have to go through as much red tape as they have had to do in the past to occupy one of these houses.
Another thing that has come to my attention is the protest that has been made by municipalities right across this country in regard to the smallness of the allowance which the government makes to the municipalities for taxes on wartime housing. It is absolutely too small an allowance to provide for police protection, schools, supply of water and other services which the cities give. Wartime Housing and the government should see to it that in the future the municipalities are reimbursed a little more adequately than they have been in the past.
In regard to Wartime Housing staff houses, I had a return brought down on April 8 of this year. The second question which was answered by the return was as follows:
On what terms are they (the concessionaires) allowed the use of the staff houses?
That is the concessionaires who cater to the different Wartime Housing staff houses in Canada. The answer to that question was:
The agreement between concessionaires and Wartime Housing Limited is generally to the effect that for a fee of 5 per cent of the gross income the concessionaires operate the cafeterias for the account of Wartime Housing Limited. The concessionaire is limited to a maximum fee

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
of 5 per cent. Out of this fee, he must supply the necessary skilled staff, supervision and the services of his head office. . . .
The head office might be in Torqnto, where I believe it is. That is all he has to supply, just his own head office, except perhaps one man. The answer goes on:
There have been variations of the foregoing agreement, namely, at the Prince Rupert and Hamilton staff houses, but these are being standardized in accordance with the above.
Question 3 was this:
Do they pay for (a) breakage and repairs to equipment; (b) wages of the dining room and kitchen staff?
The answer to the first part of the question was:
(a)	The breakage and repairs to equipment are for the account of' Wartime Housing Limited as part of the cost of food service.
In other words, the concessionaire does not have to pay for breakages, and of course does not have to supply kitchen utensils or anything else. The rest of the answer was:
(b)	The wages of the dining room and kitchen staff are for the account of Wartime Housing Limited as part of the cost of food preparation.
In other words, the concessionaire does not have to pay anything at all toward the upkeep of the staff house diningroom. I would ask the minister to explain why the concessionaires were allowed to cater on a contract like that. I understand that in Peterborough alone there is a loss of $5,000 a month.
Another return I got shows the number of men or women occupying these different staff houses. In Peterborough, on December 31 of last year

I do not think the figures have changed since then-there were, according to this return, only ninety people in this staff house.
I suggested when we were on the army estimates that perhaps staff houses could be used for military hospitals. I think it would be wise if that could be done.
I have here another return, dated May 14, 1943, regarding rates charged for meals, single rooms, double rooms, et cetera, in staff houses; and Fort William, has preference over all other places in Canada. In Fort William you can get a single room for $12 or a double room for $10 a month. The lowest rate at any other staff house in Canada is $3.50 a week for a single room or $2.50 for a double room. Why is Fort William given preference in the matter of rates? In many instances these rates are too high, and that is why men will not occupy rooms in the staff houses.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not believe we have yet had particulars as to the distribution of the amount-slightly over thirty million
dollars-expended over the past year in the different provinces. I raise this matter also with a view of placing before the minister a situation which prevails in the town of Davidson, Saskatchewan, within my own constituency. About a year or so ago an airport and elementary school were established there. The result is that housing is almost impossible to get for those who are attached to the staff or connected with the development. It is difficult for private individuals to build to-day, for the reason that they are hampered under the regulations. I ask the minister at this time to consider our situation. I would have done so by letter but for the fact that I received this letter to-day and thought the opportunity offered itself at this time to place the matter before him. In various places in Saskatchewan there is a decided shortage of houses and housing accommodation for those connected with the airport. I ask that consideration be given to the erection of some wartime houses in that province.
There is another matter I wish to draw to the attention of the minister. To-day the purpose of government departments should be as far as possible to reduce unnecessary expenditures to the minimum. The Department of Munitions and Supply has the full personnel and machinery necessary to operate the wartime housing plan; yet a new body has been set up in connection with housing; it was established on April 1 and has been materially extended as from June 4 of this year. The relevant order in council is P.C. 4579, and it gives the Minister of Finance the power to relieve the housing situation in the city of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Dominion of Canada, particularly in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria. It gives the Minister of Finance power to acquire by way of lease from the owners thereof not more than forty suitable dwellings located in the city of Ottawa for the purpose of converting the buildings into multiple housing units. It gives the minister pow'er in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria to acquire not more than fifty suitable buildings for the purpose of converting the said buildings into multiple housing units, the terms of the lease to be a period of five years subject to termination within a period of one month at any time prior to the lapse of the said period. Under that scheme, according to a press announcement of June 7 issuing from Ottawa-
. . . several millions may be spent converting large old houses into four and five family dwellings, with plans in many cases by private architects and work by established builders and general contractors.
3852	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
This news item goes on to say:
Fifty houses will be converted at $250,000 at Vancouver-Vic tori a with a Vancouver office to be opened at once, private architects retained variously for sketch planning, preparation of working drawings and possibly in certain specifications, and contracts arranged.
The plan is to be expanded to embrace Toronto, Montreal and other cities.
Now, not only have we Wartime Housing Limited under the Department of Munitions and Supply, but a new set-up has taken place, beginning in April and extended in June, under the Department of Finance, which will mean a duplication of staffs in the various cities affected and an increase in the numbers of those employed in order to furnish war-time housing, when we already have a branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply able to do this work.
I suggest that the information placed before us in the estimates for Wartime Housing does not tell the full story; it makes no reference at all to this new scheme under the Depart ment of Finance.
What is very serious in connection with this latter scheme is that, while parliament was sitting, an order in council was passed without submission to parliament, empowering a setting up by the Department of Finance of a new department to deal with war-time housing or one phase of it and to expend at the present time half a million dollars and it will increase; according to the news item it may run into several millions. Why, in setting up this new type of war-time housing, was it necessary to go outside the minister's department and establish another staff with a new personnel? All these things mean extra expenditure, and thousands of dollars could have been saved by the simple expedient of bringing this phase of war-time housing under the present administration. There is no justification for the action that was taken when man-power is as limited as it is and the money is needed for the war effort. I should be glad if the minister would give an explanation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I should intervene at this stage to answer some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has never appreciated the difference between the national housing plan and Wartime Housing Limited, the purpose of each and how each operates; otherwise I do not think he would be constantly comparing the two plans. The national housing plan has been in existence for a good many years; I believe it was put in workable form about 1936 and it has been carrying on since then. Under that plan a private owner desiring to build a home can 
obtain certain financial assistance from the dominion government; or as my hon. friend says, partly from loan companies and partly from the dominion government. The loan companies take a certain part of the risk and the dominion government a certain' part; the private owner makes a certain, original investment, and the house is built by the owner. That opportunity has at all times been available to those desiring to build and own their own homes. Right through the war it has been, and is to-day, available, as it has been for several years. Nothing that Wartime Housing has done interferes in any way with the national plan, but it takes care of a different need for housing.
In comparing the administration of the two plans, the hon. member is again comparing two different things. The national housing administration is in the position of a mortgage company. It is not responsible for building the house, but is simply responsible for the loan making sure that the house is a desirable house on which to place a loan, and in seeing thfct the details of the loan are worked out. On the other hand, Wartime Housing Limited actually builds houses. It acquires land, and arranges for the sewer, the water and all the facilities; it buys the material and builds the houses, and after a house is built it operates the housing project. National Housing is not responsible for collecting rents or anything of that sort. It must, of course, intervene if the payments on the house are not made over a period, but it is not its job to go each month and collect rents and in general to administer the property, whereas, in the case of Wartime Housing, its job is to collect rents and generally to administer the project. So that in comparing the cost of administration my hon. friend is comparing two totally different operations, operations that are not comparable in any way.
As to the job of Wartime Housing, hon. members know that Canada has been building and enlarging her industrial structure. Large plants have been built in certain communities and there has been a considerable influx of population to these communities. The shift in population is probably temporary, at least in part. There has been a temporary need for housing in order to permit these factories to operate. The function of Wartime Housing, and the only function for which it was originally designed, is to enable the factories and war plants to function by providing houses for the men and women brought in to be employed in these plants.
Wartime Housing does not enter a community unless there is need for industrial workers in excess of those that can be housed in

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
the community. I would also point out that the location of houses in the community is governed by the proximity to the plant which the houses are intended to serve. It is not the function of Wartime Housing to go in for elaborate schemes of improving cities.
I think Wartime Housing has carried out that job well. Certainly no war-time housing community can be properly called a slum. The houses are as well located as proximity to the plant will permit. The houses are well spaced, playground accommodation is afforded; the houses are attractive in appearance. It has been stated here to-day that the tenants occupying these houses take pride in their property. They go in for victory gardens and for community projects of one kind or another for the betterment of the war-time housing centre in which they live. Here again, I may say, these houses were put up to serve a wartime need. It is anticipated that in most cases the need will pass and that the houses can be dismantled and disposed of, perhaps to be moved into other areas. Therefore they have not been built with a view to permanence. However, they have served and are serving a war-time need. The tenants are satisfied tenants, and to me it is always a pleasure to drop into a war-time development and talk with those resident there.
The hon. member for Mackenzie has given rather an Alice in Wonderland picture of the costs of these developments. He seems to be wholly confused by the returns he obtained. I have not been able to detect that any of the returns were in error, but he seems entirely confused in attempting to interpret the information given in the returns.
There are two items of cost in building a war-time housing development; one is the cost of the houses and the other is the cost of the streets, water-mains, sidewalks and improvements that go with the houses. In building war-time housing, it has been our policy not to place additional burdens on the community in which the houses are built. It is the policy to build and pay for the local improvements incidental to projects of this kind.
We are building houses in considerable numbers. If we w'ere building one., two or three or ten houses, it would be possible to find lots of existing improvements and build on those lots without considerable expenditure for development. In building 100 or 200 houses, that is not possible. The problem therefore is to buy an area of farm land or undeveloped land and to build streets, sidewalks and sewers as part of the project. To March 31 last Wartime Housing had spent some $48,000,000, and of that amount $10,000,000 was for improvements to property.


Mr. TUSTIN:: How many houses have been built altogether?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I put that on Hansard the other day: 15,802 have been built in seventy municipalities. The average cost of all the houses that have been built was $2,229.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would that include the sidewalks?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The average cost of
the two-bedroom houses alone was $1,959.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What was the average cost of the services for all houses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Approximately $500 per
house. In connection with the Hull project, the costs of the houses according to the contracts, and as taken from the auditor's statement of Wartime Housing Limited, is as has been stated; for the two^bedroom houses, it was $1,889.13, and for the four-bedroom houses, $2,93987. The remainder of the cost was made up by the indirect items to which I have referred, such as sewers, streets and grading.


