Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: On a question of privilege, in his answer to an interpolation of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) yesterday in respect of my request for a secret sitting, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said this-I quote from Hansard at page 2500:
The reply made to the hon. member for Gaspe last week was that he should give the information which he had to the minister of the department concerned, and if the minister thought the information to be of a kind which rendered a secret sitting advisable it would be so arranged by the government. I am advised that the information conveyed to the minister, in his opinion and the opinion of the cabinet -I can speak for the cabinet because I was present at the discussion-does not warrant the calling of a secret sitting.
As to my hon. friend's suggestion that we should have secret sessions at stated times, I think the public would be inclined to take the view that so far as sittings can be open they should be open, and that the government should resort to secret sittings only where there appears to be the strongest of reasons.
What I said in my statement of last Friday was this-I quote from Hansard at page 2470:
In view of the close proximity of the coast where enemy submarines are now operating, and by reason of particulars I possess and desire to share with the house, but which it would not be wise to disclose publicly, I would ask the government as the representative of the constituency in the vicinity of which these enemy-submarine activities are taking place that an immediate secret session of the house be held to consider these most important war developments which are taking place as far as 300 miles within our Atlantic border. These events are of such gravity that it seems to me that the people's representatives should be made aware of all details concerning the attacks and be given an opportunity to take part in deliberations on the means to protect our threatened country.
My request of Friday last for a secret sitting of the house was not based upon the necessity of having such a means of conveying my information to the Department of National Defence, but rather to the house, as I very clearly stated, to permit members of parliament to discharge their duties towards our endangered country. I am prepared to present to hon. members of this house the information which I possess and which I deeply feel should be shared by all members in order that they may truly understand at least some of the perils to which our country is exposed at the present time. In my opinion it would be wiser to discuss that very important matter in secret, and there are more than sufficiently strong reasons, as stated by the Prime Minister, when our country is being attacked as it is, for members to be given an opportunity to look after the greatest interest of all in the protection of the whole country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Just a few more words and I shall have finished.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have allowed the hon. member to proceed with his statement but he has really gone farther than he could reasonably go on a question of privilege. However, he may continue and conclude what he has to say.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Prime Minister will see that due consideration is given to the request for granting a secret session as soon as possible.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I lay on the table of the house report pursuant to paragraph 3, regulation 21, defence of Canada regulations. This report
Gasoline-Maritime Provinces
[Stage Direction]
shows, first that the number of persons detained under orders made pursuant to the above regulation from April 21 to May 18 inclusive is 202, all persons of the Japanese race, detained on recommendation of the British Columbia security commission. It also shows that there were no cases in which the Minister of Justice refused to accept a recommendation made by an advisory committee.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: In reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and other questions asked privately by the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) I should like to make a brief statement as to the position of our gasoline and oil supplies in the maritime provinces.
Under normal conditions, refineries in the maritimes receive their crude oil by tanker ship from south America. Over a period of months I have had occasion to discuss the increasing gravity of the transportation problem with respect to crude oil. I sometimes fear that my warnings have gone unheeded, for now that we are faced with an acute situation in the maritimes, there is some surprise and considerable indignation that this should be so. The sinking of tanker ships by enemy submarines has greatly reduced the amount of crude that can be delivered to maritime refineries. At the same time there has been a great increase in the requirements of the armed services, particularly the navy, which is using large amounts of fuel oil. To meet this situation, >ve have had to change refinery runs from automobile gasoline to heavy fuel oils. Since the first of February last we have been able to refine very little automobile gasoline in the maritime provinces. In recent weeks the loss of tankers became so severe that shipping on the Atlantic coast was tied up for a period of ten days. This further aggravated the supply position. For some weeks now, we have been supplementing the supply of fuel oil that is available from maritime refineries by shipments in tank cars and tanker ships from Sarnia, Toronto and Montreal. At the present time we have all the tank cars that can be mobilized engaged in this service.
When the rationing system was established we deliberately fixed on a unit that would permit variation in the amount of gasoline
(Mr. St. Laurent.]
that could be purchased. We did this because we expected that the amount of gasoline available for civilian use would vary from time to time. The reduction of the content of the unit from five gallons to two gallons in the maritimes was not an arbitrary move but is based on the amount of gasoline that is available in those provinces for sale to the ordinary user. If we had left the unit at five gallons, we should have had a situation where those who reached the gasoline station first would have obtained their supplies and the balance of the population would have gone without gasoline. The suggestion has been made by the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that the amount of the unit should be reduced in the whole of Canada. I do not see what useful purpose would be served by this as there would be no way of transporting to the maritimes the surplus gasoline which would be available in other parts of the country. All the tank car and tanker ship capacity that can be mobilized is now carrying fuel oil to the maritimes for the navy and the merchant marine. Undoubtedly the reduction in the unit will work much inconvenience and hardship. I do not see what alternative there is to this if we are to meet the needs of the armed services. I am sure that when the facts of the situation are known, the people of the maritime provinces will accept this privation with their customary good spirit and patriotism.
With regard to curtailment in other parts of Canada I may say that the situation in Canada is exactly parallel with the situation in United States. There the area along the northern portion of the eastern states is very severely rationed, whereas all areas of the United States outside of that zone have no rationing in force at this time.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: There is a feeling that gasoline is being shipped from the martime provinces to the province of Quebec, and that if we are to have curtailment in the maritimes there should also be curtailment in Quebec, or the gasoline should be left in the maritime provinces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No gasoline has been shipped from the martime provinces to Quebec to my knowledge. But I may say that in the past five weeks large quantities of gasoline have been shipped from the province of Quebec to the maritime provinces. So that I think my hon. friend should not cast aspersions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to correct that; I am not casting aspersions. It is not my opinion; I have heard that report. It is the opinion of some people in the maritime provinces.

