1945-04-11

PRIVILEGE-MR. ABBOTT REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN TORONTO &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot; OF APRIL 11

Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time on a question of privilege, arising out of an editorial which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail, and which is headed "Worst Fraud Still to Come?" The first paragraph reads as follows:
If the figures on conscript reinforcements which Mr. Douglas Abbott, parliamentary assistant to defence minister McNaughton, gave the commons on Monday mean what they seem to mean, the worst of the man-power frauds has still to be faced. In his first report on the reinforcement policy last week Mr. Abbott produced some flattering statistics. The net result was to show that overseas reinforcements for the Canadian forces were 75 per cent above the estimates struck last fall.
I will not weary the house with the whole editorial. A number of figures follow; and the second paragraph concludes as follows:
But on Monday, in answer to questions, Mr. Abbott disclosed thpt only 238 of those 11,836 draftees had gone to the front. He was unable to say how many of these were "converts" or belated volunteers.
I pause there to say that I stated in the , house yesterday afternoon that, of the 238, 237 were not "converts"; and I might suggest to the editorial department of the Globe and Mail that if they would consult with their parliamentary correspondent they might be able to give more up-to-date information.
The editorial continues with a lot more supposed analysis of statistics, and the second last paragraph concludes with this sentence:
And it gives a great deal of support to the evidence that the only draftees to reach the battle areas are those who converted.
The editorial finally concludes:
All that has happened is that 11,836 draftees (less 283 converts) have had a change of residence-from Canada to the United Kingdom. They are being treated as "zombies" there as they are here.

Duration of Parliament
That statement is completely incorrect. The N.R.M.A. men who are sent over are placed in reinforcement units in the United Kingdom, and they are treated exactly the same as other soldiers, general service soldiers. The statement of policy was that there would be no discrimination against them. On arrival in the United Kingdom they take their place in what is colloquially known as "the queue", the line of reinforcements. They first undergo tests as to their standards of training, including some additional weapon training which is restricted in Canada on account of the limited supplies of certain types of ammunition, and undergo hardening training; and when they reach the stipulated standards of fitness and training they are held in readiness to send to any theatre as required to maintain that theatre fully. That procedure is' followed in the case of these N.R.M.A. men as it is with general service men. There is no reason why they should be sent to the theatres ahead of general service men; they go in their ordinary turn.
I have referred to the 238 who had gone to the end of February. I have cabled to England for the latest figures; I have no doubt they will show that some additional ones have gone; and, knowing how anxious the Globe and Mail is to get before the people of this country the true facts with respect to our overseas forces, I feel that I should make this explanation.


Mr. GRAYDON:: That is an uncalled-for reflection on a great newspaper.



DURATION OF PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temi-scouata):	Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the house for the discussion of a matter of urgent public importance. My motion is as follows:
Whereas section 50 of the British North America Act, 1867, is enacted as follows:
"50. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer."
Whereas the return of the last writ for the last general election was on April 17, 1940;
Whereas the term of existence of this nineteenth parliament will expire on that date;
Whereas, during the first fifteen days of the sixth session of this nineteenth parliament, this house has considered only supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year and appropriations for the three war departments;
Whereas all the appropriations of the other departments and the civil estimates have not yet been considered by the house;
Whereas the British North America Act, 1867, was passed by the imperial parliament, and whereas it has been the practice of this parliament to seek amendments passed by the imperial parliament to acts passed by the imperial parliament;
Whereas the Houses of Parliament at Westminster will adjourn to-morrow until next Monday, April the 16th, for a long week-end;
Whereas to-day is the last day when this parliament could make an application for an extension of parliament to give to this house the opportunity to consider in full the war appropriations as well as the civil estimates for the current fiscal year;
Whereas in these serious and critical times this country cannot afford to be without parliament being available at a moment's call to meet any emergency;
Mr. Pouliot moves that this house shall adjourn to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the extension of the term of this nineteenth parliament to afford it the time and opportunity to consider the war appropriations and the civil estimates for the current year, which amount to billions of dollars.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member was
good enough to let me have a copy of his motion before I came to the house, and therefore I had an opportunity to study it carefully.
I must point out that the form of the motion is not in accordance with the practice and usage of this house. It has taken almost the form of a petition and contains references which should be the basis of an argument.
I do not propose to deal with the motion on this ground which might seem to be technical, but I think it would be well that all hon. members of the house should state simply the motion to adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter or urgent public importance and in effect give as reason that which is contained in the conclusion of the present motion.
On Monday last a motion for the same purpose was moved by the same hon. gentleman, the member for Temiscouata. I dealt with it then simply on the question of urgency as required by the standing order. I came to the conclusion that there was no urgency in the sense directed by our standing order and therefore ruled it out of order.
The present motion is different in form but the conclusion is in effect the same as that moved on Monday last by the hon. gentleman.

Duration oj Parliament
I think the meaning of our standing order has been very well expressed in a statement made by the Speaker of the United Kingdom house which will be found on page 78 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, citation No. 180:
Standing order 10 of the United Kingdom house, in force since 1882, also provides that a member may propose the adjournment of the house "for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance." On the 13th of April, 1894, a member asked leave to make that motion to discuss "the neglect of the government to take measures for the relief of agricultural depression during the present session." As forty members rose in support of the motion, debate was allowed, but on its conclusion, the speaker said: "I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the house will allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house, because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject. That is not the purpose of the standing order of 1882, and would, I think, cut at the root of the order."
I have no desire and it would be improper for me to deal with the merits or demerits of the proposal contained in the motion. I think I may be permitted to point out to the house that this motion, if adopted by the house, would subsequently have to take the form of a joint resolution of both houses to be transmitted to the United Kingdom parliament. If the statement made in the motion is correct, namely "Whereas the houses of parliament at Westminster will adjourn to-morrow until next Monday, April the 16th, for a long week-end," the question of time would be a very material factor.
It is however my function to deal with this motion only on the ground of the requirements of our standing order, which is in its effect and almost in its words the same as the standing order of the United Kingdom parliament covering such motions, and in view of the statement made by the Speaker of that house, which I have read and in which I concur, I do not think that the present motion comes within the scope of standing order No. 31, and I therefore rule that the motion is not in order because of the lack of urgency. .



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Are there any conditions of disposal contained in the government agreement with Defence Industries Limited of Parry Sound other than those contained in answer to question given on page 297 of Hansard for March 28, 1945?
2.	What are the conditions of disposal in the event of the plant not being sold to Defence Industries or any other purchaser?
3.	W'hat, if any, are the restrictions regarding the use of that plant in the event of its sale to any party other than D.I.L.?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	No.
2.	None.
3.	There are no restrictions on the use of the plant unless the purchaser proposes to manufacture explosives using the processes owned by Defence Industries Limited. If the purchaser proposes to use the processes owned by Defence Industries Limited, he is obliged to obtain a licence to use such processes. The terms of this licence are to be arranged by agreement between Defence Industries Limited and the purchaser, and failing agreement, the terms will be fixed by the commissioner of patents.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-STAFF-WAGE CONDITIONS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What rate of w'ages does the national film board pay, (a) messenger boys; (b) picture framers?
2.	By what scale, or on what basis, are wages paid by the national film board determined?
3.	Is any individual responsible for determining the above wages? If so, what is the position of such individual?
4.	What provision is made for increases?
5.	Is the matter of a rvorker's dependents considered in determining national film board wages ?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	(a) Messenger boys are paid $60 per month; (b) None employed.
2.	Civil Service Commission rates of wages
are the standard.	,
3.	The Civil Service Commission ordinarily, and the government film commissioner when he acts under the authority of the National Film Act, section 12 (1).
4.	Salaries are surveyed periodically to determine whether increases are to be recommended.
5.	The wage rate is paid according to the job performed.

Questions


HOUSING-AGREEMENTS WITH MUNICIPALITIES, ETC.
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many limited dividend corporations have been formed in accordance with the National Housing Act, 1944?
2.	HaVe any agreements with municipalities been ' entered into in accordance with the National Housing Act, 1944, and, if so, with what municipalities?
3.	Have any grants for research purposes been made in accordance with the National Housing Act, 1944, and, if so, in what amounts?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1 and 2. All parts of the National Housing Act except part IV, which relates to home improvement and home extension loans, were proclaimed on January 18, 1945. At that time the Minister of Finance made a public announcement as follows:
"In bringing the National Housing Act into effect, the government also clears the way for the construction of low rental housing projects by limited dividend companies, financed to the extent of 90 per cent by the dominion government, for direct investment by life insurance companies in low cost or moderate cost rental housing projects, for grants by the dominion to the municipalities to assist in slum clearance and for special research projects and community planning. In the main, these are post-war projects . . .".
The limited supplies of materials and labour now available for housing purposes are being used by Wartime Housing Limited mainly to provide accommodation in certain congested areas for dependents of those in the armed forces and returning veterans, by the director of the Veterans' Land Act, by the National Housing Administration for house conversions, and for the construction of houses and apartments in the moderate and lower price ranges.
There have been numerous inquiries and preliminary discussions with respect to the formation of limited dividend corporations and to grants to municipalities for slum clearance, but in no case have negotiations been completed and it is obvious that the number of projects that can be proceeded with immediately is limited by the available supply of labour and materials.
3.	No.


ST. LAWRENCE ICE-BREAKERS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	On what date, in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 7943 and 1944, did government ice-breakers begin their operations in the St. Lawrence?
2.	On what date, in each of the said years, did they reach Montreal?
3.	On what date did they begin their operations in 1945, and when did they reach the port of Montreal?
4.	Did riparian owners on the St. Lawrence suffer any damage when the ice broke this spring?
5.	Has the government investigated into this matter?
0.	If so, what was the result of such investigation?
7. If not, will the government institute an investigation so as to define liability in the case of damage sustained by St. Lawrence riparian owners?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	To open the channel from Three Rivers to Montreal, ice-breaking operations began: 1939, March 6; 1940, February 26; 1941, February 25; 1942, February 18; 1943, February 12; 1944, February 20.
2.	1939, April 4; 1940, March 22; 1941, March 29; 1942. March 23; 1943, April 8; 1944, March 23.
3.	1945. Began at Three Rivers March 1; reached Montreal March 29.
4.	No information.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to No. 5.
7.	No. The government accepts no liability for conditions resulting from weather conditions.


WATERVILLE, N.S., EMERGENCY LANDING FIELD
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What is the total cost of property secured for the emergency landing field at Waterville, Nova Scotia?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the persons from whom such property was purchased, stating the acreage secured and the amount paid for each property or asked for same?
3.	Have final payments been made, and, if not, what claims are outstanding?
4.	What have been the costs of improvements and to whom have payments been made?
5.	What are the estimated costs to complete?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	$27,990.
2.	See statement hereto attached.
3.	All payments have been made.
4.	Payments made to various small suppliers and for work done by departmental forces
	 $ 9,172 91
Payments to Municipal Spraying and Contracting Company for field development	 $145,400 78 $154,573 69
5.	All work contemplated has been completed at a cost of $182,563.69.
Questions

Details re property	purchased for -landing		
field at Waterville, NS.: Address-Name		Area	Amount
Cambridge Station-			
H. & I. M. Best	.. 9-6	S 480W. Duncanson	.. 2-5	75J. F, Durno	.. 49-8	2,084B. B. Forsyth 	.. 1-0	2,565W. G. Forsyth	.. 11-3	6,314J. F. Foster 	.. 68-9	7,000R. A. Illsley	.. 5-2	429J. L. McDow	.. 0-5	990Mrs. L. H. Pineo ...	.. 6-4	176A. Reece 	.. 31-2	857Maude Reece	.. 49-2	1,875Helen Reeves	.. 4-2	210C. E. Saunders	.. 0-3	35L. Timmins	.. 8-0	1,715Mrs. E. M. Webster	.. 34-0	1,600J. T. Webster	.. 2-0	100Cornwallis-	R. H. Ward 	.. 0-5	1,485$27,990


DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION-HOUSING
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1 Has the civil service commission established the position of director of housing, or some similar position, in the department of reconstruction?
2.	What housing activities, or authority, has been vested in the department of reconstruction?
3.	What position, if any, has J. M. Pigott held, or does he now hold, with the department of reconstruction?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: A position was established by the Civil Service Commission of Director General of Housing Development, Department of Reconstruction, and Mr. J. M. Pigott, by order in council P.C. 114/9151, dated December 6, 1944, was appointed to fill that position at no salary. Mr. Pigott, however, has never acted in this capacity and the order in council will be rescinded.
By agreement with the Minister of Finance, direct responsibility for housing will remain with his department. Activities of the Department of Reconstruction will be confined to * assisting the finance department and by stimulating housing construction.
Mr. Pigott is unpaid President of Wartime Housing Limited, a crown company responsible for building temporary housing for war workers. Wartime Housing Limited is, of course, at the service of other departments of government to meet emergent situations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What disposition is to be made of the aircraft repair plant at Edmonton, Alberta?
2.	Is there an optional purchase or other contract covering this plant? If so, what are the terms?
3.	Could not this plant be used for the retraining of discharged service men?



WHITEHORSE RADIO STATION

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Will the government of Canada acquire the radio broadcasting station established at Whitehorse, Yukon, by the American army, when that army- withdraws from Yukon?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents that have passed between May, 1944, and date hereof, between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any official thereof and the Minister of National War Services, referring to or connected with, the application or applications that have been made for the establishment of French-language radio stations at St. Boniface, Manitoba; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan: Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, and Edmonton, Alberta.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I wonder if I might make a brief statement with respect to the business of the house. This is perhaps a more appropriate time than on motions.
During the discussion prior to orders of the day on Monday, the Prime Minister indicated eagerness to have the present session cease- its activities as soon as possible. To that proposal I attempted to place before parliament the unfair position in which the government's failure to call parliament at the proper time had placed the official opposition and other hon. members in the house who desire an orderly and regular conduct of the nation's business in time of war. I indicated at the time that the proposal of the Prime Minister would be considered by my followers and myself and that in due course we would make known our decision in the light of what we thought was in the national interest.

Business of the House
There is little real justification actually, in the light of what has taken place since last January, for asking parliament to pull in its belt a notch and prematurely cut off discussion. The failure of the government to call parliament when it should have been called last January lies at the bottom of the whole problem. The language and tone of the Prime Minister's remarks on Monday are said to have been construed by some as meaning that he might adjourn, prorogue or dissolve the house before the war appropriations and civil supply bills are through. In that connection I desire to point out that this party is plainly on record in this debate, that so far as we are concerned the war appropriation bill and the supply bill must be passed. I can scarcely believe that the Prime Minister would by adjournment, prorogation or dissolution, do anything to prevent the passage of his own government's war appropriation bill or the legislation respecting supply while there is still time to pass them. It would be a national catastrophe for either the government to decide or any other group to prevent the voting of the money needed to carry on the war and the civil government. We caution the government or any other group against incurring that heavy responsibility; if they do, it will be theirs alone. We are therefore prepared, Mr. Speaker, to sit in morning sessions from now on, and on Saturday of this week if necessary in order to clear up the order paper and to make it possible to obtain royal assent to all of the legislation before the end of the week. We feel that this offer of practical cooperation will meet with a similar cooperative response from the Prime Minister and the government.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I say
just a word to my hon. friend. I was naturally pleased to hear him say that his party did not intend to prevent supply from being voted or the necessary appropriations made for the conduct of the war. He said that he was making the statement he has just made because my remarks of a day of two ago, on Monday, I think it was, were being construed as meaning that I might possibly have parliament dissolved before the effluxion of time by the constitution. May I relieve my hon. friend's mind immediately about any summary dissolution of parliament. If the business of parliament is not concluded before midnight on Monday of next week, this parliament will be dissolved because it has run the full limit of its time. I have at no time had any thought or intention of recommending dissolution with a view of shutting off
discussion in the house. As a matter of fact hon. members well know that the sole reason the government has continued up to the last, or almost the last day of the term of parliament before going to the people, has been our desire to avoid a general election while the war was still in progress. This government would have gone to the people a year or more ago had we been considering our immediate political fortunes rather than what was owing to the men who are fighting Canada's battles at the front.
When Monday night comes I will have the satisfaction at midnight of realizing that I have been faithful to the mandate received from the day on which the people of Canada charged this government as a Liberal government with the duty of carrying on Canada's war effort. Hon. members will recall that there was before the country at the time of the last general elections not merely the Liberal party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party, but also a party known as a National Government party, which was the Conservative party under another name. The National Government party was defeated at the polls and the Liberal party was returned, while the war was on, by an overwhelming majority. I have felt that the people having themselves stated that they did not wish to have a national government, but wished to have a Liberal government direct the conduct of the war, it was a trust given to us which we should carry out, and my colleagues and I have acted accordingly. As I say, I shall be very happy indeed when Monday night comes to realize that during all the difficulties of this period of the war we have maintained that trust, and that at no time in the whole period have we done other than seek to make the war effort of Canada as effective as it could possibly be made. We have not failed to ask the house for any appropriations that we believed the navy, the army or the air force required, or for what was needed by the forces in the way of munitions and supplies, food and the like. We have not hesitated to ask this parliament to grant what was necessary and I am happy to say that parliament has given us its support to that end.
What has been done in the prosecution of the war, as I have said over and over again, has been done by the people of Canada themselves with the government acting as their agent in carrying out what it believed to be the wishes of the people. During the last two years, when my own party had thought it advisable that we should not be confronted with obstacles at the last minute, or that we
Business of the House

should not wait longer than some other governments of the commonwealth have waited before appealing to the people, I could see the political advantage that might be gained in having an election, but I took the position very firmly that, while the men were fighting at the front, we should not, if it was possible to avoid it, have an election brought on at a time when they would not be free to discuss the issues with as much calm and regard for their own future as was desirable. This was the case, for example, at the time when we adjourned last August and could have immediately presented our programme of social reform to the people.
There have been other occasions when an election might have been politically advantageous, occasions that are well known to all hon. members of the house, but I have said, no, each time with only one limitation, which was that I would not ask parliament to deprive the people of the rights which they have under the constitution of saying what government was to carry on in Canada for the next five years. I said repeatedly I would not ask for an extension of the time of parliament and thereby deprive the people of their right to say whom they wished to have administer the country's affairs over the next five years. I have been true to that trust. I have held, as I say, firmly to the position that if we reached the time when the five years were up, we would go to the people as soon thereafter as possible. And that position has been maintained. Happily we have now come to the time when I believe we can say, in the words of the Commander-in-Chief, General Eisenhower, that German resistance has been crushed on the western front. I do not think it will be very long before German resistance on the eastern front and throughout the whole of Germany will be effectively ended. Therefore there is strong reason to believe that what we have tried our utmost to secure to Canada's fighting men will be secured to them, namely, that they will have achieved victory before they are obliged to consider the issues of a general election.
No one can say the war may not run a little bit longer than some at the moment anticipate. I shall be very greatly surprised if, before the San Francisco conference is concluded, as I said in a recent broadcast, the war in Europe will not have been officially declared to have been brought to a victorious close. We shall then have achieved what has been one of the great purposes of this administration, namely, to carry through Canada's part in this great war along the line of a total effort and that right up to the last hour afforded us by the constitution so to do. By delaying an appeal 
to the people until it was required by the constitution, we have secured to our fighting men like opportunities to those which other citizens of Canada will have of studying the questions that will be of most importance to their future. Therefore my hon. friend or any other member of the house need not be in the least concerned about the intention of the government to dissolve this parliament prior to the time at which the constitution makes it necessary unless the house itself should decide to .get through with its business before that time.
Now I come to the question as to whether parliament should have been called earlier. Parliament has had five full sessions. It was adjourned early last December, and hon. members expected to meet again on January 31. When parliament adjourned on December 7 I said to my colleagues that, while we could not be sure when the war would end, obviously it was desirable for us to have a general election before the victory loan campaign came' on, if the war ended or the decisive battles had been fought soon enough that we could feel that we were taking no chances that the men at the front would not have the opportunities I have just mentioned. Had the decisive battles been fought in the month of December, as was expected by many, or in January or February, as others thought, this house would have been dissolved at that time and the election campaign would have been concluding at about this time. I canvassed the situation carefully with the national war finance committee, to ascertain if they could not move back a little the date of the seventh victory loan to enable us to await somewhat longer the outcome in Europe before dissolving, if we were to have the election before the victory loan campaign took place. But I was told that it might prejudice the loan very greatly if any change were made in what had come to be the customary date. Reasons were given to me wdiich I thought were sound, and, in those circumstances, naturally the government felt that it was our duty to the war effort of the country that no steps should be taken by us which would prejudice that all-important aspect of our war effort. So, as I say, if it had been possible to get the election over before the victory loan campaign, the election would have been over.
Then why was parliament called? The calling of parliament was planned for the simple reason that in the event of its being impossible to have the appeal to the people before the victory loan campaign, it was felt we should bring the house into session to see if some progress might not be made particularly in

Business of the House
relation to the war appropriations, so as to leave that much less for the next House of Commons to undertake in the way of passing needed appropriations. It was not intended to deal with all the business of a new session, for that belongs to the new parliament that will come into existence after the general election. We had the assurance, by a two-thirds majority, that this house would aid the government in a vigorous war effort. With that assurance in mind, within two days after parliament adjourned on December 7, an effort was made to arrange to have the Minister of National Defence in his seat when the house next met should it be be found possible and advisable that another session, however short, should be held. It was felt desirable that the minister should be here, since the subject we would take up first would be the war appropriations; and we sought immediately to obtain a seat for the minister. It was not possible to bring the house together earlier, because to carry out an election under our legislation as it stands to-day, even a by-election*, requires at least two months from the time the writ is issued until it is returned. As I say, with the assurance that we would have the vigorous support of the house in our war effort, we assumed, I shall take it entirely upon myself and say I assumed, at a time of war that every hon. member of the house would appreciate a motive of the kind, and that no opposition would be offered which would make it impossible for the Minister of National Defence to be in the* House of Commons to assist in getting through the estimates that might be necessary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, o'h.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment; I will explain my point of view to my hon. friends. I was seeking to oblige not only all parties in this house but the parliament that will follow it. I was seeking to carry out what I believed to be the wish of the people of Canada, that we should devote as much time as possible to getting on with the business of the country. For that reason, as I say, n,o time was lost. Within two days following the adjournment of the house we had secured1 the agreement of the then sitting member for Grey North, Mr. Telford, who unfortunately had not been in good health, to resign, so as to permit the minister to run in that constituency, on the understanding that it would be simply for the purpose of coming into this house for the remainder of this parliament, to assist in its work. When that proposal was made public I am right when I say it was generally assumed that there would be no opposition. I was given
very strong grounds for believing that this would be the case. But I am .not going into the circumstances that occasioned the opposition. All I would say in regard to the election in Grey North is that if hon. gentlemen opposite believe, as they say, that the result of the bye-election signified that their policy of conscription for overseas service was endorsed by the electors of Grey North, unless my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) is prepared to say that his policy was the same as theirs-