Mr. BOUCHER:: What would be the average cost of those per house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know. I brought
down the total cost of the project, and my hon. friend can figure that out for himself.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The return brought
down on May 17 gives the cost of the Hull houses as $2,750 and $3,935.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those figures would include
improvements and services, would they not?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister mentioned $500 for those.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that was the average
for Canada. My hon. friend has the information; perhaps he can give it to the hon. member for Carleton.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: According to the contract which was brought down on May 13 a year ago, the cost per unit for the first 100 houses was $2,705. What happened to that particular contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has asked
for returns at different times, and he now asks me to reconcile them. He has the returns and I have not. I have given him the average cost of the houses in Hull, obtained after the project was finished and all the costs were in. I ask him why he worries about it anyway. He has the information; let him use it. My hon. friend referred to the salary paid to Mr. Goggin who was engaged in the
3854	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
early days of Wartime Housing at a salary of $10,000 a year. Since that time the activities of Wartime Housing expanded greatly; it was felt that Mr. Goggin's responsibilities should be extended to that of managing director, and his salary was raised to $12,000 a year. When we engaged Mr. Goggin he had had a great deal of experience in connection with housing projects in the United States. As we all know, he is a Canadian; he was educated in Canada, but he has worked in the United States for a number of years on housing projects. He is an able executive, and I think the success of Wartime Housing is in no small way due to the background of experience that he brought with him. I know something about Mr. Goggin's past experience, and I can say that the salary he has obtained from Wartime Housing has been considerably smaller than any salary he received in the last twenty years.
In the expenditure of government money for any purpose supervision is required, and it has been the policy of Wartime Housing to engage a local architect to supervise the building of houses in his area and to attend to all matters that might come up in a building project of this kind. The fee paid to the architect is a modest one. There is a standard fee of one per cent of the cost of the project up to $1,000,000, and if the cost is more than that, the fee is cut back to three-quarters of one per cent. I think anyone experienced in building will appreciate that these are low fees.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: For
that fee they supervise the building?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: While
the fee is low, they would have little work to do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not so sure of that. There is a good deal of work to be done in connection with a housing project. I have never known one to flow along just like a mill-stream even though there is a sameness of design.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is mass construction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But the materials have to be assembled, checked and approved. I think there is plenty of work. My hon. friend referred to North Vancouver and referred to the answer to questions which appear on page 951 of Hansard. This is a good example of the distorted cost that is obtained when such items as clearing, stumping, road building, sewers and water mains are mixed up

with the housing cost. The contract unit price for the houses in North Vancouver is $1,688 for the two-bedroom house and $2,177 for the four-bedroom house. The incomplete average cost of the houses, including all the things referred to in the question, is $2,996.97. That is the cost, including stumping, clearing, sewers and grading. I think I have pretty well covered the ground traversed by the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am still not satisfied with the Hull costs. On March 4 answers are given to some questions which were asked by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) with regard to the cost per unit of the dwellings erected in Hull. The answers given were $2,939.87 for the one project and $2,941.10 for the other. The same answers were given on the same day to some questions I had asked. My questions were:
1.	What was the per unit price of each of the 100 houses built by Wrartime Housing Limited in Hull?
2.	What was the per unit price of the group of 50 houses built in Hull?
The answers were:
1.	$2,939.87.
2.	$2,941.10.
I have the contract here. The contract, without saying anything about the sewers or the streets, gives the price of $2,705 for the original group of 100 houses. I do not see how the minister can reconcile these figures with those he has just given, because in addition to these costs you have approximately $700 for sewers and other services in Hull.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, $760 per house. Let me explain. If my hon. friend will take the average cost of the houses that I gave him and add the $760, he will get $2,941.10, I think. In any event, if he will take the total expenditure in Hull and divide it by the number of houses, he will get that figure.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; I will not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then if he will come down to my office, I will explain it to him. As I say, he takes an Alice in Wonderland look at figures and gets himself all worked up, but we will explain any figures we have given.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I submit that these are not Alice in Wonderland stories; they are from official documents. The minister has the president of Wartime Housing before him, and I think this is the time to get the record straight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give the figures in great detail; I have all the information now, exactly what each house cost. The thing that has

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
perhaps thrown out the figure is the item of 843,500; is that what the hon. member is worrying about?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No. I have the total as brought down in this return. For the whole project the cost given here is $530,125; that is what it has cost the taxpayers of this country to build these houses. According to the return, the average cost was $2,750 in one case and $3,935 in the other. There is a discrepancy of S58,000 in the minister's own figures, which I wish he would explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can explain $43,000 of it. Certain work was carried out at Hull which was later transferred to Ottawa.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That still leaves


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have the entire file here, and if my hon. friend cares to spend a quiet Sabbath studying it, I shall be glad to let him do so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But I think this committee deserves something better. The president of Wartime Housing gave a statement to the press in which he contradicted the figures brought down in this house by the minister. Then the only reply he made to the request which appeared in News was:
Pigott Construction Company Limited Engineers and Contractors Pigott Building Hamilton, Canada
63 Wellesley St.,
Toronto,
Ontario.
Dear Sirs:
Kindly cancel my subscription to News.
Yours very truly,
Joseph M. Pigott.
That is not a good reply to charges as serious as these.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let my hon. friend tell me the charge, if there is one, and we will get to the bottom of it. If my hon. friend makes a charge he stakes his seat on being able to prove it. Now tell us the charges.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The charges are that certain information was given in the house regarding the cost of the houses in Hull, and the information brought down at that time does not correspond with the information given to the press by the president of Wartime Housing or with the information that has been given to the committee to-night by the minister. I submit that since I spoke this afternoon the minister has had plenty of time
to examine this sessional paper which gives the costs in connection with the project in Hull. To tell me to come to his office some Sunday afternoon is not good enough. Now is the time; the committee should have full information. I have this return; I shall be glad to send it to the minister if he has not seen it, because the average cost given here for the fifty houses built by day labour in Hull is $3,935, and even if you subtract $760 from that total you do not get the figure the minister mentioned a short time ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have the figures for the Hull project in great detail. I shall be glad to put them on Hansard or to give them to my hon. friend, but I cannot sit down now and try to run over the tangled course my hon. friend has been following in connection with this Hull project in the years he has been talking about it. All I can do is give him the accurate information, which balances out to the last cent, and which has been certified by auditors as the correct Hull cost. I shall be glad to give him that and we can start all over again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But am I to believe the information the minister now places on record?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend suggesting that he does not believe it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not know which to believe. The information we are getting to-night is not the information that was brought down in this return.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Serious charges are being made here. Supposing we refer the whole matter to the public accounts committee. My hon. friend has made charges, and if he cannot substantiate them his course is clear. If he can substantiate his charges my course is clear.


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps, to pour a little oil on the troubled waters, I might ask the minister to consider a return which was brought down on March 4 of this year, in reply to a number of questions by the hon. member for Lincoln, in which the following information was as to the additional charges in connection with the Hull project:
(a)	Land acquisition	$ 2,197 50
(b)	Installation and improvements to
sewer and water services	 90,560	01
(c)	Grading, paving or surfacing
streets	 19,079	21
(d)	Construction costs per unit:
Hull No. 1	
2,939	87Hull No. 2	
2,941	10(e)	Landscaping	
2,372	49(f)	Installation of electricity on the
street allowances and right of
way	 1,485	52
(g)	Connecting of electricity to
dwelling per unit	 9	90

3856	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
These costs would not bear out the statement made by the minister as to the average cost per unit in Hull; yet this was a return brought down for the hon. member for Lincoln on March 4 of this year. The committee deserves an explanation of these figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is that there were forty houses built as part of the Hull project which were actually in Ottawa as part of a research development. There was work done at Hull; the costs went in with the Hull costs and were later transferred to Ottawa. I think the mix-up occurs in connection with those forty houses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were 150 houses out of the total project in Ottawa?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there were 150 in Hull alone.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the total cost of both projects was $530,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I do not think we need waste any more time on this. If anyone has any doubt about it, or if anyone says there is anything wrong, I will demand an investigation by the public accounts committee, as is my right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to know if the actual cost of this project was $530,000, including the local improvements, the clearing and everything?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a definite figure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To proceed, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Davenport was discussing the housing situation in Toronto. Again I would remind hon. members that the purpose of Wartime Housing Limited is to provide accommodation for men and women working in war industries. We have built about a thousand houses in the environments of Toronto near industries which were not properly served with houses. We have not built wartime houses within the city limits of Toronto, and I may add that we have never had an application from any plant in the city of Toronto for wartime houses. There is a difference of opinion in the city council itself as to whether the city of Toronto has adequate housing to meet war needs, or whether it has not. Representations have been made to the effect that it had, and to the effect that it had not, by those in the city administration. However, we have satisfied ourselves that there is sufficient housing in Toronto to meet the requirements of war industries. Therefore, if there is a

housing problem, it is a problem having to do with civilian needs, namely, non-war needs; and therefore accordingly it does not come within the purview of Wartime Housing Limited.
My hon. friend, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) has spoken of the projects in* that city. Halifax has been one of our greatest problems, owing to the congestion which has arisen from the war activities in that area. Up to the present time there has been spent on housing in Halifax the sum of $7,973,016. This has provided 1,464 houses, fourteen large staff houses, two dining halls and other miscellaneous buildings.
Then, the hon. member has mentioned fire protection. Wartime Housing Limited maintains a separate branch which is constantly engaged in fire protection, not only from the point of view of equipment, but in the use to which such equipment is put, and in the fire drills which must accompany it. This must be kept up to schedule.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) has mentioned the situation in his city. The outhouses to which he referred were, I may say, coal sheds, and not the outhouses which are sometimes found in connection with more primitive dwellings.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
referred to sheds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is unfortunate if the sheds were brought on the property, and set up in a way which interfered with victory gardens. However, the hon. member will appreciate that that is not the policy of Wartime Housing Limited, but rather just one of those things which happen when work is being carried out. I speak for Wartime Housing Limited and the government in expressing to the tenants regret that this should have happened.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: One
of the officials of Wartime Housing said the sheds were much more important than the victory gardens.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say that the time to
put in coal is when coal can be obtained, particularly in this year 1943. If a tenant had been unable to put in coal on account of the fact that he did not have a coal shed perhaps the repercussions might have been more serious than those we have heard this evening.
The hon. member for Peterborough West has referred to staff houses. This staff house has been one, of all the staff houses we have built, that has not had a high ratio of occupancy. When representations were made that the staff house was necessary, we were given