Vichy Representation



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) asked a question yesterday with respect to the employment of young men of seventeen years of age. The answer is that there is nothing in the selective service regulations that prevents a seventeen year old boy from getting work in any non-restricted industry, even without a permit. To enter a restricted occupation he has to get a permit, but permits are granted almost automatically to enter restricted occupations if war work is not available. There is nothing in the regulations, or in the application of the regulations as far as we know, which would keep a seventeen year old boy out of work. If hon. members will bring specific cases to our attention we will undertake to deal with them. Or if they can provide us with specific information as to any selective service officer not carrying out these principles, we shall be glad to investigate.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Do I understand the minister to say that they must have a permit to work in a restricted industry?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: From whom do they get the permits?


Humphrey Mitchell: They get them from the selective service officers. There is one in the hon. member's district.



VICHY REPRESENTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: The Prime Minister said he hoped to be able to make a statement regarding our relationship with occupied France. Is he prepared to make such a statement now, or may we expect it within a few days?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might say to my hon. friend and hon. members of the house, first of all that a minister is not accredited to any government; he is accredited to the country to which he goes. In considering the position of the French minister in Canada and the position of Canada's representative to France, who at the present time is the charge d'affaires of our legation, that circumstance of necessity has had to receive a great deal of
very careful consideration. We have had to consider as to whether it would be wise to give to the people of France, 95 per cent of whom I believe are thoroughly opposed to the present administration in France, the impression that this country had found it necessary to sever its relations with France by reason of a particular government being in office there at the moment, which government may be out of office to-morrow or a little later. That is a matter which I am sure my hon. friend and other hon. members will see should be most carefully considered.
The government have had the benefit of an exchange of views with the governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States. We have had here in consultation with the war committee of the cabinet Mr. Dupuy, who has been and is at the present time charge d'affaires of our legation to France, and Mr. McCarthy, the Canadian minister at Washington, who has had the benefit of sharing in discussions at Washington bearing on the matter. Considering all points of view very carefully the government have thought it inadvisable at the present time to make any immediate change.
There are reasons in addition to those that I have given to the house in this way that are all-important, but which it would be inadvisable to disclose. But I have given a reason which I think hon. members will realize is one of very great significance, particularly where it is most desirable to sustain in every way possible the morale of the French people, as distinguished from any mark of approval of a particular government.
In saying what I have said I should like to emphasize with respect to the present government at Vichy that no one in this country so far as I am aware has other than the strongest of feelings against the present administration in France.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply arising out of an item in the Halifax Herald of May 14, in which Premier MacMillan of Nova Scotia makes the announcement-I shall not read it all because it is quite lengthy-that he had been in conference in Montreal with Mr. H. R. MacMillan, head of Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited, and that Mr. H. R. MacMillan had intimated to him that there was a possi-
War Appropriation-Supplies