Thomas Miller Bell: It was not.
Mr. MACKENZIE .KING: -their candidate regards the policy of conscription has been returned by a minority of votes in Grey North, rather than by a majority. In other words the people of Grey North turned down


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: That applies to some ministers and to the leader of the government. The Prime Minister was returned by a minority vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend wishes to get in his word I am prepared to let him do so quietly, on his own, but I wish to be allowed to make my statement without interruption to this house. This is a matter which affects the whole question of government of the country, not only for the present but at all times. Let me put this position to my hon. friend who is interrupting me. Are we to have it assumed, first of all, that our parliamentary institutions, which are based on the working together of a government and an opposition, are not to be assisted and supported by the people of the country, especially in time of war, when the government has a right to count upon the reasonable cooperation not only of all parties in the House of Commons but of all the people in the country, particularly when its actions are directed wholly and solely toward promoting the war effort? I felt, having regard to all the circumstances, that to have the Minister of National Defence in parliament, in time of war, when we were going to discuss war measures, was wholly in the interests of all. But what was the position taken by hon. gentlemen immediately opposite? Every effort was made to prevent the minister from coming into the house, an effort in vdiich, in combination with another party, they were successful. May I ask, was that assisting the government in carrying on its -war effort? Carry that to its logical conclusion and what does it mean in its effect upon government in Canada?
Business of the House

Let me put this first. Let me take the position of the leader of the party opposite. The other day when my hon. friend, as leader of the official opposition in this house, was invited to be a member of the delegation to go to San Francisco, I was surprised to hear him say that he would first have to ask his leader, someone who has never been in this parliament at all, whether or not he should go. May I point this out, that from the beginning of this parliament, to this hour, there has been no leader of the Conservative or Progressive Conservative party in this House of Commons. Since the last general election, so far as the Conservative party is concerned, our relations to them have not been determined by the actions of the official opposition in this House of Commons. The control of the Conservative party has been carried on by some little, group outside the House of Commons altogether. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not themselves been debating issues here; in taking part in discussions they have been acting upon, obliged to act upon, or claiming to act upon the dictates of others.
What is to become of our parliamentary institutions if that is to continue? I had not intended to speak of this at the present time. I had intended to speak of it during the general election, but I might as well mention it now. Our parliamentary procedure is based on the assumption of a government and an opposition, so much so that parliament itself has recognized the official status of an opposition, and that the leader of the opposition carries a special responsibility, and because of that responsibility parliament has voted to the one holding that position a salary equivalent to that given a minister of the crown. That has been done, in order that he might, on his own responsibility-not upon the say of someone outside-but on his own responsibility, as leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, take a stand which will enable him to maintain our parliamentary institutions in accordance with the authority and dignity vested in his official position.
Since the last general election, we have not had in this house the leader of the Progressive Conservative or any Conservative party. There has been an acting leader; there has been a house leader, but that is all. He, however, has not been the leader of the party. What is the position at the present time? We have offered to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, time and again, opportunities to enter this House of Commons. But for two and a half years he has not been here. This government would welcome his presence here, merely to make it possible for him-


An hon. MEMBER:: York South.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Grey
North. 'Why did he not run in Grey North?


Mr. ROWE:: York South.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen opposite were testing the strength of their party and the strength of their leader, they would have had their leader run in Grey North against the Minister of National Defence.


William Earl Rowe: We let the people of Grey North decide that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was his position? He would not come into parliament himself and he sought to do all he could to keep out of parliament a minister of the crown. Follow that land of thing, generally official, to its logical conclusion and you find the opposition taking the position that it will not be represented in parliament, but that if it can, it will do all in its power to keep out of parliament those who are taking part in the government of the country. As a result you have our parliamentary institutions completely sabotaged.


William Earl Rowe: That is not correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. I did not bring up this matter. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has asked me why I did not bring the present session on any sooner. I am to some extent responsible for the calling of parliament and I ask this house and the country this question: Does anyone believe that after the kind of by-election that was waged in Grey North, and having regard to all the circumstances of that election, this parliament of Canada, this House of Commons, if it had been called, or reassembled the next dajq would have been concerned, from beginning to end, with anything other than talking over and over and over again about what had happened in Grey North?


William Earl Rowe: You are talking about it now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made it clear at the time of the by-election that we were quite prepared to bring this House of Commons into being shortly after that event if we had-


William Earl Rowe: Won the election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister had been in a position to take his seat.


William Earl Rowe: If you had won the election
you would have had a session of parliament.

Business of the House


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made perfectly clear what I would do, and what I was seeking to do. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have had all the time they wanted to criticize the administration, if they wished to do so.


William Earl Rowe: You did not do it, though.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And my hon.
friend was one who did more than anybody else-from what I can learn-to bring about a condition which would prevent that from taking place.


William Earl Rowe: The people of Grey North did that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And, further to what I have said, there was no obligation, under the constitution of Canada, nothing in the procedure of parliament itself, to render it necessary for the government to call another session. There was absolutely nothing. We had had our five sessions, and we know that this parliament has been one of the longest in the history of Canada. There was no obligation on the government. But the government, once it was clear that a general election could not be brought on before the victory loan campaign was over, anxious to do what was fitting, deemed it desirable to bring the House of Commons together for the purpose of voting the necessary interim supply which would be required over the time of the general election and the reassembling of a new parliament.
May I state there is another reason why parliament was called into special session. That was the invitation to the San Francisco conference. It was obviously desirable, the moment it was known that the conference on world security was to be called, that Canada should be represented at that conference. That rendered necessary the holding of the general election some time after the conference. But I say, if there had been no victory loan and no San Francisco conference and the decisive battles had been fought, this country in all probability would either have had an election over at this time, or would have been in the middle of it, or near the end of it. Once we had to consider the two things, the war loan and the San Francisco conference, apart altogether from the time of the cessation of hostilities, it meant that we had to hold the general election after those two events.
_ Here again may I say that the government is only too anxious to allow just sufficient time for an appeal to be made properly to the people of Canada after those two events are' concluded, before the day of polling itself. So far as this session is concerned, all we are asking for is to give the people of Canada what they are entitled to have under the constitution, namely the right to determine under conditions governing a general election what government is to be in power in Canada for the next five years, and for the House of Commons to make this possible, through moneys supplied1 by parliament, rather than by governor general's warrants. That is what we are seeking to have done; let the people decide the government they want.


William Earl Rowe: That is what they decided in Grey North; let the people decide.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is
another illusion my hon. friends have. They think the by-election, conducted in the manner in which the by-election in Grey North was conducted, was the voice of the people of Canada. They were never more mistaken. As hon. members must know, the government throughout the campaign did not extend the issue in that by-election beyond the one purpose stated; namely, that of making it possible for the Minister of National Defence to be in the House of Commons in the event of its being thought advisable and necessary to hold another session. We refused to discuss general issues. The purpose of the by-election was not for the discussion of general issues, at all.


James Arthur Ross: It certainly was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was only for one thing. But hon. members opposite raised all kinds of issues, aroused all kinds of prejudices, all kinds of passions; everything that is worst in the public life of the country they tried to bring into that campaign.


William Earl Rowe: It was just a lack of confidence in the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the
appeal to the country is made hon. members opposite will find what the people of Canada as a whole thought of the way the by-election in Grey North was carried1 on by them from beginning to end.


William Earl Rowe: The people of North Grey answered you.


Mr. BENCE:: Why don't you put Ralston back?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before hon. gentlemen opposite talk about putting anyone back who has already served in this house for many years they had better get into the House of Commons their leader, who has never been inside the house.

Business of the House


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: How do you like that over there?


William Earl Rowe: He will be in the Prime Minister's place next fall.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "he will be in," and what will happen to him if he gets in? If hon. gentlemen opposite follow what they have done over the last five years they will have some persons outside the house, some little group-I will not say where they will be located or who they are-but a little invisible group dictating the behaviour and the whole policy of the party.
To come back to the question raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition,
I have already said that the government had called this session to consider the San Francisco conference matter and to consider as well the voting of the necessary war appropriations and supply to tide the country over the period of a general election. There are only two ways in which the war effort and civil government can be carried on during the period of the election, and that is by moneys voted by this house or appropriated by governor general's warrants. I stated when the house first met that we would sit from Monday until Friday, that we would not rise for Wednesday evenings, which is the practice we would ordinarily have adopted, but that we would sit the full day on all sitting days for the conduct of public business. We intend to do that till the last moment the house sits, if the house decides to sit until the last moment.
But I ask my hon. friend when he suggests to me that I should baigain with him as to the house sitting on Saturday and other mornings until we get through, will he give me a guarantee that no other members but himself and those of his party are going to speak at undue length and that by sitting on Saturday or even Sunday, were such a thing to be thought of, other members will not be determined to have the house run until the last hour of the last day so that in the absence of the war appropriations and supply being voted1 the country's business would have to be carried on during the next four or five months under governor general's warrants.


Gordon Graydon: Will the Prime Minister permit me?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Gordon Graydon: Our party has considered this matter, and we are very anxious that the discussion should be brought to an end so 
that royal assent may be given on Saturday.
I cannot guarantee what members down in the corner will do, nor can I give any guarantee with respect to members on the government side of the house. May I point out to my right hon. friend, who has made a plea for speed in the house, that I took the trouble to find out who was holding up business, and I find that outside of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, who took up considerable time-and I am not complaining about that at all-twenty-three columns of Hansard on one day were consumed by government speakers, outside of the Department of National Defence; eighteen columns by Independents down in the corner; nine by the C.C.F.; seven by the Social Credit group, and seven columns by ourselves. I cannot guarantee to the Prime Minister what other people will do, buj I can say that our party is anxious to close up the discussion and to get the war appropriation and the supply bills through so that royal assent may be given in the regular fashion on Saturday.


William Earl Rowe: We have had an hour spent in a post-mortem this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the whips and the leaders will meet together and come to an agreement that they are prepared to have prorogation on Saturday provided this house sits to-morrow morning and Friday morning at eleven o'clock, I am prepared to say on behalf of the government that we will agree to that arrangement, but if we cannot get that agreement I can see no use in sitting in the mornings or on Saturday and we will continue to sit if necessary on Monday and see whether or not we are to get by votes of this house before the term of parliament expires, what is necessary to carry on the business of the country thereafter for the next four or five months.
May I say to my hon. friend that I am obliged to him for the suggestion he has just made and I thank both him and his party for being prepared to give the undertaking he has proposed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I see very little use in coming to arrangements or agreements regarding the shortening of the session when this afternoon for a w'hole hour we have had a political discussion between two major parties. We in this group have endeavoured to facilitate the business of the house, and I know that my hon. friends to my left have endeavoured [DOT] to do so to the very best of their ability; yet we have seen on the government side of the house member after member rise and make speeches which often had very little bearing

San Francisco Conference
on the subject matter actually before the Chair. I and those associated with me have been most anxious .to see the business of the house concluded this week, but if this kind of discussion proceeds every day and the major parties continue to use up time which might be used for the discussion of the appropriations and estimates, I and my colleagues cannot be responsible for what happens. I think it is only fair that I should say that.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say a word on this matter.


Thomas Vien: Order. There is nothing before the Chair, and I do not wish that there shall be a general discussion.


Fred Rose: In the past few days a lot of
the time of the house has been spent in discussing party issues, while we have not yet considered the estimates of the Department of Labour and the Department of Munitions and Supply. Instead, electioneering issues have been discussed. The members of the house should be given a little time to consider some of the problems that are affecting the people of this country to-day, particularly labour problems. We have until Monday, and I think we can very well sit until Monday and take the time to consider these problems.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: May I
ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to point out to you that the discussion that has been going on between the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister might very well have taken place on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Temiscouata had he been permitted to go on with it, because all that has been discussed to-day is involved in the question whether or not the life of parliament should be extended. The speakers to-day have taken up much time in discussing the very matter we thought parliament should' discuss, but it appears now that the rest of us are to be precluded from discussing that very thing.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I should1 like to ask the Prime Minister a couple of questions, notice of which I have already sent to him. I would ask if Canada was a signatory to the united nations declaration in Washington of January 1. 1942, and was Poland one of the signatories to the same declaration. This is particularly my question, although it is the third: did1 the Canadian government receive any note or communication from the Polish government
on or about March 12 of this year protesting their exclusion from the San Francisco united nations conference? If so, was the communication answered, and what was Canada's attitude towards Poland's protest?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the hon. member for Macleod has said, he gave me notice of his three questions. The answer to the first two, which h.e has said are not so important, is "yes". The third question I would answer as follows. On March 19 the Canadian government received from the Polish minister for its information the text of a note which the Polish government had sent to the powers that issued the invitations to the conference to be held at San Francisco. This protest was not addressed to the Canadian government.



INQUIRY AS TO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom I sent notice of it a moment ago. In a few days will be held in San Francisco one of the most important conferences held up to now in connection with the organization of the world of to-morrow. There are rumours that, for the first time in the history of modern times, French will not be one of the official languages of a world conference. At a moment when the French nation is resurging from the trials of four years of barbaric domination, and is taking once more the part it has played in the affairs of the world in the past, it is to be wondered how it is that a practice of five centuries is to be set aside for the first time. I think there could be no more unwise decision than this one, if it is final.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am coming to my questions; I am through with my preamble. They are these:
1. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been informed of what will be the
j official languages at the San Francisco conference?
2.	If the French language is not to be, for the first time in history, one of the official languages at a world conference, is it the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make special representations so that the language used in the last five centuries as the language of diplomacy, and which happens to be one of the two official languages of this country, be recognized as one of the official languages of the conference?
Army-High School Stvdents


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I should be very much surprised if there is any ground for the rumour to which my hon. friend has just referred. I have received no information as to which or how many languages are to be official at the San Francisco conference; but it has been intimated to me - that one of the first matters which will be taken up by the conference itself will "be to decide what language or languages-one, two, three, four, or five-will be made official at the time; I think it would be unwise to express any opinion on the matter until the conference itself has had an opportunity of discussing it.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have a question which I should have asked last evening of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to the new rule and amended order as it applies to students at secondary schools and universities, and was referred to in reply to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). I wished to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would clarify the matter so far as military district No. 2 is concerned. I received a request to-day about it. From one school in our district there have been 1,750 enlistments of young men of eighteen years of age and thereabouts, and most of the smaller secondary schools have as many as 1,200. They receive military drill now in the schools by experienced soldier instructors from overseas, and other hours are taken up in military and physical training. There are only a few more months to go in this term, and I would ask the parliamentary assistant, with particular reference to the Toronto district which so far has lost nearly a thousand men of school age, if he will not confer with military officers and with school boards of No. 2 district with regard to next year's term starting in September, and further, that he will not interfere with arrangements in the present term, which has only about two months to run. I suggest also to the Minister of Labour, who knows something of what has been done in the secondary schools of our city, that a rule like that which has been passed does a great harm to recruiting, and is especially objectionable to some of these voung students, many of whose fathers and

brothers are overseas in the army. I ask the Minister of Labour and the parliamentary assistant to clarify this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The same rule applies to military district No. 2 as to all the other military districts, but these students are not subject to service in any case until they reach eighteen and one-half years, due to the change in regulations.


Thomas Langton Church: It has been said by a brigadier general of one military district that some of the schools need jacking and checking up. I think some of these brass hats require checking up sometimes, in view of these absurd rules.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Henry Bence: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. During the course of this session he and the Minister of National War Services have been good enough to make statements relating to the treatment of prisoners of war. In view of some of the alarming stories which are coming through the press and over the radio with respect to the bad conditions of released prisoners of war, could the Prime Minister, or someone on behalf of the government, if possible before the end of this session, or if not shortly thereafter, make a statement giving the most up-to-date information that can be obtained in connection with the matter? I would also suggest, in view of the difficulties which are being encountered overseas, that the government disclose as promptly as possible over the radio and through the press the official information they receive in this matter, because these stories, which one hopes relate only to isolated cases, are giving a great deal of concern to the next of kin.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I sajr to my hon. friend that I appreciate his raising the question, and I can assure him at once that the government is keeping as closely in touch as possible with this situation as it affects prisoners of war. We have asked in particular that some of these stories should be investigated. We have no-reason to believe at the present time that there is any foundation for them. The statement which I made in the house on March 23 regarding what was to be expected with respect to the camps covers the ground as far as the government is in a position to state it; and we have no

House oj Commons-Classifications
information from the protecting power, with which we have kept particularly closely in touch, to the effect that conditions have changed at all from what they were as I indicated when I last spoke to the house. My hon. friend's suggestion that such information as is available and authentic should be mentioned ovei* the radio or in whatever other way may be thought advisable is, I think, an excellent one, and I shall be glad to ask that it be carried out.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I have a question to put to the Minister of Labour of which I am sorry 1 did. not get a chance to give him notification. As the minister is aware, there is widespread interest throughout the trades union movement in Canada in the amendments to orders in council 9384 and 1003, wage control and labour relations. When the supplementary estimates of the minister were under consideration, certain recommendations with respect to changes were made by members of this group. Is the government contemplating any changes in the orders mentioned?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: It is a question of government policy. My hon. friend is as well aware as I am of the constitutional structure of this country. The representations made to me were not made by the national organizations in a personal way, but the drafting of that code was approved by this administration and provincial governments, labour organizations and employers, and the code was introduced a year ago. It was a subject of negotiation and, might I say, of compromise and conciliation. If my hon. friend were in my position I believe he would be the first to take the position which I myself take. Until all the evidence is in, until consultation has been had with those responsible for its administration under the constitution of this country, it will continue to receive the consideration which it rightly deserves.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. POULIOT



REFERENCE TO COMMENTS IN DEBATE ON APRIL 10

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Eleven years ago Mr. Speaker Black ruled that the word "clown" addressed to a member of parliament was unparliamentary and had to be struck from Hansard. It had been said by a privy councillor of Mr. Bennett's cabinet and addressed to the then
hon. member for Temiscouata who now represents the same county. Yesterday the same word was addressed several times to me by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and when he spoke I did not understand what he said. However, I will not ask you, sir, to force him to withdraw, nor will I ask you to have the words struck out of Hansard. I want to have it left there as a record of the humiliations I have suffered for defending the farmers and labour men. There is another thing that was said by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). Speaking of me he said: "He is trying to crawl back,"-he probably meant to the government seats. I will tell my hon. friend that that is a kind of sport I have not indulged in for half a century. The last time I crawled was fifty-four years ago when I was exactly one year old. Since then it has not been part of my daily dozen.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: There is a question I should
like to direct to the Prime Minister. Last August, I am not sure of the date, but I know it was near the end of the session, and at the beginning of this session, a report of the civil service commission was laid on the table-two reports, if I remember correctly-with respect to the House of Commons, and particularly the protective staff who are in the precincts of this chamber and of this House of Commons jurisdiction. It was left, as Your Honour stated, to be dealt with by parliament; but parliament cannot deal with it unless some initiative is taken by the government, and I was wondering if the Prime Minister had anything in mind in this regard during this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows,
this session was called for the specific purpose I have mentioned and there have been, I was going to say, innumerable requests that the government pass this amendment or that, or introduce this or that piece of legislation. We have felt it necessary, however, to hold to the purposes announced and not to go beyond them. In the circumstances it is not the intention of the government to introduce anything outside our announced programme. The matter to which my hon. friend has just referred is no dou'bt one that will be promptly taken up by whatever government may be in office at the first session of the new parliament.
766	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 10, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Mr. MacNICOL:: I listened very attentively to the address of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and the cardinal statement I took out of it, which I propose to discuss to-day, along with several other items mentioned in his speech, is the statement he is reported to have made at page 746 of Hansard of yesterday:
The latest figures at hand show a total of 675,000 men and women employed on the manufacture of war equipment as of January 1, 1945. There has been a substantial decrease since January 1, 1944, but, despite this, there is every indication that our greatest labour shortage will occur in the next six months.
Further on he makes this explanatory statement:
As I stated recently, on the basis of the information now available we anticipate a cutback of not more than 35 per cent in our munitions programme with the cessation of hostilities in Europe.
Previous ministers were asked-I asked them myself-whether they had any programme to provide employment for the men in the services of their departments on their return. The reply was to the effect that the incoming Minister of Reconstruction-I believe that is the title-would be the one to take care of such a matter. What I have observed during this session so far is the lack of any programme or any statement from those addressing the house as to what is to be done in reference to employment. The minister of munitions did make a statement in that regard and he mentioned a number of subsidiary programmes in regard to employment, and therefore I feel it my duty to speak on the subject.
A few days ago I attended quite a large meeting in Toronto. There were a number of returned soldiers with their womenfolk and their families and the gathering was addressed by a distinguished soldier. Apparently a few days before addressing the meeting he had attended a large gathering of the Canadian Legion or the Canadian Corps, or perhaps a gathering of both. That speaker was alarmed because, he said, the returned members in these organizations had fervently discussed

the problem of employment facing their organizations after the war and they could see no big programme to provide employment. I am sorry to say that is my own observation; I cannot see any big programme for the provision of employment after the war.