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
a list of some 450 applications from those who could not obtain other accommodation. By the time the staff house was built, those applications were no longer current. The Canadian General Electric company explained that the men were needed then, and are needed to-day. And if they could obtain those men needed in the plant, the staff house would ibe filled.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They can take 600 on to-day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There seems to be a
tight situation in Peterborough. I know the Quaker Oats plant in that city is closed down to-day for no other reason than that the operators are not available to operate the plant; at least I have been told that in the last twenty-four hours. That is the situation, apparently. I do not know whether there is anything wrong with the city my hon. friend represents, that employees will not go there. But if employees will not go there, we can build accommodation there all we like, and it will not be filled.
However, the staff house mentioned by the hon. member is not typical. Occupancy of staff houses across the country, including Peterborough, stands at seventy-seven per cent. That is quite good for accommodation of that kind.
The hon. member has spoken of catering privileges. The difficulty is to find someone who is experienced and can do the job, who will be responsible for the catering. The only difficulty we have with staff houses is in connection with the catering. We had a situation in Prince Rupert where the caterer is a Chinaman, and the shipyard workers went on strike because they did not like his food. It is a problem to obtain first-class food for commissaries of that kind. There are organizations which specialize in organizing catering. We do pay them as the value of their services a fee of five per cent of the turnover in food. We think the fee is justified. It is difficult to obtain responsible people to do the work. There is no rush for that kind of business, even at that fee. If the work can be well done for that fee, I think Wartime Housing Limited is justified in paying it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I asked about taking houses down after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will certainly take the houses down, if the city of Peterborough will permit us. Our fear is that they will be just as badly needed after the war as
72537-244i
they are to-day. However, the intention today is to remove the houses as fast as they can be removed, or the local housing situation will permit us to remove them.
Then, the hon. member for Peterborough West mentioned that the charges for accommodation in staff houses'at Fort William are slightly lower than in eastern centres. The reason is that the local cost of that type of accommodation is lower in Fort William than in eastern cities. The rate was set by the local Y.M.C.A., an organization which early in the war became responsible for organizing that type of accommodation. When the rates were fixed in the staff house they were fixed on the basis that had been established by the Y.M.C.A. for single accommodation of that kind. The president of Wartime Housing Limited tells me that they were set higher, and had to be reduced, owing to the fact that they were out of line with similar accommodation in private hands. That is to say, they were originally set at the same rate as applied in the east; and because they were out of line the rates were reduced to the scale mentioned by the hon. member.


Mr. McIVOR:: I think I know something
about housing in Fort William. There are three types of people in that city who have a grievance against Wartime Housing Limited. There is the odd individual who does not think the government can do anything right. I think those people are more often wrong than the government. Then, there are the real estate agents who believe that rents, generally, throughout Fort William are too low. And, comparing rentals in that city with those in other places, I believe there is some justification in this suggestion. Then, there are the owners of houses who think rents are too low.
But when I saw the minister to-night close his fist and say that if any charge can be made let it be brought before the public accounts committee,, I thought he was absolutely right. I knew conditions in Fort William and district before these houses were built.	I saw a good many places where,
instead of one extra house there should have been several. I went into one home where there was a father, a mother, seven children and two kittens, all living in two small rooms. A great many people in Fort William had to open up their cellars and put up curtains to make those cellars habitable for people who came in from Saskatchewan and Alberta and who could not bring their houses with them. They could not live in Fort William without a roof of some kind over their heads.
3858	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
I have visited a great many of these wartime homes, especially after working hours, when I was looking for something else perhaps, and I have yet to hear one complaint from any father or mother who has occupied one of these houses. I oan go into these homes without any pre-announcement and I find them neat and tidy. When the minister did close his fist to-night I think he had great justification. I do not care Who brings the charge against the usefulness of these houses; I say they have 'been a great blessing to us. We have street after street filled with them, and I wish we had a great many more of them. We had an Ottawa man living in one of these houses. I might mention the oapacity in which he came to Fort William; it was as a government expert. He lived in one of these houses. He had been accustomed to a good house in the city of Ottawa or close by, and he said, after living in one of these houses, "Anybody who will complain of them is extremely hard to please". I certainly agree with him. I think those who are finding fault with these houses and are trying to prove, that they are not needed, not comfortable or not up to standard will have a hard time in proving it.


Mr. GILLIS:: That was a most elucidating speech.
While the minister is on the question of housing accommodation and taking Canada city by city, I should like to direct his attention to conditions in the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia. I know that for the last two and a half years the city council have consistently, at least once a month, made representations to Wartime Housing for the establishment of some houses under that plan in Sydney. I know personally that they are needed. The minister knows that there has been a large expansion in the steel plant there. A new steel plate mill has been established, employing 700 men. Other large projects are being carried on in that area, all of which will call for housing, and there has not been a house built in that city under Wartime Housing. I do not suppose there is any city in Canada more congested than Sydney. There is such a terrific influx of military personnel that it is impossible to get a house. Does the minister think there is any prospect of getting a few houses put up in Sydney under Wartime Housing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say again that the function of Wartime Housing is to provide sufficient housing so that industry oan function. Industry is functioning in Sydney. We have never had an application from any industrial plant there for additional housing. I

know there is a social problem there, that houses are needed for other purposes than war industry, but the remedy is not the function of Wartime Housing. There are other agencies for that-National Housing, for instance. We have made repeated studies of that situation. I have never known industry to be at all backward in applying for houses where houses are needed to permit war industry to function, but as I said we have never had an application from Sydney for war-time housing.


Clarence Gillis: When it is said that the employees of industry in Sydney are well housed, that is not. correct. Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that those who are operating industry in Sydney are also in the housing busihess and have been for the past thirty years, and they do not want Wartime Housing there. They want that field for themselves at some time in the future. The hon. member for Fort William spoke of people in Fort William living nine people to two rooms. I will show him in Sydney six or seven people living in one room. These are people who are employed at the steel plant or the plate mill. Others drive in to Sydney to work from twenty or thirty miles outside the city and travel the same distance back again at night in order to work in war industry, which is being greatly extended in Sydney.
When Wartime Housing made an examination of the necessity for housing in that city those who made the examination left much to be desired. I have already read into the record letters that I received from members of the city council, including the mayor and the city clerk, who point out that when the representative of Wartime Housing went in there to make an. investigation the city council was not consulted. The general manager of the iron and steel company had a little session with the investigator at the yacht club. The investigator spent a very few hours in Sydney to do a job that should have taken at least a week. That was a year ago. At the mayors' convention in Ottawa a few weeks ago the mayor of the city of Sydney gave quite a description of the housing requirements for war purposes in that city. The situation is bad from all angles, and I want to tell the minister that if he is going to depend upon those who operate industry in that section to recommend wartime housing there, they will never do so because it would mean competition in their own business. They want to carry on with that shack community building in which they have been engaged for the last thirty years.

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing


Mr. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: It is not my purpose to take any great length of time in the matter of wartime housing. The housing shortage in the city of Victoria and at other places on the island is acute, and there is very little likelihood of its becoming less and every likelihood of its becoming more acute as the months go by. We hope that in the not too distant future we shall be free of war in Europe and that large forces will then be sent to the Pacific coast, but that will make our housing problem more acute than it is at the present time.
We have had some wartime houses built in the city of Victoria and in the municipality of Esquimalt. I have heard no great complaint about them. In fact, I think they are very comfortable. No one can say they are particularly beautiful. A couple of hundred houses all built within a range in cost of $100 or thereabouts cannot by any stretch of the imagination be attractive or beautiful. We would not want to use them after the war is over, but they are to-day doing the job they were intended to do. They are furnishing comfortable accommodation for people working in the shipyards, and they have been put up at a reasonable cost.
At the same time I think the government might well follow another idea in connection with war-time housing and save themselves some money. I notice it was said to-night that the average cost of these houses is in the neighbourhood of $2,750, perhaps to be done away with when the war is over. I think the government will be lucky if they ever get fifty per cent of the value put into these houses. In other words, they will have lost per house a minimum of $1,375. I maintain that this applies particularly to the city of Victoria. I know it would not apply to many other places, particularly smaller communities where larger numbers of men are required in the munitions industry. But if encouragement were given to the private owner to build his house, even to the extent of allowing him what would be the extra cost, estimated at about twenty per cent, of building that house-in other words a $4,000 house would cost the government $800 if they allowed the extra cost of the bonus-the government would save, at that, $575 on a unit if they allowed the owners of the houses themselves to build. When I was home at Easter time I tried to organize or assist others to organize in our own community a self-help programme both for the cutting of wood and for the building of houses; but in every case, when we would go to talk to the owner about the building of a house, he would say, "I cannot afford to do it to-day, because immediately this war is
over I shall have to write off twenty to twenty-five per cent of the cost of building the house." There it would stop, and you could not argue against that. At the same time we have applications to the extent of around 100 houses from people who want to build in Victoria to-day, and who under this scheme would go ahead and build them, and in so doing would save the government another 100 houses under Wartime Housing. I am sure that 100 houses will not give us anywhere near the accommodation we require in that city, and need will continue to grow.
I offer this as a suggestion. It is not a criticism. I think the minister and Wartime Housing Limited have done a good job. Our people are not 100 per cent behind it, because we do not like the possibility of seeing houses demolished which may be of some use when the war is over, nor do we want to face the possibility that houses which are not up to standard will be left in that community.


Ernest George Hansell: I have no brief this evening for any particular city. I know nothing of the intricacies and the figures of the housing situation in Hull; I know only what I see, namely, that Hull needs some new houses. I do not know the situation in Sydney or Victoria or anywhere else as far as housing conditions are concerned, except that there is a congestion in the larger places. But I would ask the minister a question which perhaps is much broader than any we have discussed along this line. We are asked this evening to vote $30 millions to housing development. A gool deal of that will be for labour, of course, and I fancy about $20 millions or less will represent materials. What effect will this have on the lumber supply in Canada? Perhaps I should put it in this way. There has been a shortage of lumber. Will the minister make some statement to the committee with respect to whether or not there is an easing up of that shortage?
While I am on my feet might I say that a little more attention should be paid to the proper distribution of our lumber supply. I have no large cities in my territory, but I know of many communities where people could not purchase a board; it was not to be had; the lumber concerns did not have a board for almost a year. I do not know whether they have any yet. If a person wanted a piece of flooring to do a little repair work, he could not get it; all he could get was some dimension lumber, 2 inches by 4 inches, or something of that kind.
While the minister is thinking that over- I should like him to answer the question because it is of national concern-may I ask if any large quantity of lumber is being exported? It seems to me that when there is a
3860	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
lumber shortage there should be some control over the export of lumber. Again, is it possible for us to import any lumber? If there is a shortage, I think we should import if that be possible.
Also, would the minister enlighten the committee as to the effectiveness of price control of lumber in this country? I have not gone into the matter to any great extent; I go only by the little experience I have had, and that is that if you buy a few boards in a lumber yard to-day you pay two prices, compared with what you used to pay a year or a couple of years ago.
There is the situation. While we fire talking about housing projects and so forth, there is that wider aspect of the supply of lumber throughout Canada, its equitable distribution and its proper price. Would the minister enlighten the committee on these matters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To answer the last question first: there is no great easing up in the lumber situation. We have tried to make available lumber for low-cost housing, either under the National Housing Act or under the Wartime Housing projects. This has had quite a high priority, in fact just after direct military uses.
I cannot say how effectively the price ceiling is enforced. We enforce it strictly against producers of lumber. How strictly it can be enforced against the retailers I do not know; but if my hon. friend knows of a departure from the prices, I think it is his duty to report it to the enforcement officers, by whom an investigation can be made and the situation further examined.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not the whole position in respect of lumber greatly accentuated and intensified by reason of the fact that there is no price ceiling across the line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is the whole trouble.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a very great difficulty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that
position were straightened out, there would be no great difficulty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite. But as my hon. friend knows, supplies are very small, and we are stretching our resources very tight.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for a break-down by provinces of the expenditure under Wartime Housing. I have said several times that we are not running the war by provinces; we are

running the war as we can get the best results from all Canada, but I do not mind giving him a break-down by provinces if he wishes it. The expenditure by provinces has been:	Nova Scotia, $8,969,583.91; Ontario,
$25,659,068.92; British Columbia, $4,833,953.21; Saskatchewan, $140,52251; Quebec, $7,986,165.64; New Brunswick, $1,367,595A9.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: Alberta?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None in Alberta; Manitoba, zero.
As regards Davidson, Saskatchewan, the purpose of Wartime Housing is to provide houses to permit war industry to function. There is no war industry in Davidson, Saskatchewan. So far as the air training plan is concerned, the air force builds such housing as is required there by reason of air training and, if others go in, they must be satisfied with the accommodation they find there. There is no reason for them to be there, as far as the air training plan is concerned, and certainly there is no job for Wartime Housing. It would be entirely outside its field if it attempted to provide for that sort of requirement. As regards the conversion scheme, that is a matter which has nothing to do with war industries or the functions of Wartime Housing Limited.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is, the conversion of large buildings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The real property administrator is an officer of the Department of Finance, and he has found it possible to relieve certain situations by leasing large houses and converting them into suites and small apartments. This is being tried on a limited scale in Toronto and Ottawa and it may be expanded to include other cities. It is not at all parallel with the work of Wartime Housing. My hon. friend suggests that the organization of Wartime Housing could handle the work. It is different work. Wartime Housing produces a large number of houses on a mass-production basis. Altering old houses and converting them into small suites is an individual problem, that requires individual study which is best done by a local architect. If we are to have a conversion plan, I think it is best handled in the manner in which it is handled now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many war-time housing units are occupied by the families of service people? In Halifax a few houses have been made available for the families of men in the services. How many such houses are there in different parts of Canada?

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing


Clarence Decatur Howe: War-time houses were built for industrial workers, but there have been local problems having to do with the housing of the families of soldiers overseas. That problem is, of course, a municipal concern, but it is a difficult problem, and certainly the families of men overseas are entitled to preferred treatment as far as housing is concerned. In an effort to cooperate in solving the problem, Wartime Housing Limited has made available to the city authorities, where that problem is a factor, certain houses built in those cities for industrial workers. They have been turned over to the city for administration to take care of cases of that kind. In all we have turned over 200 houses for that purpose. The houses are turned over to the municipality, and the municipality is responsible to Wartime Housing Limited for the renting of the houses. The municipality disposes of the houses to the families of soldiers overseas as it may decide.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the estimates of the department for naval services were before the committee I discussed the question of having some houses built for the families of men in the naval service. In Halifax and Esquimalt particularly there has been a large increase in the population by reason of the influx of people from the central parts of Canada who have been compelled to go to the coast. Their families will be there for the duration. In the United States a great many houses have been built for the families of such men serving with the navy, and it seems to me that favourable consideration should be given to the question of providing increased accommodation in those centres where the families of men in the naval service will be located for the duration. Some consideration might be given to increasing the number of 200 which the minister mentioned, so that more provision might be made available in the more congested areas. .


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the navy as well as in
the air force, it is not regarded as entirely necessary that the families should go to war with the husbands. The husbands go there for active service, and it is intended that their wives should stay where they were before the men jodned up. I do not think it would be good government policy to provide housing so that every wife could go wherever her husband is stationed on active duty.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is it the policy of the
government to discourage wives from following their husbands to congested places such as Halifax?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not the policy of the
government to discourage them, neither is it the policy of the government to encourage the practice.


Joseph William Noseworthy: When the minister
was discussing the Toronto situation he said that the city authorities were in considerable disagreement with regard to the need of wartime housing. I wonder if it is not true that, at least within recent months, the city authorities have been fairly unanimous in requesting the building of wartime housing in Toronto. The minister said that about
1,000	houses had been built in the municipalities adjoining Toronto. How far afield does he go from Toronto in the inclusion of houses within that thousand? Again, having in mind the value of the contracts that have been let in that city for war materials, is it the opinion of the minister that 1,000 houses for greater Toronto are sufficient to meet the needs created by the influx of population into that city by reason of those war contracts? What the minister either fails to see or refuses to see is that hundreds of thousands of workers who have come into the city have displaced other tenants and that those other tenants are now thrown back on the city; yet it is the city's responsibility, according to the minister. Actually Toronto has had to accommodate hundreds of thousands of war workers who in turn have displaced a great many other tenants. I think there is the further situation that in Toronto few of the war workers congregate in the vicinity of any one plant, and I can well understand that no plant would apply for housing for its employees. These employees come into Toronto from all over the vicinity, fifteen and twenty miles away. Has the minister given due consideration to the number of people Toronto has had to accommodate by reason of the vast number of contracts that have been let?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the 1,000 houses I went
as far afield as Malton, Long Branch, Etobicoke and Pickering.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Pickering would
take up the bulk of them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Six hundred. Then there
are some staff houses as well as the 1,000. It is significant that no industry in Toronto has ever reported to us that it could not get the staff it needed on account of lack of houses. Every study we have ever made of Toronto indicates that there is sufficient housing under war-time circumstances to meet the requirements. As I say, we are building to make it possible for industry to function. Industry
3862	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
is functioning in Toronto. I think the population there will get smaller as the industries on the outskirts increase. Those on the outskirts are on the upgrade, while the industries within the city have passed their peak. We are willing to build wartime housing on the outskirts of the city whenever we find it necessary. We prefer to relieve the housing situation of Toronto in that way rather than to go into Toronto and build houses for industrial workers who are already housed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that in the proposed conversion of large houses to apartments, each unit will have to be considered by itself? I assume an architect will have to be engaged to lay out the alterations necessary to convert a house into a three or four-family apartment. Will this work be called for by tender, or will someone just be told to go ahead?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is under another department of government, and I know little about the operations? [DOT]


Mr. HOMUTH:: What department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Department of Finance.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister did not
answer fully the question I asked with respect to the equitable distribution of lumber. This matter may not appear to him to be important, but to some people it is. Are lumber concerns left to do the best they can in distributing lumber? If someone in the city wants a piece of lumber he can generally get it froin a lumber yard-I am not talking about building homes; I am referring to lumber for repair work-but in the small communities one cannot get even a board. There are two communities I know of where the lumber agents have not had a board for many months.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are lots of boards in Ottawa.


Ernest George Hansell: Yet the same company in the city will have lumber for sale.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The distribution of lumber is very closely watched. The estimated total production and distribution is as follows:
*	Thousands
of feet, board
.	measure
Estimated total production, 1943.... 4,000,000
Distribution:	

Armed forces, naval and merchant shipbuilding, and Wartime
Housing	 480,000
Boxes and crating	 580,000
Railroads	 130,000
Essential mines	 120,000
Miscellaneous	 35,000
Exports to Britain and	allies	
1,800,000Available for civil uses	in	Canada. 855,000
4,000,000
We are going to try to distribute this as equitably as we can to the lumber yards of Canada, but I agree with my hon. friend that unless the lumber is needed for a priority use, it is hard to get.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss this question of war-time housing because it affects the constituency which I have the honour to represent and which is located in the suburbs of Toronto. A peculiar thing is happening in the Toronto metropolitan area. Within the last ten years the population of Toronto proper has increased only five per cent, whereas the population of the surrounding municipalities has increased by over one-third. The result has been that large areas in Toronto are blighted by having numbers of houses which are unsuitable for renting or for subdivision, in many ways unsuitable for habitation at all. The shift in population is to the outskirts where new factories are being established.
Another peculiar thing is happening in Toronto. In the city itself the shift is to tenant rather than owner occupancy, whereas in the outskirts the shift is the other way. I am quoting Controller Saunders' article which appeared in News and was taken from a recent bluebook published by the city. The assessment commissioner's report shows that in 1934 owner-occupied homes numbered 61,552 as against 58,764 in 1942. The same report shows that tenant-occupied homes in 1934 numbered 45,000 and increased) in 1942 to 49,983. This is a significant increase and shows the direction of the trend in the city.
Recently a questionnaire was sent out to employees of the John Inglis company asking whether they had any complaint to make about their present housing conditions. I understand that out of 10,000 questionnaires sent out, only ten reported that their conditions of housing were bad. I do not know whether that is true, but I got it from reliable sources. In my opinion this wartime housing which is being put up in the outskirts of Toronto is an extremely dangerous development. I have no great criticism to make of it as a purely war-time development, but there should be a definite agreement that these houses will be removed1 after the war is over. Otherwise we shall have around Toronto a belt of slums similar to what was built after the last war.
I can remember at that time when farms were subdivided into thirty- to fifty-foot lots which were sold for a small down payment. There were few if any building restrictions, and in many cases jerrybuilt shacks were built. The builder hoped to make a profit on these Their history has, however, been extremely sad. They built on speculative