Mr. BLACICMORE:: Mt. Chairman, may we ask for more order in the chamber. I cannot hear a word the hon. member is saying.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sorry, but apparently there are a few members of the House of Commons who are not interested in the question of jobs and of employment after the war; and yet, next to the winning of the war, the one important matter for this house to consider is the subject of jobs and employment. This may not affect some of the ridings, but it greatly affects mine. I live in a riding of 70,000 people, all in the working class, 45,000 of them employed in industry, and if employment is not of interest to some hon. members, that is their funeral; it is not mine. Fortunately I feel that the working men of my riding will return me at the next election. If hon. members are not returned, I say it is their funeral, if they are not interested in the question of jobs. So many men cannot understand the problem, and yet that distinguished soldier, a man closely associated with the problem of relief in Toronto, said that, to him, the question of jobs was, next to the winning of the war, the major problem of the country. If I cannot present that clearly,. I am sorry for those members who have no time except to gabble and are not interested in employment after the war.
The minister has said that some 675,000 were engaged in the making of munitions. When the minister speaks again I should like him to elaborate on that and tell us whether that 675,000 applies only to munitions plants or to all the thousand and one component plants; because 675,000 men and women seems to me to be a number that does not include those either directly or indirectly associated with the subsidiary plants making munitions.
I should think they would number perhaps a million men and women There must be that number engaged either directly or part time in the making of munitions. If, as the minister said, munition making is cut back thirty-five per cent when the European war is over, it would mean a reduction of 236,000 in that
675,000.	That would present an immediate problem, because work would have to be provided for those 236,000 men and women. It isa large number to find employment for. That is the matter I am interested ini, Mr. Chairman. My life has been associated with those-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
who work in industry and with their problems.
I hope it will always be the paramount problem with me.
In the course of his remarks the minister mentioned a number of different matters. I shall deal with them individually and each one briefly. I am sorry to take up the time of the committee at this late stage of the session, but knowing and believing the minister himself is chiefly interested in the work which comes under his new department I am sure he will welcome a few suggestions from me or from anybody else that will provide ways and means of creating employment.
The minister mentioned the problem of coal. It is a most important problem. I have advocated before, I advocate now, that when this war is over, Ontario-and I speak of that province because that is where I live -should be in a position to take not less than a million and a half tons of Nova Scotia coal yearly, and more if possible. It is the duty ' of the government of the day to provide much faster and cheaper conveyances than exist today to enable the Nova Scotia coal miners to deliver their coal rapidly in Ontario and at lower freight rates than now exist.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not Alberta?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If my hon. friend will just possess his soul in patience, I shall come to that. I was trying to get to it as rapidly as possible. I am thoroughly familiar with Canada from one end of it to the other, and I try to leave out no portion of it when I am dealing with these matters. I hope that after the war, methods will be devised whereby a million and a half tons of Alberta coal can be brought to Ontario. My deskmate, the hon. member for Royal, who always stands up for his beautiful province of New Brunswick, asks about New Brunswick coal. Yes, New Brunswick too; when I speak of Nova Scotia coal I am thinking of the maritimes generally; they are pretty well together. I have used a lot of Alberta coal and Nova Scotia coal too. The Alberta coal is simply wonderful. The time has come for this government to establish a national fuel policy under which coal can be brought from both east and west faster and at a reasonable rate to the great buying province of Ontario, and, of course, Quebec too. I will confine my remarks in that regard to my own province, because in Ontario we buy several million tons of coal yearly. I am firmly convinced that our national coal policy should be designed to enable and induce Canadians to use Canadian coal to the greatest extent. Why do I say that? Because the trains bringing Alberta, Nova Scotia, or New
Brunswick coal to Ontario would take back products made by the working men and women of Ontario. Let me give an example of what I mean. Last summer I was up in the riding of the hon. member for Yukon. He took me to a very large store in the city of Dawson. Standing beside the tool counter I observed that the tools on sale had been made in Davenport riding by the Gray Tool company, on Van Horne street, Toronto. This company make excellent tools of great variety. I am happy to say that during the war they have played a very important part in providing the tools required by the Minister of Munitions and Supply and companies throughout Canada.
I have been making a survey of the Yukon in the hope-I cannot speak of it to-day, but I will do so later-of encouraging and assisting in securing an additional market for the use of Norman wells oil or Fort McMurray oil when the latter starts producing it in any quantity. They are producing a substantial amount now at Norman wells, and I have seen many men and women working there. I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to do everything I can to provide a market to keep the people working up there. My one thought was that if we could deliver oil and gasoline to the Yukon buyers at a price comparable to what they are paying for it to-day in the Mackenzie valley it would mean a large expansion of production in the Yukon. I mentioned that to the merchant in whose store I was, and he said to me, "Why, Mr. MacNiool, it will be wonderful if we can do anything like that." I said, "What would it mean to you?" He said, "I am now buying about five tons of tools a year, and it would mean instead of five tons of tools I would be buying perhaps twenty-five tons of tools a year." That would mean a lot more jobs in the Gray Tool company and the tool companies in Galt, Stratford, Hamilton and Montreal and other towns and cities throughout the east, and so on, with all the different lines of goods that company sold.
I cannot see any other way to make jobs than that the producers of goods and equipment receive orders. The only way they can get the orders is for those who send in the orders to have a demand in their immediate vicinity for that business.
May I come back to the question of coal? If Ontario bought a million and a half tons of coal from Nova Scotia and a million and a half tons from Alberta, where in the latter province they have, I believe, one-fifth of the world's coal supply, it would mean return orders to factories in Ontario and elsewhere in compensation for buying the coal of those
768	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
other areas. I cannot see how we can keep this country going unless we buy from one another. If we buy coal from the east and west they in turn will buy from us. This country must initiate national policies whereby Canadians will buy from Canadians everything that they can. This will create more employment. If the minister is returned after the election-if not we will have to supply a man to take his place from our side of the house- he will have to initiate programmes along those lines.
Some years ago I tried to set out how we could bring coal from Alberta to Ontario at a much lower rate. I have figured out the programme. If we had, I was going to say, what God might like to see us have, the Saskatchewan river in a position where it could again return to some of the glory of its early days as a transportation artery-and it could easily be done by the building of dams on the river -the coal could float down as far as Winnipeg and then be taken by special types of cars across the four hundred and fifty miles or more from Winnipeg to the minister's fine city, Fort William, where it could be loaded on boats and brought to Toronto. What I am suggesting to the minister is that if he has anything to do with it after the election he should try in every way possible to have coal brought from Nova Scotia and Alberta to the central provinces, the largest users of coal, more quickly and at lower cost; and if he remains the minister in charge I shall be glad to help him with what ideas I have in that regard.
The minister mentioned the matter of oil. If he has anything to do with coaching those who draw up the peace treaty, or if he is there himself, I hope he will make an effort to see that as part of what should come to us Canada obtains from Germany some of her wonderful hydrogenation plants by which, during the war, they have produced annually up to 250,000,000 or 300,000,000 barrels of oil from coal. Apparently they are away ahead of the rest of the world in that regard. If as part of our compensation the minister could obtain for Canada one, two, three or more of the German hydrogenation plants, one might be installed down in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and one in Alberta, and the extra coal not shipped for use as fuel then could be turned into oil in both those provinces. It is well known that the Alberta oil fields, while very creditable, have not the capacity to supply this country with oil. But they have coal in both Alberta and Nova Scotia, and we were told in the reconstruction committee that in both cases the coal is suitable for the pro-

duction of oil. It might cost a little more, but we have to keep our own people employed. Anything is better than having men unemployed; work is better than relief. To-day it requires millions of dollars in exchange to bring coal into this country, and more millions of dollars to bring in oil. I would much rather see those millions of dollars spent on the erection of plants in Nova Scotia and Alberta for the production of oil to supply Canadian needs. In that way we would provide a great deal more employment. I agree with what a distinguished soldier said at a meeting I attended in Toronto last week-end, that the greatest word in the English language to-day, next to "win the war", is "jobs". Anything that will provide jobs should 'be looked into and assisted in every way possible.
In connection with oil I should like to say a word about the Norman wells; I am going to tell the minister what I would do if the * matter were under my control. I would do everything in my power to keep the Norman wells in operation. I went over that pipe line. It is small, of course; we all know it is not a commercial pipe line. But if we could get it for nothing there would be no capital cost, and perhaps even a four-inch pipe would do for the present to send oil across to Whitehorse and to supply the Yukon. I am not arguing for a moment that it is a commercial proposition, but it could become one if the demand were created. The engineers up there told me that when the demand arose a twelve-inch line would be ample for a very long time, and would provide a considerable surplus for shipment down the Pacific coast. So I hope the minister will consider the problem of keeping the Norman wells operating, and' at the same time look into the production of oil from coal in both the maritimes and Alberta, to supplement what we are now getting out of the wells which our engineers tell us will never be able to take care of the Canadian demand by themselves.
The minister also mentioned transportation, and I want to say a word about that. I hope whoever is minister after the war will make every effort to speed up transportation in Canada, and to cut down its cost. Look at the situation in the maritimes. There is that right, tight little island of Cape Breton, with perhaps some of the best coal mines in the world. I do not know their capacity; the hon. member for Cape Breton South knows all about that, but we are told there is a considerable quantity of coal there. Look at the trouble they have getting that coal to the mainland. When the coal trains arrive at the strait of Canso just see what happens; I have watched

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
them. Surely the time is past when a condition like that should be permitted to exist in this country. There ought to be a causeway or bridge to enable those trains to get quickly to the mainland from where the coal is produced. How can we compete against the world even in our own country unless we speed up and reduce the cost of transportation? The same observations apply to the west. I have often heard the hon. member for Vancouver South and others from British Columbia talk about the freight rates in that province. The time has come when this country, either through a national commission or otherwise, must make a thorough study into freight rates, with a view to cutting down the cost of transportation in order that Canadians may be able to compete in their own markets. To-day British Columbia is almost ostracized as far as freight rates are concerned. Look at the cost of getting things into and out of that province. It is no wonder that the people out there are indignant against the east. I do not believe they should be indignant against the east, but perhaps they are right because we do not raise our voices often enough, in this house or elsewhere, to assist them in their battle to bring down transportation costs.
I am ready at all times to support any reasonable programme that will bring about the more rapid distribution of the products of the outlying provinces; and by that I do not mean anything more than that they are far distant from the great purchasing centres of Ontario and Quebec. I am always ready to assist any programme that will permit the people of this great, rich, patriotic and heroic province of Ontario to deal more extensively with our good friends in the maritimes and the west. I know of no better way to promote unity in our country than by having greater trade between all parts of it, and cheaper and faster transportation. If my hon. friend remains minister in the next government-I am not prophesying that he will, or anything like that -I hope he will "take the bull by the horns" and do whatever is required to increase the speed and cut down the cost of transportation between one part of Canada and another.
In that regard a moment ago I mentioned the Saskatchewan river. I have gone over that river from its mouth to its source. It is a long journey, about a thousand miles. I have surveyed all its main branches, and every possible reservoir site in the Rocky mountains of any size where reservoirs could be built. That is another programme that should be undertaken. The P.F.R.A. administration has a fine map showing where these reservoirs can be built. They should be 32283-49
built. Nothing is as priceless to our western provinces, particularly Saskatchewan, as water. More than any other province in Canada, Saskatchewan must have water. It has little of its own; the water comes from the Rocky mountains, and runs away in the spring. I suggest that if the minister is still in office after the war he should see to it that the waters of the Saskatchewan river are conserved in each of its source branches. There are perhaps thirty-five to forty excellent sites for giant reservoirs, with the foundations available, in my mind created by God Almighty. I am a great believer in God Almighty, and see His handiwork wherever I go. He has created that large reservoir space, capable of serving in many instances up to a half million acre-feet of water. I think hon. members have heard me describe what an acre-foot of water is. The mouths of many reservoirs are contracted to a size not much wider than the length of this room, or at most two or three times that length, and right up against solid rock. My opinion is that it is a crime to allow that vast water resource to run away. Coming back to Alberta, it is even a greater crime to allow to take place in the Rocky mountains what has been taking place, and what the Alberta government has been praying that we help them prevent, forest destruction. I carefully examined the Crowfoot glacier and the Bow river glacier. The engineer who was with me told me that those two glaciers have shrunk to a much smaller size than formerly. I have forgotten the exact amount, but even if I remembered I would hesitate to give it or to accept it. There was originally a vast thickness, and they have shrunk as the glaciers have melted away. Glaciers are the source of Saskatchewan river water. One of the reasons given was the frightful destruction, through fires and otherwise, of the forests surrounding the glaciers. Those forests are in the foothills and mountains of Alberta and British Columbia. To neglect forest conservation is another crime, and one which will affect the destiny of this country, particularly our western provinces. I am as sure as I stand here, after making a survey, and through travel and examination, that this country cannot endure or continue to prosper unless the economy of the western provinces is maintained. It cannot be maintained unless the water resources of western Canada are rehabilitated and restored. This can be done by erecting dams along the Saskatchewan river, and those dams should be erected. In eastern Canada we have spent about $750,-
009,000,	perhaps a billion dollars, on works of

770	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
one kind or another, including canals, harbours, deepening and dredging channels. It was our duty to do it and we did it. But in the west we have spent only a paltry $2,500,000 on the St. Andrew's locks. And that is another programme I suggest might well be considered by the minister who happens to sit in the next government. If my hon. friend is in office I know he will grasp the situation. Because of his engineering knowledge he will recognize the importance of the rehabilitation of the Saskatchewan river.
Do not make any mistake about it; it is a tragedy to think that a river with an average flow of 27,000 cubic feet of water per second, a maximum flow up to 100.000 cubic feet per second, and a minimum or low flow, near Prince Albert, of less than 500 cubic feet at lowest, should be neglected. It is a tragedy, and a menace and danger to the economy of the western provinces. In that process of restoration the government would be creating business and giving the people out there a chance to live, and a chance to have employment. While I love my own province of Ontario, and have deep affection for my own people, I always like to think I am big enough to speak a word for the people throughout the whole of the country. And while I know that Ontario has made a tremendous sacrifice in this war, yet I know that whole western areas were depressed such a long time that young men of military age enlisted en masse, to the point where there were no young men out there. They had come through a depression, a depression they should not have been forced to endure-ten years of it. And when war broke out they enlisted en masse, and have made a record for themselves over there in the skies and on the land of Europe and on the seas.
No matter what the experience of this country may be after the war, the western provinces should be given their chance to shine in the sun. In doing that they will provide a vast volume of business for every factory and every town in Ontario and Quebec. That means jobs-j-o-b-s. The}' will have to have jobs after the war. And they will have no trouble getting those jobs if we only see to it that the country is opened up as it should be.
I did mention Saskatchewan's need of a transportation route for heavy bulk freight such as coal and wheat. Is there any reason why there should not be a ten-million bushel elevator at Saskatoon? There should be one, too, at Riverhurst, one at Medicine Hat, and possibly one at Lethbridge. I could do it, if I had it to do. There is no reason why 500-ton barges loaded with wheat or coal should not

float down that river, just as they float down the Illinois and the Ohio rivers to-day as far as New Orleans. That is a distance a good deal farther than from Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Saskatoon or Riverhurst to Winnipeg. If that water transportation were used the freight trains could be used to handle other types of freight. Farmers of the west would receive more for their wheat, and they would buy more. They would provide a higher class of freight, and our railways would get more business. I strongly favour supporting our railway systems in any fashion we can.
The minister mentioned something about power. Well, we know that the old province of Ontario is the shining example of the use of power. In this province we find great manufacturing establishments which have developed largely as a result of our wonderful hydroelectric power system. Although I do not know the exact figure, I believe that system now produces a good deal more than 2,000,000 horse-power. Perhaps the figure is closer to
3,000,000.
How can people in the west compete? I do not believe competition will hurt us down here. It would provide more business for us. The more the western towns and cities grow, the more business is provided for the rest of Canada. And barges at those grain elevators to which I have referred would be loaded with wheat at Saskatoon and the other places I have mentioned, and this would result in great numbers of jobs and considerable business. That is what we must do-[DOT] make jobs. Our men and women must have jobs after the war.
I read lately that there has been some talk of the three western provinces forming a committee to carry out a suggestion

not one that I alone made, but perhaps I was the first to make it in the house, two or three years ago. That is a suggestion which would place the Saskatchewan river under the control of a board. In my view it is imperative that that be done. It would not allow Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta individually to do wha-t it wants, with the river. That river belongs to all three provinces, and because of that I would support this movement in western Canada, one which I advocated myself two or three years ago, for the setting up of a board after the fashion of the Tennessee valley authority. It could be known as the Saskatchewan river authoritj^. I should1 like to see an engineer from the federal government act as chairman, to see that each province gets what it is entitled to, and much more than it can possibly get under present circumstances.

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
The minister mentioned rubber. I spent five or six hours in that fine plant at Sarnia with which he had so much to do. I made a careful study of it, and inquired if it were possible for that plant to operate after the war in competition with Malaya rubber, and rubber from other places, provided that this country, which has invested $50,000,000 in the plant, would say, "There is the plant; you may operate it." How many are employed there now?


Mr. HOWE:: I do not remember exactly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know it is a very large number, somewhere in the neighbourhood of
4,000.	If that plant were not kept in operation, that number of people would be out of employment. For that reason I would support any programme to keep the plant in operation. If the plant can produce rubber in competition with native rubber; if it can produce Canada's requirements, even if the government gets no return for the use of the plant the country will receive the benefit of the employment of four thousand men more or less, and it will be more, I presume.
I do not see why we should consider the capital cost of the plant. Anything that will provide four thousand jobs of steady employment for Canadians directly, and probably many more thousand jobs indirectly, would be a good investment, and I made up my mind that on the first occasion that offered I would suggest that the capital cost of setting up that plant at Sarnia for the production of rubber be forgotten, but let the government retain control. The cost of course was greater in war time. The sole thing to be taken into consideration should be the maintenance of the plant, which will provide steady employment at good wages and under proper conditions for the four thousand or more employees in that plant. That would be good business for Canada.
Something has been said about housing. I am not going to say much about that. But conditions to-day are a tragedy. I am besieged when at home from morning to night by the finest people, as all of the members are no matter where they come from, who come to me for help in finding a place where they can lay their heads and rest at night. The situation in Toronto is serious. I believe the minister is fairly familiar with it, and I would go so far as to say that perhaps he is doing everything that can be done to relieve the housing situation in Toronto. But certainly everything a grateful country can do should be done for the wives and families of the returning men and of those who have not yet come 32283-494
back, to provide them with a place where they can live. The provision of this necessary housing would mean many thousands more jobs, and if there is to be a shrinkage in production, as I presume there will be when the war with Germany is over, one of the main problems will be to find employment for those who are seeking work. Here is one means of providing employment.
The minister in his statement said something about air transport. My time has almost expired, but I want to say a word about that because I believe that after the war, air traffic will mean much to Canada and all other countries. At the outset let me say that I am not a supporter of the minister's programme of wiping out all other companies and giving the whole air business to Trans-Canada. I am in favour of supporting Trans-Canada to the limit. It is a fine company, with fine planes and a fine personnel. But last summer I travelled thousands of miles in the C.P.A. planes and I found them very comfortable and the personnel excellent. Everywhere I got off I discussed the problem of air traffic at the air fields, and I heard great disappointment expressed at the possibility of this great company's air service being done away with after the war. I would let them operate their planes after the war. I would go further and let the Hudson's Bay company operate planes if they want to; I do not know whether they want to or not. I would also extend the same facilities to T.T.C., which has made application to operate helicopters. I would allow them and everybody else who will operate air lines and conform with the regulations of the department in regard to safety and so forth to invest their money in air facilities and give employment to thousands of our people. It would open up that great north country. I forget just how much traffic the C.P.A. carried last year in that region, although I read the figures a little while ago. It is fine that such a company should make an investment of this kind in opening up that country. I do not know how it could be opened up fully except by air service. Having myself flown over all the far north, I am strongly in favour of any programme that will increase air traffic in this country-and that means a lot more jobs all along the line.
I do not want to take up any more time, but in conclusion I do want to press on the minister the absolute necessity of water conservation in the west. I might add a word about Ontario and Quebec. A great job remains to be done in these two provinces, one which I have long advocated, and that is the flood-proofing of the rivers. I had a
772	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
letter from the Minister of Lands and Forests in the Quebec government and he gave me a list of a number of rivers that should be made flood-proof and on which water conservation should take place. He mentioned the Portneuf and a number of other small streams; the Chaudiere-but that is not a small stream; the Blondel; aux Chiens; Creek du Moulin; Cassault, Sault-a-la-Puce, and the L'Emoyne. Then there is the St. Francis and the Richelieu, in Quebec province, and in Ontario there are many rivers that should be made flood-proof-the Thames, for instance, and that in my judgment should be done promptly. I fear what might happen to the fine city of London, the fine town of Inger-soll, the splendid city of Chatham and the village of Thamesville if we do not act promptly to save them from disaster such as happened in Dayton, Ohio, through the flooding of the Miami river. There is a programme of flood-proofing and water conservation that will provide many thousands of jobs, and it will be a self-liquidating programme. The programme would include flood control, water conservation, reforestation, soil conservation and all that goes with it. While some of these things are not mentioned in the minister's statement, some of them were, and I can tell him that if he happens to be minister after the war-and the same applies no matter who the minister may be-he will receive my whole-hearted support if I am here in bringing into effect programmes that will provide jobs, not by the thousands, not by the tens of thousands but by the hundreds of thousands for the million soldiers we will have coming home, and for perhaps another million men and women who will be seeking jobs when they are laid off from the munitions plants.
This calls for a bold programme which should be planned immediately, a programme that will be self-liquidating so far as possible, like the irrigation plans I have suggested for Alberta and Saskatchewan. The latter is a programme that will provide thousands and thousands of jobs directly in the west and indirectly an equal number of jobs in the factories in the east right down to the town of Amherst in the riding of my good friend from Cumberland, who is always standing up for the maritimes. I can hardly say a word for any other part of Canada, but what my hon. friend asks: What about the maritimes? That is fine. I like a man to stand up for his own part of the country. Let me tell him that I saw in Lethbridge large quantities 
of stuff that was made in the towns of Amherst and New Glasgow. That just illustrates how far the benefits will flow.
From Cape Breton in the east to Aklavilc in the Arctic and away up to the Yukon, all Canada from the east to the west and up north should be linked together. We should all buy one another's goods. If we do that Ihere would not be one unemployed man in this country, if we have the government's benediction all along the line.