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
land and employed speculative builders, with the net result that the purchasers received very poor value for the money they invested. Two things happened: either the owners felt that they could not afford to continue with the building of the house they started) after the last war. or they wished to move to better jobs elsewhere and found that their commitments, either to pay for the lots or to pay for what had been done already on their houses, was a millstone round their necks, and in many cases they were tied to what has proved to be a wasting asset, and in many cases a positive liability.
Then something else happened. The municipalities in the suburban districts of Toronto found that they had1 to provide sewage, fire, water, police and other services, and their tax rates, based upon land values, rose considerably. The assessment rose, also, and there were large belts of farms surrounding these developments where the farmers found that their taxes made it absolutely impossible for them to continue profitable farming; in many cases they were made bankrupt. To a great extent the land on which these houses were built during the depression came back to the municipalities for taxes, and of course the mortgage money was lost. Taxation mounted to such an extent that it was futile for men to endeavour to own their own homes; economically it was wrong. Then the municipalities got into difficulties, on account of unpaid taxes; one by one they went into receivership with the province, and they are only now recovering.
I want to warn the minister and the country about this wartime housing. If it goes on without definite checks and safeguards we shall have the same condition we found at the end of the last war, only greatly intensified. I believe in the Leaside district some of these houses are built twenty-nine to the acre, and in Toronto township there are more than thirty to the acre, while modern planning would never consider building more than about eight or, at the most, nine houses to the acre. These are the dangers that we are running into; these are the dangers I see, and I want to warn the minister and Wartime Housing Limited that unless care is taken we shall have built around the city of Toronto the greatest belt of slums, the greatest depressed area, we have ever had in Canada. We must take very great care that we do not bring about that result.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member mentioned nine houses to the acre as the minimum.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And in some cases twenty-nine and thirty are being built to the acre.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not in a Wartime Housing development. Wartime Housing runs seven to eight houses to the acre; each house has a forty-foot lot.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But not in Toronto
township.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Oh, I can show you an acre with many more than seven houses on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago in response to a question the minister gave the amounts of money spent by Wartime Housing in the various provinces. I do not for a moment wish to convey the impression that I am going to raise a provincial cry, but in view of the fact that it was stated that no money had been spent by Wartime Housing in Manitoba I feel that I should not let the occasion pass without making it clear to the committee that this does not mean that we have no housing problem in Manitoba. The very opposite is the case. I can speak particularly for the city of Winnipeg, a portion of which I have the honour to represent; and I may say that our housing problem there is very acute. The minister may reply to the effect that we had such a problem before the emergency of the war came upon us, and that is perfectly true; we have had it particularly since the close of the last war. Nevertheless the conditions created by the present war have accentuated that problem. We have had certain increases in the number of industrial workers in greater Winnipeg; we have had increases occasioned by the number of men in the armed forces stationed in and' around) Winnipeg. The result of these increases has been the accentuation of the old story, the crowding of numbers of people into single rooms and numbers of families into houses intended only for one or two families, with all of the resulting social difficulties to such an extent that the socially-minded people of the city of Winnipeg, on the city council and) connected with various organizations, feel keenly about the housing problem. I should like to quote one or two portions of the report on housing made to the health committee of the city of Winnipeg, published in January of this year. In the main I quote from the section headed "General Remarks":
During the past few years it has been definitely established that many families are living under conditions which are a menace to the health, safety and welfare, not only of themselves, but of the general public.

3864	COMMONS
TVar Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
And a little further down I read:
It would appear, however, that the federal government now realizes the seriousness of the housing situation in Winnipeg, although it is only a few months ago that a government official stated that no housing shortage existed.
The minister will recall who that official was, so that I need not rehearse that incident.
They have now issued an order respecting housing accommodation in congested areas which includes the city of Winnipeg. . . .
The regulation provides that any householder may share his or her housing accommodation with others "notwithstanding the terms, provisions, convenants or restrictions of any law, by-law, conveyance, deed, agreement or lease now or hereafter prevailing."
I am pointing out that the health committee of the city of Winnipeg emphasizes this as the only measure taken by the government in view of its realization of the seriousness of our situation. I quote further:
For some time there has been a gradual extending of the so-called rooming house districts to the more restricted zoned areas. This order . . .
The reference is to the order of the federal government.
. . . for the time being, will legalize such occupation, and, unfortunately, will allow the use of attics without fire escape, unless certain amendments are made to the regulation.
The inadequate plumbing, probable installation of various types of cooking facilities, overcrowding, temporary electric or gas connections, may lead to a more extensive health and fire hazard than exists at the present time.
The report goes on to give a story similar to that in other cities, so far as overcrowding is concerned, and the anti-social results of that overcrowding.
I think I might say by way of confession on the part of the people of Winnipeg that we have been in a bit of a dilemma in this matter. I speak as one who last year was a member of the special committee on housing conditions, set up by the Winnipeg city council. Our dilemma is that we are terribly conscious of our need for increased housing accommodation; yet those representing the city who have inspected the establishments built under Wartime Housing Limited have been dubious as to the desirability of having houses such as have been seen in some other places.
The result of this dilemma, and considerable study on the part of the people of Winnipeg, was correspondence between the city and Wartime Housing Limited, which at one time looked as though it would lead to a new departure. I am referring to the activities of Wartime Housing Limited. The new departure which we thought was in the making

was the building, under the direction of Wartime Housing Limited, of homes of a somewhat more permanent nature. I know that this correspondence'resulted in several special meetings of the committee to which I have already referred, and a special meeting of the city council itself. Then, somehow or another that which we thought was in the making apparently was not possible for Wartime Housing Limited1 to carry through. I am wondering if the minister, who might consult with the president of Wartime Housing Limited, could tell us why that new departure did not come to fruition. The hopes of people in Winnipeg were high; and then suddenly they were dashed to the ground.


John George Diefenbaker: This afternoon, the hon. member for Mackenzie made a careful analysis of the housing situation, and also referred in that connection to the various returns which have been brought down in the house. In spite of the explanation given by the minister, 1 do not believe there has been any satisfactory explanation for the divergence in detail in those various returns. I cannot understand why there should be such a material difference between the "return brought down for the hon. member, and that brought down on March 4 in the name of the hon. member for Lincoln.
In connection with the latter return I should like to secure information regarding the expenditure of $7,570.28 which, according to the return in question, was expended on repairs to sewers and waterworks. It goes on to point out that this is not an expense to Wartime Housing Limited, it being chargeable to funds of the contractor in the possession of Wartime Housing Limited. What was the meaning of that answer? After the work was done, was it necessary to make repairs to sewers and waterworks on account of inferior work, and were the expenses so incurred charged to the contractor? Who was the contractor and what were the circumstances connected therewith?
The Ottawa Journal of Friday refers to an expense account sent to Wartime Housing Limited. The item sets out the account in full, and appears to have reference to expenditures in connection with a boat and also a roller skating rink. Has Wartime Housing Limited any roller skating rink, or has it a boat; and what connection have those items with the organization in question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon, member referred first to repairs to the sewage at Hull. The work proved to be defective, after the winter had passed. Apparently the sewer was not down

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
to grade. Investigation was made, and the report of the investigator is in, although I have not had time to read it. In any event, certain pipe had to be taken- up and relaid. The cost of doing this was charged against the contractor who had the contract for laying the sewer in the first instance.


John George Diefenbaker: Who were they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Hull Construction company is the name of the firm.
Then, the hon. member asked about a boat and a skating rink. As he knows, the production of twenty-five-pounder guns was stepped up very rapidly at Sorel, and it was necessary to bring in a number of people. A building project was started there; but to help out the situation while the project was under way, arrangements were -made to rent a boat belonging to Canada Steamship Lines which was tied up to the wharf, and to sublet it to tenants. Wartime Housing Limited took on that job. Then, the local skating rink was taken over and divided up into temporary sleeping accommodations while the building project was under way. When the project was finished, this accommodation was no longer required.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the
houses built in Hull were the subject of investigation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the houses, just the sewers.


John George Diefenbaker: Was the total
amount the contractor was required to return to the government the sum of $7,570.28, or was there an additional amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not say the contractor was required to return it to the government. He was required to make good his contract. There were certain specifications. I cannot give my hon. friend all the circumstances, because I have not seen the report. Mr. Arthur Surveyer was appointed commissioner, under the authority of the department, to investigate the situation. I have not read the report, but I shall be glad to table it in the house, if my hon. friend wishes to see it. It tells the whole story.


Mr. JAQUES:: I understand that recently the government of Alberta applied for permission to build a hospital for the care of soldiers with tuberculosis after the war. I understand further that permission was refused by the controller of construction. Is this a correct statement, and, if so, on what grounds was the refusal based?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are a great many types of building projects in Canada for which permits are not issued. Among those for which permits have been applied, and refused, are hospitals to the value of perhaps $10,000,000 or $12,000,000. The reason they are refused is that it is proved on investigation that the only reason the buildings are needed is that the communities happen to have money at the present time. They could have built them ten years ago or five years ago, or they could build them a few years hence. It is our feeling that, while the war is on, priority should be given to defence projects. The time will come when we shall be glad to have any who wish to build hospitals build them. At the present time, however, it is impossible to buy hospital equipment, especially if it is brought in from outside Canada. It would also be a drain on building equipment, which we think might very well be deferred for the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister reply to my question as to what happened to the tentative proposal of Wartime Housing Limited to build houses of a more permanent nature? Perhaps the more significant question would be as to whether any consideration is now being given to such a proposal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Winnipeg situation was looked into. Winnipeg did not want temporary housing; they were quite frank about saying that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Consideration was given to building permanent housing in Winnipeg and Hamilton, and one or two other cities where there was a demand for permanent housing. A great deal of opposition developed to building permanent housing, and it was reasonably well founded. In any event, Wartime Housing was set up to take care of war-time needs, as the name implies. It was outside their province to build permanent houses, and since the Winnipeg problem was one of permanent housing, Wartime Housing decided that they could not go on with it. It was a problem for other agencies than Wartime Housing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was there opposition from Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a great deal of opposition from Winnipeg.