Clarence Gillis: I hesitate to make any
extended remarks at this stage, but the department now before the committee is perhaps one of the most important departments of government at this time. I consider that the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who is also Minister of Reconstruction, is going to be the man of the hour in the post-war period. That is why I wish to speak of the future of that department as related to the reconversion of industry.
I am sure we all appreciate the interest which the hon. member for Davenport takes in the maritimes. But the maritimes have been struggling along on sympathy for the last fifty years, and that sympathy has not been reflected very much in any economic betterment of the maritimes. I am going to suggest that in future, instead of just sympathizing with the maritimes we actually try to do something tangible that will be reflected in an improvement in the economy of that part of the country.
I am not going to discuss the fuel question. For the past five years in this house I have put on record my opinions as to what should be done. The government has seen fit to appoint a commission, which to-day is travelling Canada from coast to coast, examining the whole problem with the end in view of establishing a national fuel policy. I have some hope for this commission. I met them, and listened to their deliberations while in Sydney. I think they know their business, and I am reasonably sure that out of that commission will come some concrete suggestions for the organization of fuel in this country. When they bring down their report, based on the evidence they will receive-and they are getting the real evidence this time-I trust that, whichever party is governing this country, something definite and tangible will be done for the reorganization of the fuel industry because it needs reorganization. I will leave the matter there: it is being attended to.
My main concern with the minister's department is as to the future of what war industry there is in Nova Scotia. Most of the people

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
in that province are considerably worried. For example, there is the Pietou shipyards. Although it is not a big industry it gives considerable employment, and to the best of my knowledge there is no programme for maintaining it after the war. I had the pleasure of visiting the town and I found that the matter is pretty well tangled up. I shall not go into it in detail; I think the minister has probably heard all the stories which I have heard. The Maritime Foundation company is operating it on a management fee basis. It is my information that they would stay there and continue that operation provided that they could buy the repair plant which is owned by the Ferguson Brothers. On the other hand, the Ferguson Brothers are prepared to take the shipyards over if they could also retain the repair plant. That is a matter of negotiation between the government and the companies; but before the minister concludes the discussion I should like him to say something definite as to the future of that industry in Nova Scotia in the post-war period.
There is also the gun plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia. It is a purely war set-up. The possibilities are that when there is no need for the commodity it is producing, the plant will close up. If it does, a considerable number of people now employed there will be out of work, and there will be no provision for returning service personnel there or in the Pietou area in the matter of employment. I should like the minister to give us some indication of the future of that particular industry.
Another one, in which I am more personally concerned, is the plate mill at Sydney. The minister and most hon. members will remember that in 1940 considerable discussion took place here concerning that plant. It was built in the last war-built and paid for by the Canadian government. The machinery at that time was moved somewhere else. In 1940 the government rehabilitated the mill and put it to work. It has done a good job. At the present time it is working, I believe, only one shift or half-time. There is considerable anxiety as to the future of that mill.
I wish to make a few remarks as to the matter of wages at the steel plant, because it ties in closely with the future of that plate mill. The steel-workers' union, local 1064, functioning at that steel plant in Sydney, have been trying for several months past to renegotiate or revise their wage agreement. Recently their representatives were in the city, and they left, I understand, without much assurance as to what could be done. The old wage agreement was in fact an order in council passed by this government. That order in council was No. 689. Most hon. members will
remember the complete tie-up of steel in most of Nova Scotia and Ontario. Arising out of that dispute was the order in council that fixed the wage agreement and revised bonus arrangements and so forth; and that has been in effect since. I am informed-and if I am not correctly informed I want the minister to put me right-that an order in council, No. 1952, was passed on March 23 of this year constituting an agreement in the matter of subsidies as applied to steel. My information is that the subsidies are being revised. As I am informed there is a proposal under that order of three dollars a ton as a subsidy on the basis of present operations and four dollars a ton if the plate mill at Sydney closes. Now that arouses considerable concern. What I should like to know is, why the increase of a dollar a ton in the subsidy if the plate mill closes down? I may be wrong in this. I am merely raising it because I w'ant the minister to answer concerning a matter which is causing anxiety, and if I am not correctly informed the minister can put the record straight. It would look as though there was a bonus of a dollar a ton to be paid for the closing down of the plate mill- which means unemployment, and the unemployment situation in that area at the present time is anything but good. There is actual unemployment there now. Returning service personnel are not able to get work in that area. I say "not able" advisedly, because just prior to coming into the house, and after having a lot of boys in and out of the office, I checked with selective service as to what the unemployment situation was like, and they told me there just is not any employment in any of that Cape Breton island area. It is a heavy industry section, with mining and steel plants. Service personnel coming back at this time are generally medically unfit for one reason or another; and while you may be only ten or fifteen per cent disabled from a medical point of view you are one hundred per cent disabled from an employment point of view if you wish to take employment in either of these industries. As a result, men coming back in that category are just unemployed. There is no provision for vocational training; it has not yet been started; there are no schools to send them to; things are at a complete standstill; and if the small bit of war industry which was established in that province during the war is to be done away with we are going to be much worse off than we were in 1939 when this war broke out. When the minister answers, having had a chance to check the facts, I suggest he should set the record straight as to the future of that plate mill in Sydney.
774	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
There is another matter about which I should like to jog his memory. For three sessions of this parliament there functioned a reconstruction committee, which, under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Cariboo, did a good job. It is one of the best committees on which I have had the pleasure of serving while in this house. It was the duty of that committee to endeavour to get the post-war picture in the field of employment. That committee met and examined witnesses from every class of industry, and they made certain recommendations with respect to the future. The Minister of Munitions is also Minister of Reconstruction. That committee tabled in this house, on Monday, January 24, a report which will be found in No. 39 of the minutes of the reconstruction and reestablishment committee. The committee made certain definite recommendations. This was from the last report. My conception, as a member of that committee, when the report was tabled in the house, was that the minister who would be handling reconstruction in the post-war period would have at his disposal and would hand to his staff the several recommendations made by the committee together with the evidence taken, so that they might plan the future in the field of employment. I wish to call the attention of the minister definitely to a part of that committee's report with respect to the maritimes. It will be found on page four. The committee states:
Your committee has given a great deal of thought to the economic situation of the maritime provinces.
I can say that they did; they discussed the matter thoroughly.
We recommended that in cooperation with these provincial governments the federal government undertake a survey or study of conditions, with the object of advising and helping in the taking of any steps that will bring about an improvement in the economic life of the people of those provinces. This improvement can be brought about in part through a proper development of the fishing industry; through assistance to farming community, by the application of the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, by the installation of rural electrification, and the extension of cold storage facilities; through proper forest services and extended utilization of forest products; through the introduction of additional secondary industry, where the operation of such industry is economically sound, by reason of proper markets and of primary production within the maritime provinces or in the neighbouring lands, such as Newfoundland.
This inquiry should include the extent, if any, to which the maritimes have suffered because of lack of proper distribution of secondary industry in Canada and also the possibility of securing extended markets-both Canadian and international-for all maritme production. [Mr. Gillis.J
We are convinced that after the war-if prewar conditions are permitted to prevail-the Nova Scotia coal industry will not be able to exist without assistance in the marketing of the output of the mines. The coal industry situation would therefore be an important part of the proposed survey.
That has been taken care of.
After the war transportation will play an even more important part than previously in economic development.
This is the: part on which I wish to focus the committee's attention.
Therefore, in dealing with conditions in the maritime provinces, we strongly urge that the government give earnest consideration to certain proposed improvements in transportation facilities. These include:
(a)	improvements designed to make communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland constant, reliable and adequate;
(b)	improvements of transportation across the straits of Canso by the construction of a causeway or in such manner as may be judged most satisfactory, considering the amount of traffic and the conditions of ice, tides and current;
(c)	regrading, realigning and double-tracking of the Canadian National railway from Sydney to points in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Your committee has had a great deal of evidence and some discussion concerning transportation in Canada generally. There are some features of this problem upon which we are not yet ready to report. . . .
Such as matters affecting railways, bus companies, and so on. This matter of bridging the strait of Canso, realigning and doubletracking the main line is a very important part of any national fuel policy that may be set up in Canada. What I am concerned about is this. Though the reconstruction committee, after approximately three years' deliberation, and having discussed the matter from all angles and on many occasions submitted that report to the house, just about a month ago the Minister of Transport had occasion to visit Nova Scotia and in Halifax, either at a meeting or in a press interview, he was questioned on this particular project. The answers he gave at that time would lead everyone in that province to believe that so far as that project was concerned it was just a matter of determining its value as a project that would assist in the war effort. The minister said that the problem would be considered if it was still a problem, but that the maritime provinces, or the people of that area, would have to determine what they would be prepared to pay for the project, and so on.
My conception of his statement was that the report was forgotten; the government had no intention of doing anything about it; the war was over now and the problem was considered to have disappeared. I raise strenuous objection to that, and I should like the minister to clarify the situation when he gives his

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
answers in the house. There is a great deal of interest and much anxiety in Nova Scotia with regard to the post-war period. We had no industry in the province to speak of when the war broke out and what has been established has been gradually siphoned off. The project that we were oinning our faith on in the eastern end, particularly for the purpose of relieving immediate post-war unemployment, was that project across the strait of Canso, in addition to some other little undertakings which the Department of Public Works would likely be carrying on, such as breakwaters and the repair of hafbours.
This strait of Canso causeway proposal, in addition to tying the island of Cape Breton to the rest of Canada, would greatly improve the transportation problem from that end and would assist the coal industry. It would be definitely a major project that could be started in that end of the country and would relieve the shock of immediate unemployment on demobilization. I would ask the minister to consider that matter and give an answer when he gets an opportunity.
There is something else I would mention for the minister's benefit. Just before coming into the house I had occasion to meet representatives of the Cape Breton labour council. That consists of delegates of miners from all the different local units. They meet regularly and probe employment possibilities, the extension of social legislation, compensation and matters of that kind. They have also been dealing with selective service in the matter of employment. They received the same answers that I got as far as selective service was concerned. There was no immediate possibilities that they could see of assuring anyone of employment in that end of the country. This labour group took it upon themselves to meet with the regional directors of selective service. Representatives from the office in Moncton were there, and from the local selective service offices in the community as well. The object of the meeting was to discuss ways and means whereby the situation might be improved.
They made one concrete recommendation which I believe, when discussing post-war problems with reference to the mining industry, the minister should know something about, and that is the question of retiring older miners. They proposed at the meeting that the government should examine the possibility of retiring men from the mining industry after they have reached the age of sixty. A lot of people will say that at sixty years of age one is still able to do a good job. That is true in many fields of endeavour but it is not true in coal mining. When you reach fifty-five or
sixty years of age in the coal mining industry, particularly if you have been shovelling coal, your back is pretty well broken. You have passed the peak of your maximum productivity. Everyone who knows the industry knows that is true. Let me give an example of what they do in New Zealand. In that country the pensionable age is sixty, but coal miners are pensioned at fifty-five. They are laid off that much sooner because they are broken down that much quicker in that heavy industry.
It was pointed out at the meeting to which I have referred that in that area there were approximately a thousand miners who had passed the age of sixty but were still obliged to work underground because there is no legislation of any kind to help them, or any other employment in which they can be placed. Because of that they must remain in the industry and try to eke out an existence. If the government considered the proposition of taking those thousand miners- and that figure is an approximate one; there may be more and there may be a few less- laying them off and giving them something to live on they would be providing room for a thousand younger men in that industry. Productivity under the ground would be increased in that way and production generally would be increased. It would create employment for the younger men and it would give the men who are worn out in the industry an opportunity of living perhaps a few years longer by getting above ground. That pension could work out something like the burnt-out allowance paid to war veterans. A man burns out much quicker loading coal in a coal mine than by fighting a war because the physical strain is a great deal greater. I can say that with some conviction because I have had some experience in both. The pension so established might work in this way-I am now giving my own opinions only-a man working underground might be given a pension of $40, $50 or $60 a month, or whatever figure was arrived at. After a few months' rest he might feel like doing some other kind of work. If he was able to find some other employment in a lighter industry he could then augment his pension.
Saskatchewan has established a pension for the totally incapacitated father. I am not stating this for political reasons but because it is a fact. It is not very much but it is a start. I understand that the pension or the allowance is only about $10 a month. But the wife also receives an allowance of an equal amount and there is an allowance of $12 for each child. The income is not adequate; it
776	COMMON'S
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
is low, but it is a start. What I am arguing now is the principle that has been established in that province with regard to men who are incapacitated. I consider that those men in the coal industry are incapacitated for the job they are on, but they are obliged to stay on it because there is no other means by which they can obtain a livelihood. I consider that those old men are really a drag on the industry. They have given their best days and have passed their maximum production peak. Money spent by the government in that way to take them out of that heavy industry would be well spent. If those men were retired and rested for a while, given a little sum of money to live on, the chances are they could be routed into some other form of employment and ultimately become gainfully employed at something else. At the same time younger men would get into the industry; production would rise, and probably enough could be collected in taxes on the additional earnings in the industry to offset what may be contributed1 as pension to the older people who are taken out of the industry.
I rose this afternoon merely to focus attention on the few points that I have made in regard to the maritime provinces because the session will be ending very soon. The Minister of Munitions and Supply and Minister of Reconstruction will be on the job for some considerable time. We do not know when the election will be called, but those who are working on planning the future, reconverting industry and preparing for demobilization must go on. We cannot slacken our efforts. The cabinet will be carrying on that work. I wish to leave those thoughts with the minister because definitely in Nova Scotia the points , which I have brought out require clarification if for no other purpose than to relieve the minds of the people there as to their future, which is very uncertain at the present time.


Louis-Philippe Picard: It is customary at this stage to state that we do not intend to speak very long. My intention is only to mention two or three of the different controls that the minister spoke about in his statement. One of them came to be better known to myself because last year one of the war expenditures committees looked into it carefully. I refer to rubber control. As they say, whenever a doctor wants to get a patient to swallow a bitter pill he usually first coats it with sugar. Therefore I will give the compliments first. I think our investigation of the rubber control proved that the investment of over $50,000,000, which may have been criticized in some quarters, was amply justified and was one of the most oppor-
tune decisions that the minister has made during the last few years. Had it not been for the construction of the plant at Sarnia, I believe that Canada would not be in the position in which it is to-day to keep its military rolling stock on wheels, and that it would not be possible for the country to keep as many of its civilian needs supplied by the motor vehicle industry.
I should like to refer to the recommendations made by that committee because if the reports of the war expenditures committee or any other committee are to be of any value they should not be buried and not considered. In the last-five years the war expenditures committee have made many reports. Some of them were very good, almost all of them were, in my opinion, fair and unbiased, but I think few have received considerable consideration on the part of the cabinet. Anyway, I feel it is my duty, since at the end of last session we did not have an opportunity to discuss the questions that were brought down in the report, to outline to the committee the recommendations of the war expenditures committee. We sat for about twenty-five days, heard about eighteen or twenty witnesses and covered all the activities of the Polymer Corporation Limited, the Fairmont Company Limited, the rubber controller, the motor vehicle controller and also witnesses from the research bureau, the Department of Agriculture on all the technical questions connected with the production of rubber, either natural or synthetic or from plants grown out of the country or in the country. I had not intended to speak on that; therefore, I have no notes, but I think a word should be said about the report that was brought down last year. I should like to read the recommendations of the report. Some of them are really important and should be taken into consideration by the cabinet. They are as follows:
As a result of the survey of the rubber situation in Canada, of the activities of Polymer Corporation Limited, of Fairmont Company Limited, of the rubber controller and the motor vehicle controller, your subcommittee makes the following recommendation:
(a)	that a survey be immediately undertaken [DOT] of Canada's post-war needs in rubber and in motor vehicles.
We had in mind at that time that as part of the reconstruction work it might be useful for the rubber industry to know in advance the expected needs of the country and that they should keep their production schedules in such a state as to be able to meet it within the least possible delay or as quickly as possible after the end of the war.

War Appropriation-
-Munitions and Supply
(b)	That proper steps be taken at as early a date as possible, consistent with war conditions, for the conversion of tire producing facilities, at present devoted to special army specifications tires, to civilian needs. That plans be immediately considered to speed up, as soon as war conditions make it possible, the readjustment of the motor vehicle industry from a war-time to peace-time basis with special consideration to the urgent needs of Canadian industry for trucks and other similar conveyances in order to enable the public to reorganize their activities in constructive channels that will necessitate expanded motor transport and the replacement of badly worn out equipment.
Some of our discussions in the committee in this connection were to the effect that it was most important that as soon as it was materially possible the motor vehicle industry should build trucks instead of going into the production of passenger cars, because there is a great demand throughout the country for trucks that are essential to the needs of industry in general. Many trucks have been treated in such a way that companies are left with depleted transportation equipment with which to carry on their operations, and this is particularly so in certain parts of the country. The committee had in mind that it would be a good thing for the department to begin planning now the channels into which the activities of the motor vehicle industry should be directed. They should not be allowed to start publishing wonderful designs of new stream-lined cars, but instead should be required to engage for a certain period after the war in meeting the actual transportation problem and supplying the trucks so badly needed by industry.
The recommendations continue:
(c)	That the methods used during war time to stabilize the labour output in the truck manufacturing be extended in the post-war period to all the automotive industry in order to avoid the alternate peak loads and low ebbs of labour experienced in that industry before the war and that proved so disturbing to economic conditions in areas where the motor industry is located.
Our committee was told that prior to the war, in connection with trucks as well as passenger cars at certain periods of the year new models were produced in vast quantities, requiring large numbers of men; that as soon as these models were on the market the number of men employed was reduced, so that there would be high peak loads and low ebbs in the employment of men in the motor vehicle industry, greatly disturbing the economic conditions of the areas where the motor industry is located. We were told that during the war the controllers were able to stabilize the situation to a certain extent; that the production of trucks had been aver-32283-50
aged over a period of twelve months, in order to employ about the same number of men continuously. As few as possible were employed, so that the remainder could work in other war industries or go into the army, but approximately the same number of men were kept employed all year. The committee was of the opinion that such controls should be continued after the war to regulate the production of trucks as well as passenger cars on a yearly basis, so that the labour market would not be disturbed periodically by peak demands at certain periods of the year and very low demands at others, resulting from the fact that new models perhaps would not sell as quickly as had been anticipated and the men would have to wait for the installation of the machine tools for the production of later models. The fourth recommendation was:
(d)	That the research work pursued at the national research council and in the Department of Agriculture on synthetic rubber and on the possibility of producing rubber from Canadian plants be further encouraged by the inclusion in the next estimates of substantial amounts specially devoted to that work.
We thought, if I may speak for the committee, or certainly I thought the work that had been done by the national research council was such that larger sums of money should be devoted for that purpose. Whether or not these developments have reached the stage where local plants can be developed to produce Canadian rubber, these experiments are still well worth while carrying on. We have been spreading money around so lavishly that a few thousand dollars more for research in that field which, with the development of science, might free us from the need of obtaining natural rubber from other countries, would be well worth while. The fifth recommendation was:
(e)	That in the post-war period the Sarnia plant remain with Polymer Corporation Limited, as a government-owned company.
Here we may be entering into a controversy, but personally I firmly believe that since this has been started as a government-owned project it would be folly to place it on the market, through one or other of the government organizations, and have it operated by a private company. I believe it should be carried on, as during the war, as a government-owned company. As I said, here we may be entering the field of legislation in connection with other than strictly business matters, and engaging in the controversy as to the relative merits of private and publicly owned companies; so that without going into any more detail I will just say that I was one of those who believed it was necessary that after the

778	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
war such a company as had been entirely financed by the government should continue as a government project and should not be put into the hands, by purchase or otherwise, of private interests.
The last recommendation in our report was:
That as soon as is convenient after the war is over Polymer Corporation Limited readjust its relationship with the companies presently administering the different plants with a view to Polymer as a government-owned company operating and administering all these plants itself.
There again we come up against the discussion as to public ownership Versus private ownership. I believe the present system has worked to the advantage of the country' during the war, but I also believe that all these companies which have been administering the affairs of the Polymer corporation in connection with the production of rubber should be brought within the general scheme of the company, so that we might have one big unit operating the plant. I agree with those who think that if we had not gone to the private companies already operating such plants in the United States it would have been impossible to find the experts to run the plants in our own country. I believe we did the right thing at that time, but now that we have trained men in Canada to carry on this work I do not see why the country should not carry on the project itself, since the whole thing has been financed by the country. The rubber industry may come along and say this may provide competition for them. Some officials of the rubber companies have said that it might be a good thing to have such competition. During the war they have evolved processes for treating this rubber to the point where we are told that a certain proportion of natural rubber combined with synthetic rubber will produce better results. Scientific development and research are going on continually up to the point where, after the war, we may avoid paying to the rubber trust or combine which existed at one time the high prices which at times have been paid. Since this synthetic rubber will be produced, according to the figures shown to us, at a very low price, let us say something below twenty cent's, or around sixteen or seventeen cents a pound, it would be at a price which would correspond favourably with natural rubber prices, and might have the added result of stabilizing the market, and preventing ups and downs in that market.
That, Mr. Chairman, completes the recommendations made in our report last year with respect to rubber control. I am glad to see the minister refers to that matter, and says
	.	I .
that the company has carried on up to schedule. Although unfortunately it will not be possible to make as many passenger cars available to the public as they might wish, he points out, however, that conditions will be better.
If conditions are better, the public should realize it is because the government looked far enough ahead and organized the plant at Sarnia. For that reason more cars can now be equipped with tires than would have been possible otherwise. We would have been without tires for civilian needs, and our war machinery would have been seriously hampered, had it not been for that plant. I think that, generally, the public has a right to be satisfied.
The nigger in the woodpile in our report last year concerned motor vehicles control. I still have the same views I had last year, that this has been far from being as well administered as the rubber control, so far as the distribution of tires is concerned. We have not been able to get from the motor vehicles control any set of definite rules, with the exception of the statement that they would supply trucks to essential users. But, as in any good dictatorship, the decision as to "essential user" was left in the hands of the controller or his representative. But no such set of rules was produced or given to us by the motor vehicles controller as was produced by the other controllers, and especially that applying to rubber, where the nature of the operations of car owners would to a considerable extent determine the granting of a permit.
Perhaps I might quote from the same report from which I quoted a moment ago. It said this:
"Your subcommittee got a report on the distribution of permits to large categories of users but no report was available of the number of permits granted in each province or in each district of the wartime prices and trade board, as had been supplied for tires by the rubber controller. Your subcommittee is of opinion that a better picture of the permit distribution would have been available to the public had there been supplied to it a more elaborate detail of categories of users to whom permits were granted and a report as to the numbers supplied to each district of the wartime prices and trade board.
The subcommittee was told that there were no records existing-
-at the time. I have been told since that this procedure has been started since that time. We were told at the time that it was a very difficult process, and a very hard procedure to get these detailed reports.
The subcommittee was told that there were no records existing of distribution by provinces or districts nor was there a breakdown of items to determine how many had gone respectively to mining, oil, lumber, farming, etc. . . .

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
Industries were grouped together, but that did not give the committee a satisfactory-answer to our request.
Repeatedly the subcommittee was told that the controllers office had work "not on distribution generally but on the essential features of each case". . . .
But if we carry on in this report we find out that we can find no specific rules, no rigid rules. At every moment we were told they were given to essential users.
At this point I would quote a few questions and answers from the committee's report:
Mr. Factor:	It does, to this extent, that
there is no definition of essentiality. It is left entirely to the judgment of the controller under the procedure.
Mr. Berry: I think that is a fair appreciation of the situation.


The Chairman:: You mean the controller, or whoever his power is delegated to, decides and determines whether or not the application constitutes an essential application or an application for an essential user, and it is up to the controller or to his delegates to determine the essentiality?
Mr. Berry: Yes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is not specially defined but is rather left open for determination by the controller or his representative?
Mr. Berry: That is it.
Mr. Birchard:	Except that he must be an
essential user.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes. but the word essential user is left for determination by the controller or his delegates.
That is what prompted at the time the last sentence of our report with respect to motor vehicles control, which stated:
From the evidence it is therefore very difficult for the subcommittee to arrive at any conclusion as to the operation of this phase of the controller's work, except as to hope that the decisions of the controller and his assistants were fair and unbiased and that complaints heard at times in the public were not justified.
That is as much as we could do, because we could not be given enough information or details to satisfy us that there was any rule. The complaint I have to that is that, even now, only a small number of trucks are produced, and a large number of people are wanting them. From day to day more and more old trucks are going out of use. Agriculture and industry are in need of transportation facilities, and some of them are hampered now to the extent that they are faced with a serious problem.
It is all very well to say that conditions are fairly good, and to attribute the condition to the fact that we have to import some of the trucks from the United States. Yet, the truest sentence in that section of the minister's statement respecting motor vehicles control is the one- where he states that current supply is far short of the demand.
That is quite true, and I suppose we cannot do anything about, the matter. But the trouble is with the distribution. I say there is a condition prevailing there which is far from good. For instance, some people in the fall of the year will ask for a truck to carry out their operations in the following spring. I have seen that happen in my own district, w'hen we are snowed in in the winter. Trucks will be brought in in the fall, and the garage operator will say that the truck is a 1928 model, possibly, that it has already run too many miles, and that it cannot be repaired.
Under those circumstances a man puts in his request, and files his form to get a new truck. He is told right away, "We cannot consider it now, because the roads are closed and you do not need it. We will look into it next spring." Then, next spring, instead of having these application forms considered at a given time, the man is forced to make out. a new application. He may not know that, and may be carrying on in the hope that the application he made in the preceding fall will finally be considered after the snow has disappeared. Then he is told, "You have not submitted an application"-and he has to start all over again. This takes a long time in the spring of the year, when the roads are closed. I am thinking particularly of the lumbering industry in Quebec. The timber controller should have something to say as to t.he essentiality of the passage of timber from one district to another.
In my province the lumber industry, generally, is beyond access in the winter. The men who are operating there, and wffio wish to bring down their wood and lumber in the spring of the year cannot do so because their trucks are not available, when the roads are open. Their application has not -been considered.
The case has been brought to my attention of a man who had a permit last year and was considered an essential user. Although he got his permit he could not find in that district a truck, but in February or March of this year he located in the city of Quebec a new truck and produced his permit. But the permit had expired. So that now he finds he has to start all over again. He -has a contract with the railways for ties, and last year he was admitted to be an essential user and was given a permit but could not get a truck. Now he finds out, when he has located a truck this year, that his permit has expired and that he is no more an essential user. The controller says that the essentiality has changed and that he cannot get a permit.
There are many other cases. There is the case of the man who is the only trucker in his village. He has a permit from the Quebec
780	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
public service commission as a public trucker, the only one in the village. He has been asking for a permit since last August. His car is badly out of order and will not work at all, and he has waited and waited and cannot get a decision. This situation applies not only in the lumber industry but to the bringing of fuel wood into the city. Recently the minister warned the people to make provision for their next winter's supply of fuel wood, but it is hard to see at times how the fuel wood can be transported.
It is all very well to present statistics and say that so many thousand cords are to be cut and drawn, but where can you get the trucks to draw it? The people in a certain village have so many cords of wood, and no trucks, and that will happen again if the controller here does not understand the situation with respect to fuel wood better than he understands the lumber situation.
There is similar difficulty in the transport of milk. The city of Quebec is dependent for its milk supply upon the rural districts surrounding the city, as are all other big cities. Trucks engaging in that industry have been operating fairly well to the advantage of the large dairies who probably know better how to fill out their application forms, but there are many men who are not organized into companies and who gather milk in the rural districts and bring it into the city of Quebec. Their trucks were beyond hope of repair. They had' a hard time to get a hearing from the controller. The investigations took a long time, and finally their applications were turned down. I admit that the milk industry does not suffer so much as the lumber industry, because the big dairies in the city-whether they have an expert to frame their applications or not I do not know-have, I am informed, certain satisfaction. But in my district there are many cooperatives who applied last fall for trucks to bring in milk to the cities, and they have not been able to get them.
The same difficulty is found not only in the timber industry, as I have said and in the milk industry but among general truckers also. In many villages they are entirely dependent upon a new supply of trucks to bring into the city the products of the surrounding districts. We have villages that are from ten to twelve miles from a railway station, and in the winter they really have a hard time. They have to use sleighs to take the products to the station.
In the summer they get their products delivered fairly easily, but the great need is to have somebody in the motor vehicle con-

troller's office who understands the needs of their district. The whole question of motor vehicle control needs to be reconsidered and the machinery overhauled. I do not expect that it can be done in the short time that is left at our disposal before the election, but I would be remiss in my duty if I did1 not bring the situation to the attention of the minister and the committee. There is a deficiency somewhere in the departmental organization. First of all, the investigation takes too long. Primarily the application is made to Ottawa, but as the hon. member for Temis-couata said the other day, requests written in the French language have often been sent to Ottawa. That means they have to be translated, and afterwards they have to go before the revisers of permits, or whatever the title of that position may be, and it takes a long time. But I can say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that some of the requests that I have drafted in fairly good English have taken a long time too. But it is worse, as the hon. member for Temiscouata points out, when the poor devil gets a form in French, fills it in to the best of his ability, then has to go to the motor vehicles dealer and get a report on his truck and then send that to Ottawa, as he is supposed to do. The investigator first has the application translated; then he has to find out whether the truck is needed or not, so that it often takes two weeks or a month or maybe two months before the application reaches the desk of the man who has to make the decision. I do not like to bring in any element of the racial origin of people in that department, but it might have been fairer if there had been a few more people in that branch who could have understood the needs of the people of the province of Quebec, and then perhaps we would not have had to wait a long time for a decision. But even when the applications are made out in English they take half as long to be dealt with-too long a time altogether. If there were a few more people in that branch who understood the situation, the representations that are made could be dealt with more quickly and a decision could be given more quickly. But as things are at the present time the conditions in the lumber industry and in the milk and dairy industry in the province of Quebec with respect to getting satisfaction from the motor vehicles control branch are bad. I do not mean to say that they are worse than in the rest of the country, but I know they are bad in my province.
I might be answered that there is a war on and that it is impossible to have conditions perfect. That is true. The fact is that there are only a certain number of trucks and three

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
or four times that number of people who want to use them, and that makes control necessary. We have had control over tires but we get a just and equitable distribution of tires, with very few complaints, and when a complaint is made it is soon dealt with. But when it comes to the distribution of the available trucks, how is it that we do not get the same consideration and the same efficient service that we receive from the rubber controller.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Louis-Philippe Picard: When the committee rose
at six o'clock I was about to speak on the subject of the control of building construction. I see in the statement of the minister at page 750 of Hansard that conditions have-
-made it imperative that we continue strict control of the licensing of construction projects. In determining the priorities for building permits, we have tried to take account of urgent housing needs.
To this I have absolutely no objection. It is a sane approach to the solution of the problem of distributing fairly the construction materials and the labour available for the construction industry, the building trades. But there, again, I have another objection to the method1 of applying the control, similar to the one I made this afternoon to the motor vehicle control. I think the application of the rules which have been set up in the department, if we take the statement of the minister as the exact meaning of his words, has been followed in a very queer way. I see here the expression "urgent housing needs". We have seen projects being built in the city of Quebec the need of which is hardly justified for housing or other purposes, while at the same time in many of the adjoining districts permits for purposes which were fair and just, which should have been granted because of the need for housing and for accommodation, have been rejected1, although they involved the use of much less in the way of needed materials than did some of the constructions which have been permitted in the city of Quebec.
May I be permitted to refer to one case? It always seems to me undesirable to stop being objective and to depict a problem or a question by some particular instance, but I think it is the only way to illustrate the argument. I have here a case where the conversion of a school was badly needed. A
permit was asked for in July, and was rejected. The intention was to convert a school building into a convent in order to have better teaching, with more teachers, and to accommodate the teachers in the building. Because there was not in the department anybody acquainted with conditions in Quebec, they kindly suggested that the nuns should find rooms in different houses in the community. Maybe the nuns would have liked it, but it was, I think, against the rules of their order. The letter received from Ottawa was to the effect that it would be much more economical if they could find rooms for the teachers in the village. The permit required was of the amount of only 84,500, for the purpose of converting a large school building which was not equipped for winter accommodation and was divided into two large halls, in each of which were held three different classes. The application was to divide the ground floor into four different rooms, in each of which a different grade could be taught, while the second floor would house the teachers. It took three months of correspondence before we could get one of the assistant commissioners to see the point. I will frankly admit that I probably did the wrong thing: I told them that they were so far away from any controller that they might go ahead with the project. In fact, the permit came on the day the nuns entered the building at the end of October. The school term could not have been started had they waited for the permit. Another queer thing was that at one time, when they needed a plumbing outjit, they asked for a permit for that purpose and got it. They could not get the permit to make alterations but they got a permit to install the plumbing. Finally, on October 21, it dawned on the department that they might ask the superintendent of education of Quebec whether it was advisable to grant the permit; and the answer, contrary to all the department had maintained, was that instead of reducing the housing accommodation it would provide better schooling and everybody in the village would be much better off, that the department would lose no essential war materials, and that the workers employed there were local farmers who did the work in their spare time. If I had not been bold enough to tell these people to go ahead with their construction the school term could not have begun in October, because the permit was not received until the end of that month. If at that time there bad been in the department an architect or an engineer who knew conditions there or who had been careful enough to inquire what the superintendent of education of Quebec had to
782	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
say on the matter, that delay would not have occurred and I would not have been forced to do something which was not strictly proper.
Here is another case. A large institution, accommodating 2,500 people, needed a barn to house 120 head of cattle and various farm products in the winter. A request was made in 1943. They wanted a steel structure, but they were told that that was impossible, so that early in the spring of 1944 they changed the plans. The only thing they then needed was reinforced concrete for the lower floor, the balance of the building to be in wood. Yet they never got the permit. The correspondence has been carried on, and it was insisted that they should get along with the accommodation they had at the time. I have copies of letters which have been sent to the department stating that part of their production last fall could not be housed; they had no convenient place in which to put their vegetables; they had to sell part of their cattle because proper accommodation could not be had, and the old bam was falling to pieces. Again, I say that if there had been in the department somebody who wanted to deal fairly with the situation, a condition like that would not exist.
At the same time the government of the province of Quebec applied to Ottawa for permission to erect a huge 'building to house the workmen's compensation administration. These people were located in other government buildings, but they wanted to spread out a little and have a nicer place. At first, I am told, Ottawa refused the permit. The Quebec government then bought an adjoining building, a former Church of England convent-one of the only two, I am told, in existence in Canada-and then a request was made for an addition or an extension to the existing building. As it then stood, the building was two floors high and probably sixty feet long. The extension has eight floors, is 175 feet long and, compared with the first building, is a huge structure. They needed steel and reinforced concrete. The place was not required for housing accommodation, and it did not improve in any way housing conditions in the city of Quebec. As I have said, the permit was refused at first to a certain party, but when presented to the department by another engineer it was finally approved as repairs and additions to the existing building.
These are just illustrations. To some they may seem of small account. Yet how can the people have confidence in the administration of a control when such examples are known to them? I am far from pleased to have to say this, but in all justice and equity,

and even if it is of no use because we are at the end of a session, I thought I should bring this matter before the committee.
I repeat that I dislike, and have never brought up in this house, the question of the racial origin of employees in departments, but if in each of the sections of the Department of Munitions and Supply there were a fair proportion of French-speaking employees they could avoid delays in the translation of correspondence, which at times takes weeks and months; and if there were a French Canadian employee connected with the head of the branch in any capacity who could look into these matters and give his opinion right away, these delays would be avoided.
That applies as well to construction control. There we might have had bilingual people who knew the local conditions better. The minister has found as his parliamentary assistant one of the brightest young men in the other racial group. Why could he not have tried the same experiment in the different branches of his department? In reply to. a question asked bv a member from the province of Quebec in 1940, as to why there were not more bilingual people from that province in the different departments, the statement was made that there was no accommodation for them. Since then, however, buildings have mushroomed in the city; there is a great deal more accommodation than at that time, and the number of French-speaking employees has not increased. Why does he not apply the same principle as in the case of his parliamentary assistant and look for able young assistants in the ranks of the other racial group? Let him apply that principle to his own department. As regards the higher-ups in the department, the only man who answered to the minister's requirements was a charming gentleman from Montreal who happens to be a friend of the minister, as he is a friend of mine. I refer to Mr. Wilfrid Gagnon. If the minister would only widen the scope of his friends in Quebec we might get a few more able young men in the department, and if the hon. gentleman comes in after the next election I hope he will act on this suggestion. Whether by that time the minister has succeeded in bringing Mr. Gagnon into, a higher sphere, as some rumours have it, or whether for another reason the services of Mr. Gagnon could no more be secured, I hope the minister might widen the scope of his acquaintances in Quebec so as t-o bring in his department some more bright men of French-Canadian origin.
Mr. GRAYDON; What does my hon. friend mean by the "'higher sphere"?

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply


Louis-Philippe Picard: A higher sphere than the
department might be the cabinet. I do not know.


Gordon Graydon: Does my hon. friend suggest that Mr. Gagnon should join t'he cabinet?


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am'not suggesting anything. I say that there are such rumours, and if the minister succeeds in lifting his friend to the higher sphere he will have to be replaced, in the posts he previously held.


Gordon Graydon: Is Mr. Gagnon a
Liberal?


Louis-Philippe Picard: I think so.


Gordon Graydon: Then the hon. member
had better not count too much on that.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I do not agree with the
hon. member.- Whether the present Minister of Munitions and Supply is then in that portfolio or not, the Liberal party will be there to conduct the affairs of the country after the next election.


Mr. GERSHAW:: The last speaker told
of the difficulties in his district in getting permits for trucks. The condition is general, and in Alberta where the needs have been great and the distances considerable we, too, have had much trouble in getting these permits. But the people of Canada realize that rationing is sharing and they have loyally submitted to restrictions because they know what a difficult position the department is in.
There are few men in Canada who have as great a knowledge of industrial construction and of industry generally as the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). He has had a difficult job and has rendered great service as Minister of Munitions and Supply. I believe the whole reconstruction problem of converting the industry of Canada from a war-time to a peace-time basis will be safe in his hands.
I would call the attention of the committee to one post-war activity which I believe will bring rich results toi the people of Canada. I refer to the irrigation problem in the dried-out districts of southern Alberta. We know of two projects there which have been surveyed and re-surveyed. At a cost of $20 million spread over six or seven years they could be completed. Four hundred thousand acres of land which is now of no use could be made productive and it would add greatly to the output of products that are needed in Canada. I refer to- the Redcliff-Ronelane and St. Mary projects.
It is said that in Canada we have too much wheat and too little meat, but the reclaiming
of this area would make it possible for the farmers who might locate there to produce meat, vegetables and fruits which are needed in the diet of the average Canadian. Canadians do not have sufficient dairy products, fruits and vegetables. They have not sufficient meat or eggs, and the reclaiming of this area would do much to help in the nutrition of Canadians. Sugar factories could also be constructed, as well as canning factories, quick freezing plants, so that these fruits and vegetables co-uld be processed and used the whole year round. Moreover, the reclaiming of this area has been proven to be feasible. There are already practical schemes in operation in both districts and the water supply is available. If the projects could be completed where the ditch is already constructed the present irrigation districts would have more water and new areas could be brought under cultivation. This is badly needed if we are to save the waters of these international streams which may go to another country if they are not used here. In addition, the developing of these districts would provide homes for those who have suffered so mueh in their struggle to eke out an existence in the dried-out area, and also homes for many who are returning from the battlefields and are anxious to make a living on the land.


Mr. BROOKS:: There are a good many speakers on the list and I am sure no one wants to take up too much time, but I wish to mention a matter that is very important to my section of New Brunswick. It rvas brought to my mind particularly this afternoon as I listened to the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It has to do with the coal mine situation in New Brunswick. We have a small coal area in New Brunswick, but although it is small it is very important to the economy of the province. It represents about two per cent of the net value of all commodities produced in the province. While this area in New Brunswick is small, it is one of the oldest bituminous coal mining districts in North America. It is mentioned in history, in 1667; and in the seventeenth century coal was being shipped from the Grand lake area in New Brunswick to Boston.
Its importance can be emphasized in this way. It has grown until we now employ some 1,400 men in the industry and the livelihood of over 6,000 people is dependent upon it. We have as our market principally the province of New Brunswick. The hon. member for Davenport this afternoon mentioned
784	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
the possibility of shipping maritime coal to Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada. We in New Brunswick have not shipped coal to Ontario; it is not feasible. We have shipped small quantities to the province of Quebec and small quantities to the state of Maine. But our important market-and I should like to emphasize this-is our own province of New Brunswick. The chief buyers of New Brunswick coal are the two railways, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. We also sell quite large quantities to the pulp and paper mills in our province, to the New Brunswick electric power commission, and then a certain proportion, about twenty-five to thirty per cent, is sold as consumer coal. I might point out to the minister-and I am sure this is a fact of which he is well aware

what we consider to be very unfair competition from the coal mines in Nova Scotia. Prior to the war this industry was being operated at a loss by a good many of the coal operators in the Minto district. Because of the great necessity for coal in the eastern provinces during the war particularly, the Minto mines have been operating almost to capacity. We are afraid that after the war a situation will again develop which will work to the detriment of the coal industry in New Brunswick.
To illustrate to the minister and to the committee the unfair competition from which we are suffering I shall quote from the submission of the New Brunswick coal producers association to the royal commission. I am reading from page 36:
A comparison of the subvention expenditures in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1939 shows a marked difference on a per ton basis. The subvention paid per ton of coal moved from Nova Scotia was $1.23 as against 84 cents in New' Brunswick. In terms of total output of the two provinces in that year (7,051,176 tons in Nova Scotia, 468,421 tons in New' Brunswick) Nova Scotia received assistance at the rate of 42-3 cents per ton of coal produced, compared with 9*7 cents in New Brunswick.
I think anyone can see the unfairness exemplified in that statement. I should also like to state here and now that the coal producers of the Minto-Chipman area of New Brunswick approve whole-heartedly all the assistance that has been given the industry in Nova Scotia. They do not in any way wish to have that help or assistance lessened. But what they do ask is that the coal industry in New Brunswick be placed on the same footing as the coal industry in Nova Scotia. May I indicate further how this competition is most unfair to our coal producers? I said a few moments ago that the pulp and paper industry in New Brunswick 
takes a very large proportion of our coal and would take a much larger proportion if it were not for competition such as I have mentioned. I again read from the submission to the commission :
On a basis of freight per ton, some of the rates from Springhill Junction, Nova Scotia, are lower than rates from the Minto field to the same points in New Brunswick, as shown in the following figures.
From Minto to Bathurst the rate is $1.10 for 169 miles; from Springhill Junction, 80 cents for 188 miles; from Minto to Campbellton, New Brunswick, $1.50 per ton for 234 miles; from Springhill, $1.20 per ton for 253 miles. From Minto to Dalhousie, New Brunswick, the rate is $1.30 for 231 miles; from Springhill, $1.10 for 250 miles; from Minto to Saint John, 90 cents per ton for 101 miles, and from Springhill, 85 cents per ton, 155 miles.
It can be seen from these comparisons that the rate structure applied to the movement of coal from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick bears no relationship to the cost of service.
By quoting these two examples I believe I have illustrated the point I wish to make, namely, that the coal produced in New Brunswick is not receiving the assistance it should, and is not being placed on a fair basis with coal from the neighbouring province of Nova Scotia.
I should also point out that while we in New Brunswick are confined almost entirely to -our own province, Nova Scotia can, does and should be given an opportunity in a larger sense to ship coal to Ontario and other parts of Canada and leave to this small province and this small area the coal that is produced in our own province. My desk-mate, the hon. member for Davenport, said this afternoon that all areas of Canada should work together as far as possible to assist those areas which need assistance. I recall that when I was overseas a few months ago I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, and having a talk with him. It will be remembered that he is the gentleman who prepared the Duncan report on the maritime provinces. He told me that we in the mari-times were a long-suffering people because, according to his views and ours, the Duncan report has never been implemented. He also said that in certain parts of Great Britain there were areas that were not self-supporting.
I believe he called them development areas. He also said that Great Britain under her reconstruction policy would see that those areas were helped by other areas and by the whole country. He pointed out, and I think I can point out to the committee, that the problem we have in this small area of New

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
Brunswick is not the responsibility of the area only; it is not the responsibility of New Brunswick only; it is the responsibility of the whole Dominion of Canada. Sir Andrew Rae Duncan mentioned the coal mining area of Durham, the northern part of England and of Wales. He also mentioned other sections of England which would be helped by the whole country of Great Britain. I am satisfied that unless proper assistance is given to the area to which I refer it cannot be selfsupporting and self-sustaining. It is the responsibility of the whole Dominion of Canada to see that proper assistance is given. Certain recommendations are made in this submission to the commission. I hope they will be fully implemented. I hope that the minister will see they are implemented and, as I said before, I hope that this matter will receive the careful consideration of the Minister of Reconstruction.


Mr. PERLEY:: I am sure we all listened last night with a great deal of interest to the report and review that the minister gave of his department and the different phases of its work. I know we all agree that this department is possibly one of the most important departments that has anything to do with the war. If it had not been for the equipment and supplies provided for our men overseas they could never have made the progress and the success they are making to-day. Therefore we must give credit to the department that has been responsible for supplying the munitions and other materials necessary for these men to do that job.
I am not going to go into the minister's remarks in any great detail. He spoke about questions pertaining to reconstruction since he is the minister responsible for that department. He spoke about coal supplies, gas supplies and the like. I think the hon. member for Davenport covered that phase of the minister's remarks very well this afternoon and made a request for consideration of developing western Canada w'hich would mean a great deal in providing jobs for the men when they come back and go a long way toward solving the question of employment when the war is over. The hon. member dealt with such matters as water conservation, power projects and other developments of one kind and another, and showed what it would mean by way of creating employment if we had a proper development of the resources of the three prairie provinces, and particularly Saskatchewan. I trust the minister will give serious consideration to the suggestions put forth by the hon. member for Davenport who,
I am glad to note, in the last few years has become interested in western Canada. When he goes out there now he can draw a grand crowd any time he wishes to speak. I heard him address a crowd who filled the hall because they felt here was a man from eastern Canada who was taking a real interest in the west. That is why I hope the minister will give consideration to some of the measures outlined by the hon. member to help create jobs after the war is over.
Last evening, just before the house adjourned, the minister stated that to-day he would make a statement with respect to farm implements. He had dealt with the question of industrial implements, machines and things of that kind, and in reply to a question by the hon. member for Haldimand said that to-day he would make a statement outlining the position with regard to farm machinery. The supply of implements for the farmers is an important matter in Canada at the present time. Many of our farmers have been working under very difficult conditions, and their old machinery is pretty well worn out. Many of them have sons overseas; they have been working by themselves, and they need new equipment, not only tractors which come from the United States but machinery that is produced in Canada. In addition, many of the boys who come back will go on farms under the Veterans' Land Act, and it is important that consideration be given to supplying the implements that are required to replace the worn-out machinery, and the implements that will be necessary to get these young men started. I hope the minister will give us a statement outlining the farm implement situation as it affects western Canada.