Clarence Gillis: I questioned the minister a little while ago as to the policy of Wartime Housing with respect to people occupying these houses who might become involved in a labour dispute with their employer. The minister told me at that time that it was not the policy of Wartime Housing to interfere, on account of a labour dispute, with those residing in these houses. I sent the minister
3S66	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
a specific case at that time. My understanding was that this policy would be adhered to. But Wartime Housing persisted in their attitude in that particular case. I met the person involved only yesterday, and it appears that this case is being used as the thin end of the wedge to set a precedent for mass evictions where a dispute might take place between employer and employees. I bring the matter to the minister's attention again so that if the policy decided upon has been departed from in this particular case, it should be adhered to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The case in question was very carefully investigated. The facts are these. The man referred to by my hon. friend resigned his job in a war plant long before the labour trouble took place. He was called in and asked if he intended to take work in another war plant and he said he did not know. He signified no intention of doing so. It was explained to him that these houses were reserved for workers in war plants and that if he was not going to work in a war industry he would have to vacate. There are seven men on strike to-day there who are living in wartime houses. If they finally decide that they are not going to work in a war industry they will have to vacate, but as long as they are workers on strike in a war industry they can live in the houses. If they signify that they will not take work in a war industry they will have to vacate.


Clarence Gillis: The facts as given by the minister are not as I have them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless they are facts. I am sometimes right.


Clarence Gillis: I am not saying that the minister is wrong, but his informants may be wrong or biased. I believe that in this particular case the man is idle on account of the present dispute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He left his job long before the dispute.


Clarence Gillis: No, he did not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am telling you he did.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue with the minister. I have one side and he has the other. I advise him to check on it more closely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Check your facts.


Clarence Gillis: I did.


Gordon Graydon: Better get a referee.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What is the estimated yearly rates of depreciation on the Hull wartMr. Gillis.]
time houses valued at $2,900. What would be their salvage value in three, four or five years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot tell the hon, gentleman. What is his view?


George Hugh Castleden: The minister has a staff of experts in front of him who have been in this business for a long time. My view as to what these houses would be worth in five years might surprise the minister. The minister said that after the war these houses might have to be tom down. What arrangement is being made with the civic authorities with regard to permanent improvements such as sewage and water supply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: From thq time the improvements are put in they belong to the city. My hon. friend says that in three or four years these houses may not have much value, but I point out that they may have served their purpose. They are built for war-time use. They are not built for the centuries or for ages. If they were, they would be of a different type of construction. They are built to last through the war and until the slack is taken up by normal building. In three or four years, if the war is over, the houses will be either torn down or disposed of in other ways.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Has the minister given consideration to allowing these houses to be purchased by the people living in them and having the monthly rent they pay apply as part of the purchase price? When we visited the war-time housing in Hull there were one or two tenants who were desirous of purchasing these houses, and one complained that the national housing purchase plan was not available to them. I think it would be good business for Wartime Housing to allow these tenants to purchase the houses if they want to by having their monthly payments apply as part of the purchase price. If the house costs the government $2,900, the government could very well afford to sell the house three or four years after the war for, say $2,000 or less, and still be money ahead, because in four years the houses would have very little salvage value. H the tenants were allowed to purchase these houses on a monthly payment basis they would make improvements, fix up the yard and so forth. I think it would be good business to allow them to purchase the houses. Would the minister comment on that suggestion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The houses were built as temporary houses for war-time purposes. They can only be used for that purpose by agreement with the municipalities. It is not felt that it is good business, while the war is on, to make

War Appropriation-Supplies-Housing
any post-war arrangements for these houses. After the war is over and these houses have served their purpose, we shall be glad to sit down with any municipality and hear what they want to do with the houses, but just now we are not going to make any other arrangements about them. Most of them are built on an agreement that the houses will be removed after the war. If the city is still in the same mood after the war, we shall remove the houses, but we are not prepared to make any deal while the war is on.


Charles Edward Johnston: In the
meantime the monthly payments made by the tenants will all be thrown away from their point of view. If the tenants could make some arrangement with the municipality they could even at this late date go ahead and put a solid foundation under the house, which would go a long way toward' preserving it. Otherwise you are penalizing the tenants.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What arrangements have been made for the payment of taxes by Wartime Housing? Is there a blanket arrangement applying all over Canada, or do the arrangements vary from city to city, particularly with regard to school taxes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the same arrangement all across Canada.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is $24 for a two-room house and $30 for a three-room house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I see it is estimated that the salvage value will be about twenty-five per cent of the price of the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know about that; it all depends. As I say, we built them for the war. After the war we shall have a look. We built them during the war to tear down. The rents are fixed so that without interest on the investment they will write themselves off in ten years. If the war lasts for four or five years, they will be half written off, and we shall have a look at that situation. My feeling is that, wdiatever happens, these houses will be used; if not on the sites they are now, they will be moved into the country. I would not worry too much about the salvage, because I think they are the type of house that can be salvaged.


George Hugh Castleden: I notice that large quantities of plywood are being used in the construction of these houses. How are these supplies obtained, by contract or tender; how much was purchased up to the end of March, 1943, and what price was paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have used no plywood in houses for the last year. Some may have been used in the earlier houses. I have not the information my hon. friend wants. Of course plywood has got in short supply. It is used for many war purposes, and when it could not be had we got other material.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister any idea how much was used up to a year ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was a price which the department negotiated. All materials bought in quantity are bought at prices fixed by the Department of Munitions and Supply. How much we used, or what the price was, I could not say offhand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4.	Land and other miscellaneous physical property, $7,000,000.
Item agreed to.
5.	Revolving funds for working capital-
Munitions production	 $100,000,000
Aircraft production	 25,000,000
Ship production	 100,000,000
Miscellaneous stores	 20,000,000
Joseph William Noseworthy: I have one question which, I think comes under this item. I have received numerous inquiries regarding boxes and crates of war material lying on the sidings, particularly in the east end of Toronto and Scarborough. I am told by men who work in the railway yards that some of that material has been lying there for more than a year and a half. I understand the difficulties of shipping, but people who are buying Victory bonds and paying taxes for the production of these goods are anxious to know whether large quantities of them have now become obsolete. There is plenty of evidence that material inside the boxes is rusting, and people in the Toronto area, at least, are very much concerned over the large quantities of material which apparently are not being moved from these yards. A certain change is taking place. Anyone who passes these yards in the train can see boxes there which have become weather-beaten during the months that have passed. The same boxes remain there month after month. I am told some of them have been there nearly two years. Would the minister care to make a statement on that situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can relieve the mind of my hon. friend at once. None of the material piled along railway sidings is obsolete. The fact of the matter is that we accumulate material in Canada between operations.
War Appropriation-Supplies

Canada is in itself an arsenal from which goodis are moved direct to theatres of war. We had quite an accumulation of stores in Canada prior to the movement into North Africa. At that time everything we had was cleared away. At the present time there is quite an accumulation of vehicles. Only now are we beginning to move with a good deal of rush. But those accumulations take place; they are a part of the game, and we have no objection to having Canada used as a storehouse for the theatres of active war. There is no store piled along the tracks that has been there for two years-I can assure my hon. friend of that-nor for one year. But at the present time there is considerable storage of motor vehicles along the tracks. Perhaps the accumulation is the largest there has ever been. But probably in the next three or four months it will be back again to well below normal. It is a part of the transportation business, and nothing to get alarmed about.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think the important part of the minister's statement, and that part which I am particularly glad to hear, is that none of that material has become obsolete-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -and that all will be used.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wish to ask the minister some questions regarding shipbuilding, and .'particularly with relation to the Toronto Shipbuilding Company. I have here a return tabled March 17, 1943, sessional paper No. 212, concerning the Toronto Shipbuilding Company. In brief, it says that sixteen minesweepers were built by this company, the last being in September 16, 1942. I understand that these ships were nearly all fabricated before the government took the plant over and it became a government plant. I pass the Toronto Shipbuilding Company yard practically every day I am in Toronto, and I see the same ships there that have been there since last summer: I know them quite well. I was informed that you could not take those ships down to the St. Lawrence or to tidewater on account of ice conditions, but the ships are still there, the same ships which were there most of last summer, and1 it is nearly July. What is the matter at the Toronto Shipbuilding Company yards? There have been frequent reports of labour unrest. One, which is quite interesting, appears in to-day's paper; I shall read it to the minister.

The last time I happened to be at the Toronto Shipbuilding Company yards, or rather next door, at the Toronto Elevators, a game of quoits was being played on the deck of one of these ships. I understand that that is not uncommon. What is holding up these Algerine mine-sweepers? Is it lack of labour? Is it lack of skilled help? They can be launched all right: why are they still there? How many can we expect will get to tidewater this year? What is behind the continual stories of bickerings and labour unrest in this plant? I see in to-night's newspaper:
Must quit C.I.O. if they want jobs back
Toronto, June 21.- (C.P.)-Officials of the Toronto Shipbuilding Company said last night that nearly 300 employees dismissed Friday after taking part in a work stoppage Thursday "are not back at work."
"They're through," said the officials adding that the company would consider to.-day whether the men would be accepted again for employment.
"If they start, they will first have to dissociate themselves from the C.I.O.," said an official. "They are in the minority."
That is a most peculiar statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whose statement is it? It
is not mine, is it?


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is a Canadian Press
statement in to-day's Citizen.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know who gave it to the Canadian Press.


Agar Rodney Adamson: All I know is that it is by the Canadian Press and it quotes an official. It is a most peculiar statement concerning this shipbuilding yard, coming on top of the other press statements that they were short of labour and the fact that there was a half-page in the Globe and Mail some weeks ago stating that there was such a Shortage, and the further fact that I asked the minister for naval services a question in this regard and he said they were not short of labour. Now there is a strike. Why are these people playing quoits on the deck? What is the matter? Why cannot the work be finished? Do they lack engines? We hear of the John Inglis company building all the engines they need. Do these people need wiring or equipment, or do they need the necessary skill? I ask the minister in all fairness, because I know he is trying to do a job: what is the matter at this plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing wrong in
the Toronto shipyard. Its production record is good. My hon. friend knows that ships
cannot be delivered in the winter, but deliveries of ships in the last month have been satisfactory. We do not give delivery figures

War Appropriation-Supplies
of naval vessels and we have never done so, for reasons which my hon. friend will appreciate. There is a little labour trouble at the moment and I gave a statement on it earlier in the day. The whole fact of the matter is that it is an A.F. of L. yard, fully unionized by the A.F. of L. A rival union, the C.I.O., under the direction of Mr. Millard of the steel workers' union, is attempting to organize the yard, which is perhaps all right, but he held a meeting of his cohorts in the yard in working time, which, we thought, is going a little far. Certainly it is a flagrant violation of the agreement with the management and its workers. Therefore the workers who took part in the meeting were dismissed for a breach of the rules of the yard. The statement my hon. friend read was not put out by any official; I can assure him of that. If the men wish to return to work individually, they will be employed and it will not be necessary for them to separate themselves from their union affiliation. But it is necessary, as long as the yard is organized by the A.F. of L., that the rules that govern the present agreement shall govern all workers, and if there is a jurisdictional dispute it will be held outside the gates.