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Chairman, the special committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Cariboo, listened to representations from provinces and municipalities dealing with post-war plans within their boundaries. We found that progress in drawing up blueprints was somewhat curtailed because of the uncertainty as to what body would be responsible for financing such plans. As a matter of fact I recall that the premier of Manitoba emphasized the fact that he was unwilling to raise the hopes of the people of his province by suggesting that this or that project could be carried out before he received the assurance of the federal government that the necessary financing would be provided He made it quite clear that it would be impossible for Manitoba to finance some of the larger projects in which they were interested, and
786	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
that until he received the assurance of the federal government in regard to this matter he was not prepared to go ahead.
I should like to give an example of the sort of uncertainty that is being created by the absence of such a declaration. I wish to deal with the question of irrigation in the drought areas of Alberta. I have in mind one of the largest schemes ever produced on the continent of North America; that is the William Pearce project. The first survey was made back in 1922, and the purpose of the project was to irrigate a million and a half acres of land, one million in Saskatchewan and half a million in Alberta, at a cost of around $100,000,000. The water for this project was to be diverted from the North Saskatchewan river into the Red Deer river, and then by canal down to Sullivan lake. Nothing happened as a result of that survey. In 1938-39 a. number of new surveys were conducted. At that time the proposal was still to utilize the water of the North Saskatchewan river, and provision was made also for a number of power projects, which of course, as the minister will realize, are very much needed in Alberta if we are ever to have the industries we need in that province. Nothing came about as a result of those surveys, no doubt on account, of the outbreak of war.
This question of irrigating land in Alberta by diverting water from the North Saskatchewan river into the Red Deer river was discussed in the house committee on reconstruction and a good deal of opposition developed to the diversion of this water. I believe the hon. member for Davenport is well acquainted with the type of opposition I have in mind, because he was one of the hon. members who pointed out that such opposition would be met. As a result of that opposition I wrote to the superintendent under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act asking whether or not it would be possible to develop the irrigation scheme in Alberta by utilizing the waters of the Red Deer river alone. Mind you, under the original project in 1922 it was intended to irrigate only about half a million acres in Alberta, the other million acres being in Saskatchewan. It seemed to me it should be possible to provide water from the Red Deer river alone for the purpose of irrigating land in Alberta, leaving the people of Saskatchewan to irrigate their land from the North or South Saskatchewan river within their own province. The reply I received from Mr. Spence indicated a good deal of uncertainty as to whether or not it would be feasible to irrigate any large area 'of land from the Red Deer river. He
said that if the irrigation were carried out it *would be necessary to establish large reservoirs on the river or up in the mountains.
A new survey was undertaken in 1944, and I believe is still being carried on. This survey shows that it should be possible to irrigate about a half a million acres in Alberta by using the waters of the Red Deer river alone. The proposal is to place a dam on the Red Deer somewhere near the Content bridge, then carry the water by ditch over to Hamilton lake, and at the same time raise the level of Buffalo lake to what it was in former years. The estimated cost of this project would be only about $7,000,000. It is interesting to note that under the original project it would have cost $100,000,000 to irrigate a million and a half acres of land in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Under a modification of that scheme it would have cost around $23,000,000 to irrigate about 427,000 acres in Alberta. Under the scheme at present proposed it will cost only some $6,750,000 to irrigate about half a million acres in Alberta; and of course the people of this area are only interested in irrigation in Alberta. If the people of Saskatchewan prefer to irrigate their land from the Saskatchewan river, I know of no reason why they should not do so.	*
This scheme would provide work for 1,500 men for a period of eighteen months, and the benefits to be derived from the project would include among others, the following. First of all, it would provide irrigation for half a million acres of land and would supply water for over twelve hundred miles of creek that is dry to-day. It would make that area into one of the best farming districts in the west; and it must be remembered that services already have been established there. We *would not be faced, as we would in a new country, with the cost of building up roads, railways, towns and so on. It would be possible to establish 7,500 new families in the area, or in other *words to increase the population by something in the neighbourhood of thirty thousand people, of course in addition to rehabilitating the families already there.
As I say, it would provide for the raising of Buffalo lake. At one time Buffalo lake used to be a fine summer resort-good fishing, boating and swimming. It is the only lake for a hundred miles to the south and to the east, and therefore it draws support from a large area as a summer resort. But unfortunately, ever since 1916, that lake has steadily gone down, until to-day we find that summer cottages which used to be at the edge of the water are now a hundred yards away from it. The result is that one finds a long expanse of somewhat stagnant beach. In addition, the

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
scheme would provide for the development of power on Red Deer river, which is much needed in Alberta.
I might point out that the people of the area are very much concerned as to whether or not the government is in reality going to go ahead with that scheme. Then we have the question of the railways. There is a Canadian National line from. Scapa, running into Saskatchewan, which was built just before the depression years, and has never been completed. The steel was laid, and the line was ballasted as far as Hemaruka, but from Hemaruka to Scapa the ballast was never completed. The president of the Canadian National Railways takes the stand that there is not a sufficient amount of business in the area to justify the expense of ballasting the line. But he admits that if irrigation were carried out in the area the picture would be entirely different, and that the company might be justified going to the expense of completing the line.
It must be evidence that the only way of financing a scheme of that kind would be to finance it as a national project. It is altogether too much for a province to go ahead with, because it cannot stand the financial cost. We cannot expect private enterprise to carry it out, for the simple reason that you cannot charge the capital cost of irrigation against the land of the farmer. The history of the Canadian Pacific Railway Colonization company proves conclusively that you cannot charge that cost against the land; otherwise you would bankrupt the farmer. Once the irrigation project has been completed and the cost absorbed, the farmer would be in a position to take care of the maintenance of the project.
If the federal government were to finance a scheme of that kind as a national project, and absorb the cost, they could very well look upon it as a self-liquidating project, because as a result of the increased production they would be well reimbursed' through the increase in taxation and excise duties collected. In addition, they would be relieved of the financial responsibility of maintaining that drought area in times of extreme drought, such as we have had in the past.
It is interesting to note that from 1918 to 1935 in the drought area of Alberta over $10,000,000 was paid out in relief. Since 1935 hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and feed relief measures. If irrigation were put into the area a large amount of that expense would be eliminated. So that again I say that a scheme of that kind might very
well be looked upon as a self-liquidating project, on the one hand through increased revenue and on the other hand through the lessening of liability.
And, mind you, the federal government has a direct responsibility in so far as that liability is concerned, because it was the federal government that urged the people to settle in the area in the early part of 1900. It will be remembered that back in 1908 and 1909 large posters were put up in England telling the farmers to come out to this country. When they went to the land titles offices to locate land they were not warned that the drought area was not suitable for settlement. Yet the federal government at that time had the reports of engineers showing conclusively that that land was not fit for settlement. Despite that fact, it allowed farmers to settle in there, with the result that the history of the area has been a tragic one. Millions of dollars of investment have been wiped out. Over sixty per cent of the population has had to move out. Now you find mile after mile without habitation.
I think it should be possible for the federal government to make an announcement in the very near future regarding its policy in regard to the financing of national projects, not only the one to which I have referred, but all national projects of a similar nature. If that were done it would greatly build up the confidence of the people regarding what is to happen in the post-war world. And we know this, that if we once allow the confidence of the people to be destroyed it will be a much harder problem to obtain a full development of the resources of this country afterwards.
I should like to mention one other thing- and I do not wish to be accused of indulging in any political attack when I do so. Nevertheless people are becoming somewhat sceptical of the way in which surveys are conducted. It seems that the government get busy making surveys just before an election, and after the election they seem to forget about them, and nothing is done. That happened in 1938-39; and now we have this project surveyed in 1944 just prior to an election. The people are wondering whether it is just another way of trying to obtain votes to support a government, and when the government is re-elected the project will be forgotten. Up to the present time no department of this government has been prepared to say definitely that this project will be carried out.
Surely it could be possible for the Department of Reconstruction to make the definite statement that this will be one of the post-war reconstruction projects. I would not expect
788	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
the minister to say that this project would be started next year or the year after, but he could say that it would be included in the list of projects, and that as soon as the men and materials necessary to complete such a project were available it would be put into operation.
The people are afraid that once again we will hear the same old cry we heard so often in the depression years: Lots of men and lots of material, but no money. I think it is high time the government made it quite clear to the people that the financial policy which has been developed during the war under which no financial restriction will be allowed to hinder the development of war industry, will be carried on in the post-war period. It should be made clear that the motto in the post-war period will be that whatever is physically possible and desirable will be made financially possible.
When the minister speaks I hope he will be able to tell the committee exactly what the government's policy will be with respect to the financing of national projects. Is the government to be prepared to take on the responsibility of financing all of them? We know very well that during this war had the federal government said to the provinces, "We need air fields across the country; you put up thirty per cent; the municipalities will put up thirty per cent, and we will supply the remainder," we would not have had the air fields we needed. The only reason why we did have air fields was that the federal government absorbed the financial responsibility. The only reason why we have had the war effort we have had lies in the fact that the federal government was prepared to find the money for every project that was needed. Had there been some limitation regarding financing, like we had before the war, Canada would not have been in a position to make the splendid contribution she has made.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I should like to join those who have expressed regret that the minister whose department is now before the committee has said so little at this stage in his capacity as Minister of Reconstruction. However, the matter I wish to discuss has to do with the minister in his capacity as head of the Department. of Munitions and Supply.
During the course of his statement last night the minister, at page 746 of Hansard, outlined the situation concerning aircraft production. He pointed out that there is a necessary decrease in aircraft production in the current year, but concluded those observations with these two sentences:

As announced last June, production of trainer types terminated in recent months, or will terminate shortly. We have been fortunate in obtaining substantial contracts for aircraft components from the United States for the manufacturing capacity released with the cessation of the trainer programme.
It is on the basis of that last sentence that I should like to say a few words about the situation among aircraft workers in the city of Winnipeg, from which I come.
On April 5 last I directed a question on this matter to the Minister of Munitions and Supply which is found at page 505 of Hansard. On that occasion the minister cast some doubt on my statement that lay-offs were continuing to take place at MacDonald Brothers aircraft plant at Winnipeg. In fact he used these words:
I have no information as to how many men are employed now at MacDonald's, but I think the numbers are on the increase rather than on the decrease.
As the minister will recall, on January 31 and February 1 of this year a delegation of aircraft workers came from Winnipeg to Ottawa to see the minister concerning the contracts at MacDonald Brothers Aircraft Limited, Winnipeg. -The hon. member for Selkirk and I had the privilege of accompanying the delegation and waiting on the minister on those two days. The second time we met him the minister gave us the forthright assurance that work would be forthcoming which would take care of the situation at MacDonald's in particular and in Winnipeg in general. In fact he gave us information which is substantially the same as the statement he made last night when he said that his department had obtained substantial contracts for aircraft components from the United States.
Mr. .HOWE: I did not say any such thing. Let us tell the truth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing about the United States. There was never any question of contracts from the United States. They were never contemplated. I told the hon. member the exact facts, that we were moving a contract from the Canadian General Electric Company in Toronto to Winnipeg and that the effects of it would be felt in June. I will thank the hon. member very much not to lead any more delegations into my office.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I resent that. It is the privilege of any member of parliament to lead a delegation to see a minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make the minister retract.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; if the minister wants to make that statement, it is perfectly all right with me. My remarks and his will be on the record and will be read with interest by the members of the delegation-there were five of us-who were in his office and know what was said. The whole purpose of the visit of that delegation was to try to get the assurance that something definite would be done. Other members of the delegation, the aircraft workers themselves, said to the minister: "Can we be assured that this new work will be placed in time to prevent the lay-offs now taking place?" The minister's reply to that was that the full effect might not be felt until June. He went on to say that the government was not the kind of government that would tell a private company what they should do, but that if he were manager of the plant and knew of the contracts that were coming there would not be any lay-offs.
The fact of the matter is that lay-offs have continued. The members of that delegation went back to Winnipeg in early February quite happy as a result of their interview with the minister, and they assured the workers in the plant where they are engaged and the members of the union with which they are associated that the minister had the matter
in hand, and that while there might be some temporary dislocation, there was nothing to worry about in the long run. However, despite that, lay-offs are still continuing.
I have a letter in my hand from Mr. Frank Murphy, the business agent of Spitfire Lodge, No. 741, International Association of Machinists, written after the minister made his reply to my question on the orders of the day last Thursday, in which the business agent tells me that a total of a thousand workers were laid off at MacDonald's in February and March and that there are now only about five hundred employees left at the airport compared with a figure of 3,500 when employment at MacDonald Brothers was at its peak.
This is not the first time, nor was the occasion, January 31 and February 1, the first time that I have discussed the matter of employment at Winnipeg with the Minister of Munitions and Supply and also with the Minister of Labour. It is a matter I have had occasion to discuss ever since I came to this house, and I feel that I must point out to the government that the treatment which we get from the two ministers falls into a well defined pattern. When we ask on behalf of Winnipeg for the placing of war contracts there to provide employment we are frequently told that the government cannot be asked to produce war materials that are not needed just for the sake of providing employment. That is a perfectly logical statement to make, provided that we did not get other kinds of replies when other questions are asked. But when we ask, on the other hand, as we have in recent months of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who is also Minister of Reconstruction, that he start a reconversion programme in such a plant as MacDonald Brothers at Winnipeg, the minister tells us that there is a war on and that this is no time for the consideration of such matters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should be misrepresented. I can tell my hon. friend that the position in MacDonald Brothers Aircraft is so serious that Grant MacDonald was in my office to-day trying to buy the plant, and he said he was offering to buy the plant because of the prospects he had ahead. That is the difference between the real facts and the story my hon. friend is helling the committee to-day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister indicate what the figures of employment are in the plant to-day?
790	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: He told me but I do not
remember exactly. They seemed to. be higher than the figure the hon. member just gave. What was that figure?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The figure I have in the letter from the business agent is 500.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Grant MacDonald told me
and I think the figure was 1,400. He is in the city and I will get a signed statement by him. My hon. friend's statement is in line with his usual accuracy. I 'have great respect for the word of any hon. member, but I must say that my hon. friend is amazing in reporting interviews he has had in my office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should
remember that he gave us full permission to give publicity to that interview; in fact, he urged us to do so. But when he made his statement in reply to my question on the orders of the day last Thursday, the reading of that statement by members of the delegation who were in the office led them to express amazement at the contrast between the minister's statement in the house and the statement which he made to us in his office. I feel it is my duty to bring this matter out into the open.
I should like to continue with the statement which I was making as to the sort of treatment we have been given wThen we have pleaded for work in the city of Winnipeg. We have received the answers already indicated, but we have continued to press for contracts for the sake of employment, because we have had men in Winnipeg needing work. There are certain other answers which we get. First, we are told that the labour situation at certain times is tight. I admit that that may be the general picture over the country; and yet on almost every occasion when either the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of Labour has referred to the tight labour situation, we have had large numbers of men registered for employment at the selective service office in Winnipeg and unable to get it.
Another reply which has been given to us is that there is work in other parts of the country, and that these departments of government have sent people to Winnipeg to try to get some of these workers because they were needed in other parts of the country. But the fact is that the wages offered at these jobs in other parts did not make it possible for men with homes in Winnipeg to pick up and go. particularly for the short time for which employment was guaranteed.

Another answer which we got from both the ministers I have referred to-in fact it was the answer I had the first time I ever asked a question in this house of the Minister of Labour-is that there are periods of seasonal unemployment which we have to accept, that there is never full employment in Winnipeg in. February and March, anyway.
But the point I am trying to suggest is that all these things combined have given the workers of Winnipeg-and not only the workers; I know something of what the members of the city council of Winnipeg, and of bodies such as the industrial development board of Manitoba think about this-the feeling that we have been given the runaround in connection with war contracts to provide sufficient work for Winnipeg.
On that basis I still hope that the minister, even if he feels provoked, will try to give the information which obviously I am seeking.
I wonder what has happened to the contracts which he had in mind when he assured the men on February 1 that work would be available. Have any contracts which he has offered to MacDonald's been turned down? Perhaps he might tell us also on what basis the contracts have been let to this firm. Has there been any change in the basis on which they have been let as between the earlier years of the war and the present time? Also I may say that workers in the plant have an interest in the question as to what is to happen to the government property at MacDonald's.
I wish that somehow we could get this across to ministers of the government, that when some of us stand here in this chamber and speak, even though they may think of us as members of another political party and as people they have to try to "sit on", they should remember that we speak for the people whom we represent. I am speaking in this question on behalf of the workers in the plant at MacDonald Brothers, Winnipeg, and one of the things they are interested in is what is to happen to that plant,
I notice, in the interesting figures which the Minister of Munitions and Supply laid on the table last night, and which appear in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings under the title "Government financed expansion of industrial capacity in Canada as at December 31, 1944", there have been some fairly substantial sums invested by the government in this plant. The amount actually expended by the government to that date at MacDonald Brothers Aircraft Limited for aircraft manufacture is S346,834. The amount actually expended at the same plant to provide facilities for aircraft overhaul and repair is SI,582,238. These two figures make a total investment by the government in the

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
plant there of $1,929,081. An investment of fairly close to two million dollars is quite substantial. It indicates the value there is in this plant. The workers are interested in the kinds of uses which it might be put to as a result of reconversion, and they would be interested', even if the minister does not feel that he wants to give me the information, in knowing what is in store for the equipment in which this vast sum of public money has been invested.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend expects to be a member of the next government, I am sure. Why does he not give them his own ideas?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Oh, don't start
him again.


Gordon Graydon: You are not suggesting
that his group are going to be the next government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, he thinks so. I do not know why I have to supply all the ideas here for reconversion.
Mr. LaCROIX (Translation) : Mr. Chairman, in connection with the resolution now before us, I must say that, so long as the National Resources Mobilization Act is kept in force, no reconstruction will be possible, because under that act, the government has succeeded in eliminating the small merchants and manufacturers, by allowing controllers who have interests in big business to withhold the raw materials, the goods and the equipment necessary for the creation and maintenance of new business and industrial establishments.
How can a returned soldier or any citizen in this country possibly start a new business or a new industry, if he is denied the means to obtain the materials and the goods necessary for beginning his operations? Surely, Mr. Chairman, monopolies will be glad to maintain such controls, because it is acknowledged that only those people whose establishments had come into being before the war can obtain goods today. Why would thiey not be satisfied, since such controls allow them to know beforehand1 the cost price of their manufactured product, as well as its sale price? You are as well aware as I am, Mr. Chairman, that only under conditions of free competition can a young man, a soldier or any citizen of this country start an industry or a business, by eliminating as far as possible the overhead charges that are scarcely avoidable in the case of big industries, which allows a newcomer to offer his goods or his manufactured product at a lower price, while making a reasonable profit. Once again, I claim that the National Resources Mobilization Act has set up an economic dictatorship in this country.
In this connection, I wish to deal with a statement from the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) who has vainly endeavoured, the other night, to explain why no vote was taken on the National Resources Mobilization Act. He conveniently forgot to mention to the house that the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization bill moved by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and seconded by myself, and which is recorded on page 924 of the official report for June 19, 1940, read as follows:
That all the words after "whereas" in the preamble of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:	"the government's war
policy must be free and voluntary."
He also forgot to say that it was at the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, that a vote was taken as any one can see by referring to page 925 of the official report for June 19, 1940. I quote:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Have a vote.
Otherwise, we would have been just two members to request a vote, and according to the Standing Orders, there must foe five.
Such intervention on the part of the Prime Minister was significant, and he explained it himself when he made the following statement, recorded on page 931 of the official report for June 19, 1940:
May I be allowed to say a word in reply to my hon. friend -with respect to the vote this afternoon? I thought, and I still think, that the time has come when the country should know exactly where some men stand on allimportant measures such as this. For the best of reasons I was not prepared to leave the impression that there were any members other than one or two who would support the amendment and who were not prepared to support the bill. For that reason I asked that the vote be taken.
It is true that the Speaker declared our amendment out of order, but it is true also that but for the significant intervention of the Prime Minister, no vote would have been taken. Inasmuch as the standing orders provide for appealing from the decision of the Speaker, the latter's decisions are not final and the members are to have the opportunity of submitting the matter to the house.
I contend, Mr. Chairman, that so long as the National Resources Mobilization Act, as amended by bill 80, remains on the statute book, the right hon. the Prime Minister cannot claim that volunteers will take part, in the war against Japan; indeed, the act as it now stands gives the government the privilege and the right to send to any theatre of war the soldiers called up in this country. The right hon. the Prime Minister did not say to this house that
792	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
it is an indisputable fact that the National Resources Mobilization Act constitutes an hypocritical and disguised conscription as a result of which there are two voluntary systems: the "voluntary" voluntary system and the "compulsory" voluntary system, and through the National Resources Mobilization Act the government enforced the latter.
I wish to point out, moreover, that the National Resources Mobilization Act has set up in this country an economic dictatorship such that the returned soldier who may wish to start a business of his own will be unable to do so as long as controllers are in charge of our national economy. And I shall prove my point forthwith. Mr. Rene Cantin, a returned soldier living at Giffard, in my constituency, applied to the wartime prices and trade board for a sugar quota in ord'er to set up a candy and chocolate business. Now, I have just received1 from the wartime prices and trade board, through the sugar administrator, the following letter dated April 10, 1945. I quote:
Dear Mr. LaCroix,
Your letter of March 27 last on behalf of Mr. Rene Cantin, of Giffard, has reopened an application which this administration had found necessary to reject.
However, in view of your personal interest in this case, we have reexamined the matter carefully, but before informing you of our conclusions, we wish to outline the instructions received from the board, in accordance with government policy in regard to the granting of sugar quotas to soldiers who have been released from the service. We quote:
"In order to qualify for a quota of a rationed commodity, the applicant must have had previous experience in some executive capacity of the business which he desires to engage in."
And further:
We do not want you to be under the impression that this administration is prone to split hairs in regard to the rehabilitation of discharged service men, but in view of the large number of such applications, a definite policy is essential and any exception would give rise to complaints against the board and this administration.
Therefore, this means, Mr. Chairman, that a returned soldier who is desirous of establishing an industry must have been a member of the board of directors or an officer of a company. To my mind such requirements are ridiculous.
I notice that the parliamentary assistant to the minister of Munitions and Supply is present in the house and I would ask him to kindly submit this case to his department, so that no more silly letters of this kind should be sent to members of parliament in future. This decision prevents any person in Canada from organizing a new industry or business
TMr. LaCroix. 1
enterprise unless he had been in business before the declaration of war; otherwise he is deprived of the necessary material or goods.
I have often heard in this house, statements attempting to prove that the policy of the government was to facilitate, by all possible means, the establishment of returned men in their own small business or industry. I believe the letter I have just quoted shows that the government is implementing an entirely opposite policy.
Mr. Chairman, allow me, at the close of my remarks, to express the following wish: let the Department of Munitions and Supply and all other departments put a stop to the necessity for us, of Quebec, to apply to Toronto every time we wish anything. Some time ago, I applied for the fixing of a leather quota for an industrialist of Loretteville, a town of my constituency. To obtain this quota, which was absolutely necessary for the running of the applicant's business, I was referred to the leather administrator with offices in Toronto.
I wrote this administrator, and do you know what he replied? He wrote: Mr. LaCroix, we have received the application of Mr. Gerard Bastien, of Loretteville, but as it was written in French, we had to send the form to Ottawa to have it translated. We are still awaiting this translation to answer your letter.
Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous. I hope this policy will be changed. At the present time, we are on the way to admitting in principle that, only the trusts may subsist in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I refrained from interrupting the hon, member's speech; however, I must point out to him that the two matters he raised to-night, referring to sugar and leather, do not concern the Department of Munitions and Supply. The sale of sugar, as well as leather, comes under the Department of Finance through the wartime prices and trade board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I had finished my remarks, but I understand the minister threw a question back at me which I did not hear. I have since been told what it was and I should now like to make a brief comment in reply. I understand the minister asked me what my solution of the problem would be. I point out to him that that is not answering the questions which I had put to him as minister in charge of the department at the present time; neither is it giving the information which the workers concerned have

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
asked me to secure. Nevertheless I do not mind answering his question. I would say this to him: if he has the contracts from the United States referred to in his speech last night at page 746 of Hansard, for the manufacturing capacity released with the cessation of the trainer programme, and if some of those contracts can be allocated to Winnipeg, that should be done. If that cannot be done I suggest to him as I have done before on several occasions, particularly during the regular session of .parliament last spring and summer, namely, that with a plant at Winnipeg worth 82,000,000, with workers there seeking employment, and it being obvious that some time soon a reconversion programme must start somewhere, here is a good place to start it. The men themselves have suggested that since the buildings are large and spacious they may be such as can be used to do some research in prefabricated houses. When my colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie, gets the floor a little later he may have something to say on that point.
I would also say to the minister that he was not giving me or the workers concerned any new information when he mentioned that Mr. MacDonald was in the city discussing with the government the possibility of purchasing the plant, because Mr. MacDonald has already told the workers that he would like to do that and that he was negotiating with the government on this matter. I point out to the minister that here is a plant in which nearly $2,000,000 of public money has been invested, and I hope it will not be the case of a fire sale, -but that he will protect the public interest. In my view the plant should be retained by the government.
One other point; I trust the minister is going to answer my questions either to-night or to-morrow. I understand that on one matter he wants to make an answer to-morrow after he has consulted Mr. MacDonald. With regard to the employment figure let me make it clear that I was speaking about the plant at the airport.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member said
MacDonald's plants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the sake of comparison I gave the peak figure of 3,500, which was the peak employment figure at the airport. The present employment there is 500, according to my information. If the minister finds that Mr. MacDonald has a higher employment figure he must break that down to the employment at the airport and the employment at the Robinson establishment. I shall be glad if the minister will get those figures from
Mr. MacDonald, and I shall also be glad if either to-night or to-morrow he will answer the questions I have put to him.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: According to the statement made by the minister last night we are to have up to August 31 of this year expenditures of about four and a half million dollars in connection with the housing development. According to Votes and Proceedings the total expenditure in wartime housing amounts to 869,262,000. Hon. members will recall that at least once a year I have tried to impress upon the government the importance of providing adequate housing for the Canadian people as a part of our war effort. In this country and in every country it has been found that lack of adequate housing has been a serious factor in preventing maximum production of essential materials. It has been very bad for the morale of our Canadian people. Many of our young people have given their lives in defence of everything that they hold dear. "They are fighting for their homes" is a very common slogan, but many who have returned as heroes are now finding that they are the unwanted Canadians when it comes to finding a place in which to live. I have tried to impress upon the government each year that in allocating raw materials and manpower available we should be providing a substantial number of new housing units.
In nearly every major city in Canada we have a serious housing situation. I spent a few days in Halifax at Easter time and men of the army, navy and air force who are compelled to make Halifax their headquarters have, I believe, a real grievance in being expected to live in an area where so little consideration has been given to the housing requirements. The leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, had occasion to make some comments regarding the serious situation in Halifax. The senior member for that riding took exception to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had said and issued a public statement. One of the well-known doctors in Halifax came to the defence of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, mentioning:
.	.	. 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 ostriehism in its blatant and unabashed form-that ostriehism 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. Coldwell 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
794	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
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.
But the most extraordinary statement in your report is that of Mr. Isnor's, when you quote him as saying that it is "not helping our war effort to have such statements made in the house, on the platform or over the radio." By what strange reasoning does he come to this conclusion? Does he believe that slum dwellers make better workers and soldiers; that slum dwellers more than people from better surroundings have finer stamina as fighters, greater resources and physical capacity as artisans? To those of us who know that the evil effects of bad housing and insufficient food cause an exactly opposite effect, a statement like Mr. Isnor's sounds distressingly depressing.
I suppose the situation in Halifax is more serious than in many of our cities, but Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and all our major cities have critical housing problems.
Two sets of answers were brought down today to questions asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. One of his questions was as follows:
What housing activities, or authority, has been vested in the Department of Reconstruction?
The answer is as follows:
By agreement with the Minister of Finance, direct responsibility for housing will remain with his department. Activities of the Department of Reconstruction will be confined to asisting the finance department and by stimulating housing construction.
I wish the minister would be good enough to elaborate on just how he proposes to stimulate construction. According to the act which was passed last year to set up the Department of Reconstruction, one of the duties of the minister was to formulate plans for industrial development and conversion, public works and improvements, housing and community planning, research and conservation and development of natural resources, and so on.
Then, according to the answers given by the Minister of Finance I find that the department which is supposed to be doing something is doing even less than the Department of Reconstruction, which has passed the buck. The first paragraph of the second' question reads:
How many limited dividend corporations have been formed in accordance with the National Housing Act, 1944?
That is a straightforward question; the answer could be none, or ten or one hundred, but instead four long paragraphs were needed for the answer. I do not propose to take the time of the committee in reading them, but in fairness to hon; members it seems to me

that when a straightforward question is asked we should receive a straightforward answer. The second paragraph of the question was:
Have any agreements with municipalities been entered into in accordance with the National Housing Act, 1944, and if so, with what municipalities?
Here we have an answer that goes all round the question and does not come near the point:
The limited supplies of materials and labour now available for housing purposes are being used by Wartime Housing Limited mainly to provide accommodation in certain congested areas for dependents of those in the armed forces and returning veterans, by the director of the Veterans' Land Act, by the national housing administration for house conversions, and for the construction of houses and apartments in the moderate and lower price ranges.
There have been numerous inquiries and preliminary discussions with respect to the formation of limited dividend corporations and to grants to municipalities for slum clearance, but in no case have negotiations been completed and it is obvious that the number of projects that can be proceeded with immediately is limited by the available supply of labour and materials.
I submit that the members of this house are entitled to information that will tell them exactly what has been done by the department. Last year we passed an act which gave members of parliament and the public the impression that this government was really facing up to the post-war housing requirements of the country. The third paragraph reads:
Have any grants for research purposes been made in accordance with the National Housing Act, 1944, and if so, in what amounts?
We did get a straight answer to that question; the answer is "no". I should like to direct attention to. the fact that on March 24 of last year the report of the advisory committee on reconstruction, concerning housing and community planning, was tabled; and on one or two occasions I took the opportunity to congratulate the minister upon compiling such a comprehensive survey of the problem and outlining some of the steps which should be taken. In dealing with the urban housing needs in Canada, in the summary of findings and recommendations on page 11, we have a straightforward statement of the serious housing conditions which prevail in the cities of Canada. On page 13 it points out that -a target of 606,000 units over the next ten years should be the minimum. Another estimate I have heard is 760,000 houses, which would mean. 75,000 units a year over a ten-year period; and1 I believe it was the Minister of Labour, addressing a public meeting last year, who suggested that we should have at least one million units in the next ten years. In facing up to the hous-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
ing programme, I think the only limiting factors should be what will be our available supplies of materials, what will be the labour situation, and is there a need. I do not think there in any doubt that we have demonstrated in the last five years that Canadians have 'been able to produce and use essential Canadian materials in the manufacture of tanks, guns, planes and1 other necessary implements of warfare. I believe we have a right to expect that the Minister of Reconstruction will formulate similar plans for the post-war period, and see that we have maximum production in connection with the building trades.
The chapter dealing with the income groups and housing policy points out that we have one-third of the people in the upper income brackets, who will always be able to supply themselves with adequate housing, and therefore no administration needs to worry about them. Then we have one-third of the people in the middle income brackets who will require assistance such as has been supplied under national housing. Finally we have another one-third of the people in the lower income brackets who in this country, and in every country, have never been able out of their small pay cheques to afford suitable living quarters. This survey, carried out by the government, points out that eighty-nine per cent of the people in the lower one-third of the population are paying more than a desirable proportion of their income for housing accommodation ; and when that situation prevails it means that the children go without sufficient food or lack clothing.
There is another interesting section dealing with rural housing. Unfortunately we have never compiled any accurate statistics in Canada over a period of time as to the extent of our needs in connection with rural housing, but in the last census information was obtained indicating the extent of the job here in connection with rural housing. Certain recommendations have been made. It is recommended that the federal government should have a dominion town planning agency; but this shocking information brought down to-day shows that not a five cent piece has been spent under the legislation passed last year, or for research purposes in accordance with the National Housing Act of 1944. I think it should be as plain as a-b-c that a country as backward as Canada has been in connection with housing cannot in a month, or six months, or a year, go from where we were to where we should be in the business of providing adequate housing. It seems to me the very first job that should
have been undertaken after this act was passed was to make appropriate provision for the necessary research work.
When I discussed this question more than a year ago I suggested that the government should call an immediate conference of dominion, provincial and municipal authorities to review the whole housing problem in Canada and work out a formula so that there might be agreement as to the extent of the slum clearance which might be carried on in the different areas, the part, if any, which municipalities would be expected to play, the role the provinces would be called upon to perform, and the part to be undertaken by the federal authority. But according to the information brought down by the minister the president of Wartime Housing Limited, Mr. J. M. Pigott, was appointed by order in council of December last to fill the position of director general of housing development, but now we find that he has never acted in this capacity and that the order in council will be rescinded. As I said, this is the most distressing information I have had for many a day, to find that right now, at the conclusion of the war, the Department of Reconstruction gives this sort of answer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, while the Department of Finance, which is responsible for national housing, has an even more unsatisfactory reply to give to other questions. I urge that before this discussion concludes the minister should indicate why the Department of Reconstruction is shelving its responsibilities in the field of housing. He should give some indication as to how soon the people of this country can expect more dynamic leadership from some department of government with a view to solving an immediate and urgent problem that is so disturbing.
As I said earlier, men who have been away from this country for four or five years are now returning to join their families. When they have inquired about renting a house or an apartment they have been told immediately that if there are any children in* the family the children are not wanted. Surely some department can take the initiative and demonstrate that people who are rearing children in this country are entitled to have as good accommodation as is available for those who are not serving their country in that particular capacity.
I should like the minister to outline clearly why his department has passed by this responsibility in the field of housing, and also outline what he proposes to do by the way of assisting the Department of Finance in stimulating housing construction.
796	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Munitions and Supply has presented to the committee certain estimates for which he would like consideration. The Minister of Reconstruction has other estimates which will come up at another time, and I am sure he will be glad to discuss his estimates when the time comes. But I have heard nothing this evening about munitions and supply. Everything has had to do with reconstruction. I must say I have enjoyed it thoroughly, but I think that perhaps we might very well discuss munitions and supply to-night, and then discuss recon-, struction in its proper place. I expect to make a statement of some importance on reconstruction to-morrow. But to-night, I would repeat that we are discussing munitions and supply.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of the fact that we have spent about $50,000,000 in the field of wartime housing I believe this is the logical place for the minister to make some statement, as to whether he is washing his hands of all further responsibility for his activities in the field of housing. For the last four years the Minister of Munitions and Supply has been responsible for the major housing activities of Canada, and I think this would be the appropriate time for him to make some statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Wartime Housing Limited was established to provide housing for industrial workers in war plants. The work was undertaken to make it possible to bring workers from one area to another, and to make sure that they were comfortably housed. That was the function of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
My hon. friend is mixing that with a different field of housing, namely, housing for the civilian population in post-war years.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I take second place to no one in my attitude in connection with the housing of workers. On many occasions I have brought this matter before the minister. As a matter of fact, he said that he did not think it was his problem, but that it was the duty of the city of Toronto to take care of that situation, so far as the housing of workers in war plants was concerned.
When we consider what has been done in other parts of the country and compare that with what has happened in Toronto we get some idea of the whole situation. In that city we find Victory Aircraft at Malton, and de Havilland aircraft, and the others at Leaside and Long Branch. The amount of housing supplied to those people is pure nonsense. That is why such an acute situation

has developed. I take my hat off to the people of Toronto for what they have done to try to provide housing. But when the minister rises in his place and tells us that he is here in one capacity to-night and that he will be here in another to-morrow I say to him he is ini both positions at the same time. I am reminded of the Mikado, where one man had all the portfolios and had to please each side.
I had no thought of taking part in this debate until I listened to the Prime Minister on Monday, and again this afternoon. I was anxious to see these appropriations put through as quickly as possible. When we look at these votes we must conclude that certainly it is impossible for the committee, in the short time remaining, to analyse what has been done. When the Prime Minister said that the Progressive Conservative party had belittled Canada's war effort I throw that back in his teeth, because we have never done that. As a matter of fact, I draw the committee's attention to a speech by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres made in this chamber not very long ago, where he said the government never did anything unless it was prodded and made to do so by the official opposition. That is a pretty strong statement to make.
Through all this time members of the official opposition have had in their minds only the prosecution of the war, and nothing other than trying to get this government to do what we thought it should do.
The Prime Minister has risen in his place and tried to explain why he did not call parliament earlier. All through the last four or five years he has tried to avoid parliamentary discussion; we were just a nuisance to him. Everything was done by order in council anyway. There has not been much legislation to speak of, and that which we have had before us has been hedged around by regulations. It was left to somebody else to make those regulations.
We have been deprived of one of our sacred rights, a right which has come down to us from Pym, Hampden and Charles I, the right of any person to lay his grievances at the foot of the throne, through his representative in the House of Commons. That right has been denied us. And I can say right now that there are plenty of grievances that could be laid at the foot of the throne.
Just think of wThat happened to-night. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking, and the minister rose in his place and said, "I will thank you very much not to lead any more delegations to me." What a disgraceful thing to say! To think that a mem-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
ber of parliament has no right to take delegations to the proper place, so that people may get their rights.
The House of Commons has been threatened ever since last December. We have been told that if we did not do something which would satisfy the Prime Minister we would be out of luck, and that there would be no House of Commons. Well, if that is to be the case, and if the Prime Minister can say what parliament is to do, we had better change our constitution very soon.
We are now asked to pass these estimates for the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and we shall be asked later to pass estimates under the minister in his capacity of Minister of Reconstruction. People in my constituency are worried about what kind of job they will have. They are in war plants to-day, and they do not know what is to happen when those plants fold up. We have had no statement from the minister as to when they are to fold up or what is to happen. Perhaps he does not know himself. A little while ago we asked the Minister of Labour if he had had any survey made in connection with post-war reconstruction. He replied that a report had been made but he could not disclose it to us.
I want to tell him that it is a national tragedy that we have not a budget brought down to see what employment can be had now that the war with Germany is so nearly over.
These men who have been making the survey have been going around to different industries and interviewing business men and asking them: What are you going to do? The business men have replied: You tell us what you are going to do; then we will tell you what we can do. Business is anxious to make its plans for the post-war but does not know what the government is going to do. I doubt very much if the government have any plans for the postwar. That is about the situation.
The other day a delegation came here from Toronto in connection with shipbuilding work in that city. I was one of those who headed the delegation and interviewed the minister in his office. I must say he was courteous and we had quite a discussion but the delegation did not know very much more at the end of it than they did before. All we wanted to know was that Toronto was to get its fair share of whatever shipbuilding work was going on. The minister said we would. But the fact remains that there were ships in Toronto shipyards that were further advanced in construction than ships at other ports, yet work on them was discontinued at the Toronto yards and other ships were towed to Toronto, to be finished there. The minister knows what he
is doing, I suppose, but what we in Toronto wish to know is what the future holds for us. How are these men to be employed? We should be given some idea of what plans the government have as a result of the survey that has been made.
I am proud of what my fellow-citizens in the city of Toronto have done. We have as great a record if not greater than that of any other city in the province and, I believe, in the whole Dominion of Canada in raising men for the armed forces. We have as good a record if not better in Toronto and the province of Ontario in the production of munitions and supplies than anywhere else in the dominion. Our workmen and women have given splendid service. They have helped the minister no end and have forced him to go on and do things. We are proud of them. Now we want to know what the Minister of Reconstruction has in his mind as to the future, so that there will not be chaos if unemployment comes when the war with Germany is over.


Mr. ROY:: Mr. Chairman, decidedly the Liberal government keeps on playing with "the milliards" more lightly than most Canadian people can play with coppers. Nevertheless I should like to give some reasons why I am more strongly opposed than ever to this appropriation of $2,000,000,000 for the continuation of the government's policy of gifts and extravagant war expenditures. But since I have already outlined time and again my point of view on that matter as a Canadian I do not need to go over that again. I will confine myself to stressing some of the reasons which have aroused suspicion in my mind. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services stated to the committee last week that German submarines were very likely next summer to enter our territorial waters and perhaps display greater activity in the St. Lawrence than ever before. Last Wednesday I asked the minister the following question, and I quote now from Hansard of April 4, at page 445:
I should like to know from the minister if the Germans are still holding a piece of land in France on that section of the coast which includes Dunkirk, St. Nazaire and Bordeaux, and if so, whether they have some submarine bases in that section.
The minister's answer was, and I am still quoting from the same page of Hansard:
Mr. Macdonald (Kingston City):	I believe
they do hold Dunkirk and a little land in the vicinity, but I do not know that they have a submarine base there. They had some submarine bases further down the west coast, at St. Nazaire and Lorient and elsewhere, for a con-
798	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
siderable time. I do not know whether the bases at St. Nazaire and Lorient still exist. Probably that area has been cleared.
I questioned the minister again:
I find it strange that the allies could have afforded to push back the Germans all over, from France, from Holland, from Belgium, and far into their own country, while they allow that little piece of land to be occupied by the Germans. That is a question a good many people are asking.
The hon. minister replied to me as follows:
Mr. Macdonald (Kingston City):	It is a
question of military strategy, and one for the army commanders, rather than for me, to answer. I should think they have thought of that matter. It may be that the number of men needed to reduce Dunkirk by direct assault would be fairly large. The last report I saw indicated that the Germans have some twelve thousand men in Dunkirk, so that the allies would have to detach a considerable force to take the city. It may be the fact, and I have no doubt it is, that they believe they can employ the men to better advantage in going ahead with their great drive, as they are doing now, and letting Dunkirk be taken care of in due time.
I was astounded that the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services was not informed of the exact situation in regard to the presence of Germans who have been permitted to stay on the French coast since June, 1944, in possession of sea harbours on the Atlantic. Why they have been left alone there for such a long period of time the minister does not know. Do they have submarine bases there? The minister does not know either that or about their naval activities. It is to be noted that no mention has been made in the war communiques of these Germans remaining in possession of that coastal section. Why? Echo answers, why?
The reasons for my suspicion are based on some other as yet unexplained facts of major importance. Here is what I read in the Globe and Mail of April 5, 1945, under the heading, "Russian Magazine charges Britain, United States, deal with Nazis." The dispatch reads:
London, April 4-(C.P.)-In the midst of a world war "international American and British cartel interests" are dealing secretly in Switzerland to preserve their ties with "German monopolists" for post-war monopolies, the Soviet magazine War and the Working Class aserted in an article broadcast from Moscow to-day.
The article goes on at a certain length in the same tune.


The ACTING   OHAIRMAN@Mr. Golding: Order. May I ask what that has to do with the Department of Munitions and Supply? We are dealing with the estimates of that department now, and I think the hon. member is out of order.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, although I would be pleased to abide by your ruling, I would point out that the whole of the resolution is now before the committee. I am speaking on the resolution and explaining why I am opposed to the appropriation. For the past five or six days we have heard speeches of this type to which no objection has been made.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: I think the hon. member will appreciate the fact that it is only this departmental item which is before the committee at the present time. We have dealt as we came along with the items of the departments of defence; the naval department, the department for air, and so forth; we are now dealing with the Department of Munitions and Supply, and I should like the hon. member to, keep to that subject.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: No, Mr. Chairman; the whole
of the resolution is before the committee. I know we are dealing with a special matter, but there is no such thing as limitation to one department; it is the whole of the resolution which is before the committee. If I am not correct, I am willing to wait for another occasion.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member should keep
to the matter which is now before the committee, namely the Department of Munitions and Supply. The minister made a statement last evening in connection with his department, and we ought to confine our remarks to that statement and the various phases of it.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I shall certainly try to keep
as close to the subject as the resolution is. If the resolution is taken out of committee I shall be out of order, but until that time I believe I am proceeding along the same line as that followed in most of the speeches we have heard in the past five or six days that we have been on the resolution. So that I await your decision on this matter. If the resolution is not before the committee-well, that- is definite.
On April 17 last I addressed the Prime Minister as follows, as reported in Hansard, 1944 at page 2084:
A dispatch from London to the Canadian Press, dated April 5, quotes a Russian magazine which accuses British and American cartels of continuing to deal with German cartels under certain agreements, operating through Switzerland. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a statement on this very grave accusation?