Clarence Gillis: I did not intend to discuss
this particular matter, but the minister has made a statement which is certainly not in accordance with the facts, and I know that he wishes to be fair and to be informed on matters of this sort. I happen to have been in Toronto over the week-end, specifically on the matter of which the minister speaks. On Friday afternoon I received a telephone call from one of the union men at that particular plant-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What union?


Clarence Gillis: The steel workers' union.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it affiliated with the
C.I.O.?


Clarence Gillis: I will explain that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have they a plant agreement?


Clarence Gillis: No. The minister does not
understand this matter as well as I know he would like to. I am interested in shipbuilding, and I am interested in every shipbuilding yard in this country operating at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is personally an official of the steel workers' union?


Clarence Gillis: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What office do you hold?


Clarence Gillis: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are, are you not?


Clarence Gillis: No; I belong to the mine workers. As I was saying, the telephone conversation I had wras to the effect that there was a possibility, on account of the action of the company in dismissing 289 skilled men who are necessary to that plant, that there would be serious interruption to the work of that yard, and that if there was anything I could do about it, it would be appreciated.
I therefore brought the matter up in the house and the minister made a short statement. What this union official who telephoned to me-and it was not Millard-anticipated, took place. There were 1,200 men idle in the yard on Saturday for the purpose of holding a protest meeting in sympathy with the men who were dismissed. I went to Toronto specifically to attend that meeting. I met with the executive of the steel workers' union who were directly involved in the dispute and got the background of the whole situation. I advised them that they should return to work and that under no circumstances at this time should there be any interruption in the activities of that yard. If the management did wrong in dismissing the men without consultation with the selective service, I pointed out that interrupting the job would not remedy matters, since it precluded the possibility of any negotiations while there was a stoppage of any description in the yard. The men on Saturday morning decided to go back to their jobs, which they did, but the 289 men stayed out. This is what happened in that yard. No meeting was held in the yard, as the minister states. His information in that regard is wrong. The yard is partly organized under craft 7, and there is no interference with the section of the yard that is organized under contract. But a large percentage of the men in the yard who are new war workers are not organized and are not protected by agreements which the craft unions have in the yard, and after carrying on for two years, the men who are now attempting to organize came to the conclusion that they must have some bargaining agency to care for their interests. A representation has been made to the Department of Labour for a vote. They have gone through the machinery provided by government. and last Friday when the 289 men were dismissed this is what took place. It was not a meeting and there was practically no time of the company's involved. At the end of a shift the men are allowed ten minutes to change their clothes and wash up, and on the termination of their shift they utilized that ten minutes to go to the manager's office and ask him if he would cooperate with the Department of Labour and the section of the
War Appropriation-Supplies

union who were endeavouring to get a ballot, and sanction the taking of a ballot. The Minister of Labour had informed them previously that he was favourable to a ballot in that yard to determine the bargaining agency if all concerned were satisfied. The management were not satisfied and they were holding up that function of the Department of Labour. That is the only demonstration that took place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are the A.F. of L. men satisfied?


Clarence Gillis: I do not know whether they are, because they do not enter into the picture anyway, seeing that they have their own agreements for their own crafts. They are not taking part in this dispute, and quite naturally if their field was being invaded they would not be satisfied. But the fact of the matter is that the men who are attempting now to get a spokesman for themselves have no agreement and have not had one for two years.
I have no intention of going into the background of this dispute. I sat in and heard these men, discuss this matter. Twenty-five per cent of the men involved are ex-servicemen of this war. They find it hard to understand the attitude of the Toronto Shipbuilding company, particularly since it is a crown company. Some of them have been critical about this. I saw the memorandum which was prepared yesterday, a copy of which I believe has been sent to the minister, and this contains some rather serious accusations against the management of the plant. It is claimed that there has been a wastage of public money.
I did not intend to go into this matter to-night because I wanted to discuss it personally with the minister, but it has been brought before the committee. These 289 men who are idle are skilled welders, mechanics and men of that description, and I think the minister would be well advised to order them back to work and to examine the background of this situation. Some of the stories I heard with respect to the management would- certainly leave room for investigation. The minister or some of the departmental officials should have gone down to meet these men. These things do not spring up by themselves; there is always something behind them. There are always two sides to'a story.
This company is under the control of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and no local manager should be permitted to take the precipitous action which was taken in this case and which has created this situation. If he does, he should be talked to at least. The

Minister of Munitions and Supply should have been consulted, and selective service regulations should have been adhered to. Under those regulations I think these men have a claim for the wages they have lost by reason of this dispute. It is not right to say that these men can go back to work individually. They could not go back yesterday.' After these men had terminated their meeting at two o'clock Saturday evening and had come to a sensible understanding, they found that they could not get in touch with the manager of the plant. Regardless of the fact that there were 1,200 men off the job, no one at the plant would talk to them and they could not get the manager's home telephone number. He did not want to be bothered. I think the manager of a plant maintained by the taxpayers of this country has no right to consider that he is too big to talk to people who are just as important to the plant as he is.
I think any man in this country has a right to belong to the organization he wants to. It is not in, accordance with the regulations with respect to discrimination when the manager of a plant walks up to a man who has decided to join a particular organization and tells him that he must take off that button or ribbon which designates his organization or get off the grounds. That has been, done to men at this plant who are endeavouring to have the steel workers act as their bargaining agent. You can get man after man to make an affidavit that that is the way in which he has been treated by the officials of this plant. The memorandum sent to the minister is self-explanatory. It was prepared by men who have been working on the job for the last two or three years and who know what is going on.
There is reason for investigation of the Toronto shipbuilding yards. They are not turning out ships, and in some eases those that they have turned out have had to be rebuilt. There is rank inefficiency. I believe the minister wants to get the job done, he wants to be reasonable and fair in these matters, but someone should examine into the whole situation. These men should be ordered back to work. They are quite satisfied; their only complaint as far as the government is concerned is in connection with their representations to the Minister of Labour. He agreed that a ballot could be taken provided all concerned were satisfied, but the Toronto Shipbuilding company were not satisfied.
No meeting was held in the yard on company's time and sponsored by the steel workers' union. Charles Millard, the man the minister mentioned, was most concerned to

War Appropriation-Supplies
get these men back on the job. Mr. Sifton, the organizer for the steel workers at that plant, stood up and told these men that in no circumstances must they be off the job. He told them that they must get back on the job and give those who were interested an opportunity of ironing this out with the proper department under the proper regulations. That was their approach to the problem. However, the men had been antagonized by pin-headed foremen who have no business being in a position where they must handle men. Their only function appears to be to stand around and snoop and listen and accuse the .men wanting to join an organization where they will have a spokesman to speak for them on matters of wages and conditions. Some of these men who were casualties of this war and who are now employed at the plant stood up in that meeting yesterday and wanted to know where the democracy was they had been fighting for. They contended they had made their contribution and were trying to work, but they were not allowed to work by people who neither had rendered service nor were capable of giving service in the position in which they were employed. I want to sit down with the minister some time and talk this matter over with him, because there are factors in the dispute which I would not want to discuss publicly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Disguise it as you like, this is the standard technique for the C.I.O. crashing a plant where the contract is held by the A.F. of L. A small group start milling around demanding votes, and members of my hon. friend's party go down and agitate and make speeches. If there is an illegal strike or overruling of a vote or anything of that sort, my hon. friend is right there to take the side against law and order, as he was in this case. This is a case where the contract is held by a reputable international union, and my hon. friend was down there supporting the minority who wanted to crash the plant and upset the present contract.


Clarence Gillis: I can hardly credit that statement coming from the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is quite obvious.


Clarence Gillis: It is 100 per cent wrong. How many of the men employed in that plant are covered by the contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A considerable majority.


Clarence Gillis: There is not a considerable maj ority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will get the figures.


Clarence Gillis: You should get the figures on that. I want the minister to take back his
statement that I am on the side that is against law and order. I am ready to put my record alongside the minister's in that respect from the time I was fifteen years old.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would the hon. member like me to give him a list of the illegal strikes where he has been advising the striker to act against government regulations?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I would.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to look that up.


Clarence Gillis: I want to tell the minister that since the outbreak of the war there has never been a strike in this country that was called by the employees of any plant. If you will examine your regulations as they exist at the present time, you will find that they make it impossible for anything but a walkout to occur. That is what has taken place. The Minister of Labour shakes his head. If he reads and examines and goes through the regulations he will find that to be true. Before any body of workers employed in a plant in this country can obtain redress for any grievance they must first make application for a conciliation board, and before any application for a conciliation board is granted they are compelled to take a strike vote.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is only nominal.


Clarence Gillis: Just a moment. You must
recognize this, that there is no strike in Canada. Eighty-five per cent of the workers of this country are not organized; they have absolutely no knowledge of trades unionism or its functions, or the road they have to travel. When somebody gets up and tells them there is to be a strike vote taken and that this is to be done for the purpose of redressing their grievances, immediately you take a vote you sow the seeds of a strike in the minds of those uninitiated men; you plant the germs of a strike, and you place the average organizer or the man trying to handle the difficulty in a situation which he cannot control. Why was I in Toronto on Saturday? I was there because the people who telephoned and asked me to go to Toronto said, "These men may listen to you; they will not listen to us." I sat in with the executive, the rank and file of the men off the job. They had a pertinent grievance that has been agitating them for two years. The organizers had lost control; the men were not listening to them. I sat with those men for two hours, persuading them as to what they should do in order to legalize themselves and iron out this grievance through the medium of the machinery provided by the government.
War Appropriation-Supplies

Then the minister rises in his place and tells me I am on the side that is against law and order, that I am trying to promote this, that and the other thing. I tell the minister that I want to win this war; I have already helped to fight one war. It may be that I want to win this war for a different reason from what the minister thinks, but I am not letting anything I can control interfere with the winning of the war. I know the aftermath is too serious. I defy the Minister of Munitions and Supply or anyone else in this house to show that since the outbreak of this war I have gone to a plant or a factory from one end of this country to the other and advocated a strike or a stoppage of work. The reverse has been true. I went to Sudbury; I went to Kirkland Lake; I went all over this country, and I advised the men that the only sensible and safe road to travel was to build up their membership to the point where they would be safe when a ballot was taken at the particular plant. The strike is an obsolete weapon. I know enough about the labour movement to realize that there has never been a strike won in the history of that movement, on the question of recognition. You cannot win; I know that, and it is foolish to think about it. My mission in Toronto was to talk to the uninitiated workers in this plant who perhaps do not understand the situation as well as I do. It is not the technique of the C.I.O. to promote strikes; no such thing. The reverse is true; they are forced into these things.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then how is it that eighty-five per cent of all the time that has been lost in this country since the beginning of the war has been owing to the C.I.O. ?