TFar Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

To which the Prime Minister replied:
My hon. friend has asked me a very large question, dealing with international affairs and concerning, as 1 understand it, Russia, Britain, Germany and Switzerland in relation to cartels. Not only should I want time to prepare an answer; I should want a great deal of time, and I am not sure that even then I could give an answer. The hon. gentleman has referred to an accusation or an assumption, and whether it is the one or the other I cannot say.
Mr. Chairman, that was surely not a denial of the Russian statement; it is rather an implicit admission that it is true. The conclusion one can draw from that affair cannot but be one of strong suspicion as to what is going on in the underground world of international finance which is governing the different governments of all nations at war.
Other facts of the same nature have brought about my suspicion in some other quarters, one of which is none less than the British Blouse of Commons. Here is what I read in the British Hansard, page 930, October 1942. The question was asked by Mr. G. Strauss of the chancellor of the exchequer, whether the British representatives of the bank for international settlements had special permission of His Majesty's government to enter into business relations with enemy aliens, and whether he would give their names; and Sir Patrick Hannon asked what was the present position of the bank for international settlements. The chancellor of the exchequer, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, replied that the two British representatives were Sir Montagu Norman and Sir Otto Niemeyer.


John Horne Blackmore: Bad ones, both of them.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: 
William Henry Golding: Order. I must ask the hon. member to discuss the question that is before the committee, namely the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am really at a loss to know whether it is the resolution that is before the committee or whether we are discussing some item that is not specified. For five days now I have heard many members discussing the whole resolution and they were in order. Will you therefore tell me whether we are speaking on the resolution-yes or no? Will you tell me that? If so, I will abide by your ruling.


William Henry Golding: I must rule that the hon. member is out of order. If he wished to discuss the question of conscription or anything of that kind he should have done so when the defence department was before the committee. We are now discussing munitions and supply.


William Earl Rowe: What item?


William Henry Golding: rMr. Roy.l
The minister made a statement last night and gave details which are now before the committee.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I will continue to make my
point, why I am opposing the resolution that is before the committee. This pronouncement of the Prime Minister is very clear and quite formal. I am making my point, why I oppose the resolution, andl I have serious reasons. It is of such importance, voting for or against this huge appropriation, that a member has the right to explain himself, using all the time that is allowed him. Yet the Prime Minister said, at page 2419 of Hansard-


William Henry Golding: Order. I must insist that the hon. member . keep to the question that is before the committee. The question of conscription is not before the committee. I repeat, if the hon. member had desired to discuss that point at all it should have been discussed when the Department of National Defence was before the committee. I think the hon. member appreciates that as well as I do.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have to fight my case here but many members tell me I am right. Here is the resolution we have before us.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The resolution covers all kinds
of things as to Canada's security, defence, peace and order, and that involves our external as well as our internal policy. That is the resolution which is before me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Chairman is on his feet.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member will cooperate with the Chair. I do not wish to be harsh in matters of this kind. I think the committee has been given great leeway all the way through, but I must insist-and I am perfectly right in insisting-that hon. members must now keep to the question before the committee. I so rule.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I should like to abide by your
ruling, Mr. Chairman, but as I said, I wish to put this on the record. For five days general speeches have been made on the whole resolution at any stage of the discussion in the committee. You remember what has happened in this committee. My statement is quite true, and if I am not to be given the same amount of justice that was given to the rest-


William Henry Golding: Order.

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply


Joseph Sasseville Roy: -since this debate started, I can speak within the rules long enough so that the debate may last longer than the government would like. All I ask is the same share of justice as has been given the rest.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is hardly fair in using the words he has just used. I do want to be fair. As far as the Chair is concerned, I want to be fair to every member, but I must repeat that the hon. member is entirely out of order in discussing conscription on the matter with which we are now dealing. I must insist that he keep to the question that is before the committee.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, on what item is the resolution being discussed?


William Henry Golding: We are; now discussing the Department of Munitions and Supply. We have dealt with the naval department, national defence, and so forth, and we are now discussing munitions and supply and the statement the minister made last night.


Mr. BRYCE:: I had no intention of taking part in this argument, but I was with the deputation to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred, ahd I wish to concur in what he said. I am quite sure he made a true statement of what really took place at that meeting. I am quite sure the minister remembers that we asked him before we left if we could make a public statement that there would be plenty of work in Winnipeg this summer, and he assured us that there would be and that he wanted us to say so. I had a conversation with the minister myself about re-tooling. It was off the record and I do not think it has ever been mentioned before by any member of the deputation or myself. I hope the minister does not mean what he said to the effect that we did not have the right to bring a deputation to him again. I hope he does not mean that I would not have the right to bring a deputation from my constituency of Selkirk if I felt like it and he was agreeable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It all depends on whether or not hon. members who cojne with deputations are prepared to quote me correctly. The previous speaker was not. My hon. friend said he remembers the conversation about Te-tooling and he also talks about employment in the summer. I point out to him this is early April. He is quoting me correctly, and I have no objection to that; but I expect when members rise in their places in this 32283-51
House of Commons to quote me, they will quote me correctly. Is my hon. friend prepared to deny the suggestion that I am telling the truth?


William Scottie Bryce: I said I concur in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Ctentre said. I say that he made a perfectly truthful statement as to what was said at the interview.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will appreciate it very much if you do not bring any more delegations.


William Scottie Bryce: I assure hon. members that we asked the minister for his permission to bring the deputation and he agreed. At the same' time we asked him when we should bring it and he said: "Why don't you tell them to come on Friday?" We said to him, "If we told them to come on Friday you would have told them to stay at home," because that had been our experience before. You have to bring them here and make arrangements for the minister to see them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should just like to make this point clear. I am sure that the appointment for that delegation was made by a responsible union of Winnipeg and nothing was said about bringing C.C.F. members. The appointment was made from Winnipeg for a certain day and I was there to see the delegation. I must say that I have never made an appointment with a labour delegation and then not received the delegation on the day arranged. I resent the comment that if it had been on a Friday I would not have seen them at all. Unless my hon. friend is prepared to assume that I am a responsible minister of the crown, and attending to my business, I suggest that he just drop the conversation.


William Scottie Bryce: I am sure the minister will remember that we made the arrangements for the deputation. In fact, he complained to us because the deputation that was coming from Winnipeg had not made the arrangements before they came. I am not going to take up any more time, but it seems funny to me that we have people to-day criticizing government-owned plants, ridiculing them because they are no good, and still we are told that there are buyers ready to take over those plants to make money out of them.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I admit I find great difficulty in following this kind of debate. A few evenings ago, when the Department of National Defence (Army) was under discussion, a fairly long speech on mutual aid was made by an hon. member to my left. To-night another hon. member started to speak on the same subject and after a while he got off it

802	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
onto something else. I should like to say something on mutual aid but perhaps this is not the time. I intend to speak on the other side of mutual aid, and if I do not get another chance I wish to say right now that I hope the government, between the time this parliament is dissolved and the new parliament meets, will carry on mutual aid in as great a measure as possible to those nations which need it. I am going to leave it at that now, because I hope to have another opportunity of pressing the matter a little farther. I imagine that is the intention of the government and that is why the appropriation is in the estimates, and I hope that they will continue with it.
I should like to ask the minister one or two questions with regard to production in Vancouver. I notice that the hon. member for St. Paul's said that Toronto was very proud of her production records. I think the complaint that most other parts of Canada have is that they did not get the same opportunities to produce as Toronto did, and that in so far as we got those opportunities we have made a record of which we may be proud. As far as manufacturing on a large scale is concerned, Vancouver had two important industries, the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. In a statement last night the minister said that in the matter of units of aircraft, production would be down to about fifty per cent of last year, but in the matter of poundage it would be down about twenty-five per cent. Could the minister tell the committee how long the air production programme at present in operation at the Boeing plant or plants in Vancouver will continue and what is the prospect for reconversion after the war to some, other useful production? In so far as shipbuilding is concerned I believe that at the peak of production there were some thirty thousand shipyard workers in the Vancouver area. I do not know how many there are there now, but I believe it is considerably Jess than that. How many of the forty 10,000-ton ships and of the twelve 4,700-ton ships are to be built on the west coast? How long will that programme last? I see by the papers that one of the yards, the Burrard South yard, is scheduled to close at the end of the year. Then I should like the minister to tell the committee how many of the naval craft, he mentioned last evening, are to be constructed on the west coast, and how long those contracts will last. And if it is in order at this time, although perhaps it may come under the Department, of Reconstruction, I should like the minister to tell the committee 
what are the possibilities for a shipbuilding yard in Vancouver or in British Columbia after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend suggests that Vancouver has not had the same opportunity to share in war work that other cities have had. I would point out to him that the population of Vancouver has shown a much sharper increase during the war years than any other city in Canada, and I assume that war work has had something to do with that. I just draw that fact to his attention.
My hon. friend brought up the question of work on aircraft. I suppose he knows when the end of the Japanese war will come, but I do not; so that I am afraid I cannot give him the exact date for which he asked. I may tell him that the Vancouver work is on the latest and largest bomber used in the war, the bomber that is doing most of the work in the Pacific, and I think I am safe in saying that until the Pacific war ends that work will go on. I believe consideration is being given to civil work; but while my hon. friend may be able to predict exactly what is to happen in this country two or three or four years hence, I am not able to do so with any accuracy. However, we have an excellent plant at Vancouver which has operated very well so far, and we hope it will continue to operate.
As far as shipbuilding on the west coast is concerned, I was speaking with our representative from there to-day about putting some more work in that area. He tells me it would simply mean transferring labour from existing work, that Vancouver is working to capacity. I assume he should know something about the matter; he has been in charge of shipbuilding work there for some years, and that is his opinion. He states that this will be the situation at least until after the end of this year. It is difficult to put in more work than the capacity will permit. My hon. friends have been running a campaign for three or four years on the theory that tomorrow everyone will be out of work. Strangely enough, men have not been out of work in any part of Canada. I have before me a list that shows we have 127,000 high priority jobs in this country that we are unable to fill. It is fun to predict unemployment ahead, but for the last three or four years my problem has been to contend with a shortage of labour to do the work we have on hand. When that situation changes I am sure we shall be able to cope with it.


Angus MacInnis: I have not been prophesying, nor has anyone to my knowledge been prophesying-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last spring your leader predicted 100,000 unemployed by last spring.


Angus MacInnis: Who did?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar.
. Mr. MacINNIS:	That is all right; my
hon. friend will get the 100,000 soon enough, sooner than I would wish. However,
I asked certain specific questions which the minister overlooked in order to indulge in a little criticism. I do not mind that; I can ask them again. I wanted to know how many of the forty 10,000-ton ships that are to be built this year will be built in Vancouver or British Columbia yards, and how many of the twelve 4,700-ton ships will be built there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid I have not that information at the moment. A certain number of 10,000-tonners are building there, but I do not think there are any 4,000-tonners. If my hon. friend will look about the yards the next time he is in Vancouver he can count them himself; they are all on the ways.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: We have a list which we are trying to follow in order to give every hon. member an opportunity to speak. The hon. member for Lethbridge is next.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been waiting
patiently for a discussion of the minister's estimates by the committee, but up to the present time, except for the last few minutes, it seems that hon. members have been interested in almost everything else. I desired to discuss at some length, while the minister's estimates were before the committee, three questions, namely irrigation, coal developments and housing. With respect to irrigation I should like to discuss the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project, sometimes called the St. Mary and Milk rivers water development project, under which it is proposed to store 738,700 acre-feet of water in ten reservoirs to irrigate 345,000 acres of land, at a total cost of $15,178,439, but it seems to me the proper time to discuss that matter wdll be after the minister has made his statement on post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation. I should like to discuss the question of coal from the point of view of processing it into oil, rubber and' other substances. Probably that also would come under the minister's other department. I should like to discuss housing rather fully, but it seems to me that comes within the second division of the minister's work, so that I shall speak about these matters to-morrow and turn the minister back 32283-51J
to those who have some questions to ask on the aspect of his work now under consideration.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Several hon. members have spoken of the matter of controls. The controls in which I am particularly interested at the moment are those having to do with motor vehicles. I should like the minister to tell me how many trucks are to be released for civilian use this year and, if possible, the sizes of those trucks. I think all hon. members have heard complaints from people in their constituencies who have asked for permits to buy trucks and been refused. If my information is correct we have about 257,000 trucks in operation in Canada to-day. If we say that a truck lasts ten years, although I am sure it would not last that length of time, we can take it that ten per cent should be replaced every year. This means that we would require 25,700 trucks to replace those which have worn out. I think the public would like to know how many trucks are to be made available this year, and in what sizes. Then those whose applications for new trucks have been refused will have some understanding of the reason for the refusal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The average production of trucks in Canada from 1937 to 1940 was 27,259 per year. In 1944 the controller released 9,000 trucks, or 33 per cent of the pre-war average. This year we have made arrangements to manufacture trucks on two production lines and in 1945 we expect to have for release 12,181 trucks, or 44-6 per cent of the pre-war average. These are the lighter types of trucks, consisting chiefly of one-ton and two-ton varieties. We have made a sincere effort to keep trucks on the road, and to keep in operation transport which depends on trucks. In this I believe we have succeeded fairly well. There may have been some errors in judgment as to what was an essential service requiring protection, and what was not. But the fact remains that there has been a sincere effort to replace worn-out trucks required to carry on essential services. We are better off for trucks, in proportion to our pre-war use, than any other country of which we have record. I think even the United States is considerably below us in the proportion of pre-war manufacture being released to truckers in that country.
In the matter of heavy trucks we are in the hands of the United States. About the same number of heavy trucks will be imported into Canada this year as was imported last year.

804	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
We hope to keep industry depending on heavy trucks in operation to about the same extent as obtained last year.


Mr. SENN:: I have listened with great interest to the minister's statement with regard to trucks. Last night I pointed out to him that nothing much had been said about agricultural implements, particularly farm tractors, and he said he would have some information to give. The situation in Ontario with respect to farm tractors is, to use the minister's expression, very tight. Tractors are being sold on a quota basis. I think the base year was either 1940 or 1941. Firms which sold a certain number of tractors in 1940 or 1941 are put on a quota basis in the same proportion as they sold in those years. This has worked a hardship in some respects, because there were certain firms which sold only a limited number in those years. Since that time they have been in a position where they have had only a very few tractors delivered to them for sale. I know of one particular area, right in my own district, where a firm has received thirty or forty applications for tractors, but they are allowed to sell only three a year. At that rate it -would take a very long time for them to catch up on their orders.
In the meantime the farmers are suffering. I am not speaking particularly in the interest of the firms concerned. I speak rather in the interest of the farmers in that district, whose tractors have become so old that they are unable to operate them, and they are not getting their work done. I wish the minister would make a statement respecting the supply of tractors.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I asked for the information from the administrator of farm machinery of the wartime prices and trade board, but it has not yet come to hand. I hope to have it to-morrow, at which time I shall be glad to give it to the hon. member.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Would the discussion of matters related to War Assets corporation, which is to dispose of government-owned plants, and other matters relating to the operation of the Park Steamship Company Limited boats come under the Department of Munitions and Supply, or would it come under the Department of Reconstruction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Park Steamship company is a subsidiary of the Department of Munitions and Supply. War Assets corporation is a branch of the Department of Reconstruction. Therefore, while a discussion respecting Park Steamship company would be in order, there might be some doubt about War Assets corporation.


Joseph William Noseworthy: tVho is responsible for the wage contracts made on behalf of the crews on Park Steamship company boats now operating in the South Pacific and chartered by the war shipping administration at Washington? I should like to have any information I can get respecting the nature of the wage contracts for seamen on those ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend referring to ships owned by the *Canadian government?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those ships are placed in the hands of private operators, who operate the boats for government account under a management contract. Contracts between operator and seamen are negotiated contracts, but the position of the seamen is protected by the seamen's union. Terms of employment are thus agreed upon between the seamen's union and the operators, with the approval of the Park Steamship company.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The ship to which
I have reference, one of the Park Steamship company boats, was agented to the Seaboard shipping company of Vancouver, and I believe it was chartered by that company to the war shipping administration. The request I had arose from the fact that the war risk bonus paid Canadian seamen on that ship, which is operating in the southern Pacific and carrying supplies to the United States army personnel in that area, is $44.50 a month, whereas United States sailors doing the same type of work in the same waters have a war risk bonus of five dollars a day, and in addition to that their scale of pay is much higher. Has the government any responsibility or any control over the contract made by the agent with the wartime shipping board at Washington?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The pay of the crews of Park ships is standard pay. As I say, it is negotiated between the seamen's union and the Park Steamship company, acting for all its agents. My hon. friend says there is a difference in the pay and war risk bonus as between Canadian and United States ships. He could go on and add that there is a difference between Canadian and British ships in that respect. In the case of United States ships, the Canadian scale is lower, whereas in that of British ships it is higher. He could go on to mention other nationalities in that connection. Our pay and allowances are not as high as those of the United States, which, I suggest, is quite understandable; but ours are better than the pay of any other country with the exception of the United States.

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: If the minister will be good enough to have his organization review the evidence given before the war expenditures committee he will find that a constructive suggestion was made at the time, that it might be well to have a perpetual inventory available at all times of equipment at present in the hands of the administration which may be required here and ' there throughout Canada. I have in mind one particular case where a H.R.T. boiler of sizable capacity was wanted almost immediately and there was great difficulty in finding whether or not the organization under the minister's administration had such a boiler. It was only a $10,000 unit but would have avoided the necessity of manufacturing new equipment.
I have another case in mind where an organization is anxious to establish a plant somewhere between Cornwall and Oshawa along No. 2 highway, and is having difficulty in finding any inventory or Listing of properties which the department or the crown has available. It might be well if a perpetual inventory of what is to be disposed of by the crown or the department in the next few years were kept and made available to those who might be interested.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department does maintain a central inventory, listing every separate item that is owned by the crown. It is not available to the public. It is a comprehensive record, comprising hundreds of thousands of machine tool listings. If a machine tool were wanted, we would be able to produce the list immediately.
So far as the sale, of plants is concerned, the difficulty is that we are now almost at the peak of war production, and very few are available. The department is compiling a list of all the plants that will be available, and sketches of the plants and certain facts about them will be ready for distribution within the next few weeks.


Mr. POULIOT:: 
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Borden is a great Canadian, if I may say so.


Jean-François Pouliot: He may be, but my hon. friend is just repeating my speech.


Gordon Graydon: You should not object to that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not objecting, but you should treat them both alike, as twins, Borden and Godsoe.


Gordon Graydon: I will let the minister take care of that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Both have occupied the highest post in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think we should adjourn with a statement of that kind going unanswered. Mr. Borden was one of the first employees of the Department of Munitions and Supply. He was with the original defence purchasing board. His services with the department antedate my own. I can say to my hon. friend that Mr. Borden had no relationship with Barclays bank until after he terminated all association with the department.


Jean-François Pouliot: But-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sit down. I am speaking.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will take no orders from the minister, only from the Chairman.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Borden was appointed a director of Barclays bank after he had terminated all association with the Department of Munitions and Supply. From the time of his joining the department, which was at the outbreak of the war, until he left the department, he took no salary from the department. He worked for actual expenses. His expenses were audited by the auditor general, and I assume they were his actual expenses, and that he did not live with great extravagance.
I may say that his firm did certain work for the Department of Munitions and Supply. It is a large firm, and it is quite understandable that they would do so. I can tell the hon. member that each year the firm of Borden, Sankey and Kelly delivered to the Department of Munitions and Supply of their own volition a cheque to cover every fee which they collected from the government on account of work performed for the Department of Munitions and Supply.

As for Mr. Godsoe, he came into the department later on. It so happened that he succeeded Mr. Borden in the work he was doing when Mr. Borden retired from the department. There is no connection whatever and never has been any connection between Mr. Godsoe and his work and Mr. MacDonell, as suggested by my hon. friend. They worked for different firms, and so far as I know one was not on the board of the other firm, nor was there any connection.
As to Mr. Godsoe's politics, I have a suspicion, but I have never discussed them with him because I never thought it was any of my business to discuss them. He is a most efficient officer of the department and one whom I would be very sorry indeed to lose.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now that the minister
has repeated my speech, I expect that he will answer my questions to-morrow.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CRERAR moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: To-morrow we shall continue with the estimates of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and when that is concluded, which I hope will be fairly early, it is proposed that other ministers having substantial amounts in this vote will make statements covering their particular part of it, and a discussion might follow those statements. I think that may expedite to some extent the work of the committee. There may be hon. members wTho are interested in certain features of the estimates which come in the department of other ministers, and I think this suggestion will probably expedite the consideration of the resolution.
Gordon Graydon: Does this mean that now, for the short time we have, we are to have one minister's statement after another in the departments in the war appropriations?


Mr. CRERAR:: Well, yes. What it means is this, that probably after munitions and supply is through, the Minister of Labour will make his statement; then the Minister of Veterans Affairs, a department in which there is a good deal of interest in the house, can make a statement, possibly followed by.other ministers; and hon. members can note the questions they wish to ask in any of these departments and they can all be considered together. I understand that is the procedure which it is proposed we shall follow.


Gordon Graydon: I hope the minister is not suggesting that this is to be a ministerial parade that we are to witness for the next day and a half. I wish to suggest that one

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
of the important departments in which a great deal of interest is centred is that of veterans' affairs, and some membefs of our group are anxious to have an opportunity of analysing the statement which the Minister of Veterans Affairs will make to the house and then of directing some pertinent questions with respect to rehabilitation, because, without any reflection upon other departments, that is one of the most urgent problems we have at the present time. I should like some undertaking from the minister that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will make the statement and permit questioning when the Minister of Munitions and Supply and of Reconstruction has finished.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be considered. I should think that when the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I do not know in which order, have made their statements, that should be acceptable to the house; and if it is the desire of hon. members to discuss the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, good and well; that can be done. I can assure my hon. friend that there may be worse things than a ministerial parade.


Gordon Graydon: I just could not think at the moment what could be worse; but maybe there are.


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister started one to-day with his political speech just before the election.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member contributed something to that.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the minister's suggestion is good and sound. There are those among us who would like to hear the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, too; and I do not see how we are to hear these ministers unless we have something resembling a ministerial parade. After all, we should have an opportunity to let various hon. members deal with the topics in which they are interested.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Thursday, April 12, 1945