Clarence Gillis: The answer is very simple.
The A.F. of L. unions are craft unions and are well established.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are not all craft
unions; how about the mine workers?


Clarence Gillis: They are not in the A.F.
of L. at the present time.


Humphrey Mitchell: The machinists are not
a craft union.


Clarence Gillis: If the Minister of Labour will wait a minute I will give the Minister of Munitions and Supply a little information; there may be no need to give it to the Minister of Labour. The craft unions are well established. The unions of the A.F. of L. are craft unions now; the ones that were not craft unions broke away from the A.F. of L. when John Lewis and Bill Green disagreed 
in the United States. Those unions are well organized; they have contracts and leadership, but they stop there. The difficulty was that until about four years ago the mass-production industries of the United States and Canada were not organized. There was no unionism in steel or all those other mass-production industries at all. That was why Green and Lewis quarrelled; then the C.I.O. was formed in the United States, and they are fighting to establish what the A.F. of L. have had for twenty years. The same thing applies in Canada. In these other unions there is no disturbance. They are established; they have machinery, and there is no reason for a fight. But in all the mass-production industries they are trying to establish something that has been recognized in every other country in the world for the last fifty years; that is all.
That is why we are having this scrap. And what are they asking for? You have no objection to the manufacturers' association getting together. That is fine; no one is against that. You have no objection to the mining association getting together; they can come in here and meet you en bloc, and they represent the whole set-up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection to labour getting together. The objection I have is to one faction of labour fighting another and losing time which should be devoted to the war.


Clarence Gillis: I have the same objection; I think it should not be, but neither the minister nor I can do very much about that at the present time.


Mr. MARTIN:: What about coal?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That has been organized for a good many years.


Clarence Gillis: What about it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is one of the industries in which there has been a tremendous loss of time.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and there has been very good reason for it. The Secretary of State will remember also that last summer the mining industry of Canada was working only three days a week. Why were we losing time then? It was the fault of the employers, on account of a lack of organization. We cannot help the row that is going on in the United States; that is their business. Evidently John Lewis thinks his men are entitled to more money. There has been very little lost time in Canada by reason of trouble in union circles.

War Appropriation-Supplies


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with that statement. We did have much trouble.


Clarence Gillis: Where?


Norman Alexander McLarty: In Cape Breton, where the hon. member comes from.


Clarence Gillis: What was the trouble?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The trouble was a slowdown on the one hand and absenteeism on the other.
Mr, GILLIS: What was the reason for it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It was purely a jurisdictional fight within the union.


Clarence Gillis: No such thing. Sit down for a moment andi I will tell you what was wrong at that time. I know this is all out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to tell the Secretary of State what was the trouble in Nova Scotia.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was a fight inside the union itself.


Clarence Gillis: No-well, to a certain extent it was.


Humphrey Mitchell: To a great extent.


Clarence Gillis: But that was not the basic trouble. We have gone through that twice in Nova Scotia; we went through it in 1925, and the cause of the difficulty was quite apparent to most of us. You were facing a provincial election. The mine workers of Nova Scotia are a potent factor in provincial elections, and you got manipulations from the inside to disrupt that whole organization so that it would not be a factor in that provincial election. That was seventy-five per cent of your trouble, manipulated trouble on the inside of the union to disrupt the whole thing. That was what happened. The men were taken for a ride.
I am sorry I had to take up this time, but I am not the kind of person who can sit quietly and just take the sort of accusation the Minister of Munitions and Supply made across the floor. I tried to be helpful in the Toronto situation; I wanted to discuss it with the minister. There is nothing wrong there. Send those men back to work; that is all. They were dismissed illegally. You need them in that plant. Make an investigation into that plant, as to its management; you owe that much to the taxpayers of Canada. You are responsible. If those men want a vote in that plant, that is democracy. They are quite prepared to take a ballot. They are not talking anarchy, communism or dictatorship. The ballot is the basis of democracy; so let the
men settle it on that basis. I do not think Mr. Arnold, who is an employee of the federal government, and managing that plant, has any right to say that anyone in the plant should belong to this, that or anything else. That is something the individual must determine for himself, and that is all there is to that dispute. It is a matter of deciding whether we are prepared to give the people _ of this country democracy, the thing they are fighting for overseas. If we are not going to do it now, then I am very much afraid of what the situation will be when this war is over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before we close the books on that subject, may I say the objection was not that the men belonged to a certain union. They could belong to any union they like, and I am certain no foreman on the job told them differently. The objection was that they held meetings on the company's time.


Clarence Gillis: They did not; that is not right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the fact given to me. That was the reason for the dismissal, and that is a perfectly good reason for dismissal. The men can do their organizing and hold their meetings outside the yard, and outside business time.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with that, and I say that if they held meetings in the yard on company time for organizational purposes, the dismissal was justified. But that is not so. We could get many men in the plant who would take their affidavit that the foreman would walk up to them and tell them to "get that button off your coat"-or else.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not wish to get into this discussion, but I know that there are American Federation of Labour organizations in that plant.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, certainly there are.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not long ago one of
the international representatives of the American Federation of Labor came to my office, and told me that the pot was boiling there, and that there was a scrap between the two organizations. But if it had not been for the closed shop in the plant they could consolidate things, and there would not be any difficulty. I told him the viewpoint of the government with respect to the closed shop was that it was in contradiction of P.C. 2685, and we did not feel that a man should be denied the right to go to work, or that before he should go to work he should join any particular trades union.
War Appropriation-Supplies

I think it can. be fairly said that I know something about the difficulties of dealing with green membership. But do not forget there is also green leadership in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: An>d I want to say to
my hon. friend that very few disputes have gone off the track since the war broke out. The government and its conciliatory machinery cannot always be wrong. I am frank to admit that we are human, and that we do make mistakes. But I do not think it is fair to say that every time somebody else makes a mistake it should be put on the doorstep of the Minister of Labour, whether it be a federal minister or a provincial minister.
The leaders in this situation in Toronto- and if they cannot lead they should not be leaders-knew the steps which were necessary to bring that situation, which they thought was dangerous, to a successful conclusion. But no, they waited until the fellows were out on the street. I know it is the easiest thing in the world, as I have no doubt every hon. member knows, to tell people they are right when they are wrong. That is the easiest thing one can do. While I do not hold any brief for any of the employers in this country, yet it has been my experience-and I have probably had as much experience as my hon. friend, and I do not make that statement in any critical sense-to find that trades union agreements are based on character. That comes first, last, and all the time. A trades union agreement is not a legal document, nor is it a legal document in Great Britain. There are some who would try to make it a legal document, but it is not. It is a yardstick arrived at between employers and employees. There is a duty on both sides to make that instrument function. I know some believe that is not very helpful; but it has been my experience that those organizations based on character do not need laws. We can see that all the powerful organizations in this country and in the United States have lasted because their policies and purposes have been functioning on that true, simple fact.
I think my hon. friend will agree with me that when sometimes you get mistakes in leadership on either side, whether it be on the part of employees or employers, you cannot lay it at the feet of the conciliation machinery of the respective governments of the country concerned. If there were more forbearance on both sides it would be better. That is something which cuts both ways, and if there were more forbearance it would be much better
I Mr. Mitchell.]
in this country and in the United States; because, whether we like it or not, there is a struggle between two organizations for membership. They poach on one another, I suppose, as they have done in the United States.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister answer
a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: That plant has been operating since the outbreak of the war. The A. F. of L. union that is in the plant, and that has contracts with its own people, has had that field completely to itself up until the last three months, has it not? Now, if the A. F. of L. did not include the whole yard, why have they not done so in the last two and a half years? That is the point. The steel workers were invited to organize themselves, and they were not protected by the agreement. That is the crux of the whole matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to have that clear. I am not criticizing the steel workers. The hon. member will have to agree with me that I have taken the stand, since I have been Minister of Labour-and I think earlier ministers have; and this is the same position taken in Great Britain and in the United States- that I did not think it was the duty of any government to send in conciliators when the men are on what is known as an illegal strike.


Clarence Gillis: That is true.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On what?


Humphrey Mitchell: When the men are on an illegal strike. When that is gone, everything is gone. If hon. members on the opposition side of the house were sitting where I am sitting, they would see that you have to have some measure of control. The government, by its very nature, is charged with a responsibility to the state, and it cannot permit a group of individuals, whether they be employers or employees, to act at variance with government policy. You find that in connection with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, for instance, when in his judgment he finds it necessary to put in a controller to take charge of a certain industry. That is often done.
We have not yet reached the stage where we have put controllers into these organizations. But if we are to develop responsible trades union leadership, that has to be done. There is no other alternative to it, irrespective of the political party in power.
Those problems exist. They exist in every country in the world in which we find the democratic style of government. And where

Income Tax
democracy is in operation, that is the price we pay for freedom. I realize that the hon. member is trying to get these people back to work.


George Hugh Castleden: Did the company obey the law in this instance?


Humphrey Mitchell: I saw the manager of the company. Perhaps I have not as much knowledge about this as the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but I think it is not within the realm of proper operation of any industry for people to hold meetings in a plant during working hours. That is generally recognized in the day to day operation of any industry.


Clarence Gillis: I would remind the minister there was no meeting held in that plant on the company's time. It is not correct to say that there was. The Minister of Munitions and Supply is under the impression that there is a contract in that yard which embraces the employees; that is not correct, either. The first step should be that the 289 men should be put back in the plant, where they are needed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I say that three or four months ago these men came to see me and told me that they were likely to go out on strike, and that they could not continue on account of the inefficiency of the management at this plant, that there was bound to be a strike for that cause alone.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the 'house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, June 22, 1943