bility of the establishment of another shipyard in the province of Nova Scotia. Since that item appeared in the press I have received many letters inquiring where the yard would be located. Has the minister any knowledge of this matter, and is it the prerogative of Mr. H. R. MacMillan to make announcements of this kind on behalf of the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge whatever of the conversation referred to. I think I am the one who is entitled to make announcements for the department, and I have not authorized anyone else to do so.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 18, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The Minister of Munitions and Supply has just drawn to the attention of the house a certain aspect of the gasoline situation, and in his remarks he referred to the situation in the United-States, which I think needs commenting upon. The minister's remark was to the effect that the gasoline situation in Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces was about the same as in northern New England. I have here an item taken from the Ottawa Journal of May 15, 1942, being a dispatch from Washington, dated May 14, as follows:
Senator Sheridan Downey (Dem.-Calif.), asserting the United States is "approaching a desperate condition on gasoline and rubber," told the Senate to-day that all tankers normally plying between Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic ports had been ordered into harbours.
Downey did not say what was the source of his information and there was no confirmation from the navy that tanker movements along the east coast had been halted.
Axis submarines apparently have made tankers a primary objective of their campaign.
In peace time, tankers transported about 95 per cent of the east's oil requirements.
I think it is important to realize that the oil situation is becoming desperately acute, and unless we give a great deal of attention to the gasoline and oil supplies of this country I greatly fear that conditions will become much worse than they are at present. I remember speaking at some length on this question of oil production away back on
[Mr. Gillis.l
March 14, 1941, when I pointed out that the oil situation at that time was very dangerous. I said that the oil supplies in the far east, in the Persian fields, in Iraq and Iran, were in great jeopardy, and that it was not beyond the realm of imagination that we should lose those oil fields, and the oil fields of Burma as well. I made that statement as early as 1939, and it seems now that I was right, in part at least. The situation is extremely grave, because both the British fleet and the United States fleet may become desperately in need of oil supplies, and we are not in a position to assist them. It is a shame that we are not in a better position than we are in to-day as regards gasoline and oil, because the facts were quite clear to all of us when the war first broke out. I pointed out then that consideration should be given to building a pipeline from, say, Turner Valley to the head of the lakes, and from Alberta to the Pacific coast. We had the materials and the labour then, and had that been done our present transportation problem would not be nearly as serious as it has been stated by the minister to be. A tremendous amount of gasoline is being used, and the situation is such that I think even to-day the whole field should be reviewed with a view to taking drastic measures to build up oil resources. I have an extract here from a Fort Erie paper, in its issue of January 8, 1942, which I think would be of interest to hon. members. It is headed "Gasoline a Vital Necessity," and reads:
Although recognized in a general way, the vital importance of gasoline supplies in modern mechanized warfare is better realized when figures of consumption are taken into account.
Army cooking for each 9,000 men involves the use of gasoline stoves which burn up 720 gallons of fuel a day. An army of 1,000,000 men would need some 80,000 gallons daily for cooking purposes alone.
Big tanks-such as the 12-ton models-con-, sume a gallon per mile. For every mile traversed, a mechanized brigade uses 100 gallons for its 112 small tanks plus 615 other motor vehicles.
Planes, especially when in combat action, are huge consumers of gasoline. One with a single motor might operate under cruising conditions for an hour on 45 gallons; but it will eat up more than twice that much while in actual combat.
A big bomber consumes as much as 240 gallons in a single hour when flying at top speed. A five-hour raid by 600 bombers would use up
720,000	gallons.
In a single hour 500,000 gallons would be burned by a modern air armada, consisting of 2,400 bombers and 1,600 fighter planes.
Available supplies of petroleum may yet prove to be a deciding factor in this war; for, if it lasts long enough, the side which exhausts its supply first will be compelled, automatically, to acknowledge defeat.

War Appropriation-Supplies
That was written on January 8, 1942. The last paragraph of it points out quite clearly that the "available supplies of petroleum may yet prove to be a deciding factor in this war." I think when that article is read by all the members, and they realize the tremendous amount of gasoline that is being consumed every day, the importance of new production will be thoroughly impressed upon their minds. Gasoline and oil supplies will be the vital factor in this war, because clearly this is a mechanized war, and one much different from any other we have had. Time is possibly one of the greatest factors contributing to our success.
I remember back in 1940 having asked the question:
What steps are being taken by the government to increase the production of oil in Alberta and other parts of Canada?
This was the answer from the Minister of Mines and Resources:
Mr. Crerar:	Production of oil can be increased only by drilling and by finding new oil fields, or the extension of old oil fields. The finding of new fields and the extension of old fields is in a large measure a geological problem, and field parties of the bureau of geology and topography are attacking this problem in the two main producing regions.
There is probably some room for criticism, when the emphasis is laid on the fact that the oil fields could be got only by drilling. I realize that the drilling of holes in the ground is probably much more inexpensive than some other processes by which oil may be obtained. But that was away back in 1940. What increase in production has there been in Canada since then? I think there has been a very small amount of actual increase in production. There has been a good deal of survey work, but so far as actual increase in production in oil wells is concerned, I think it is rather negligible. Probably there has been a good deal of ground and survey work, but no real practical results have been achieved.
The next question was:
Is anything being done by this government to construct a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast or the head of the great lakes?
The answer was:
Officers of the department have conducted an investigation into the economic feasibility of the pipeline movement of Turner Valley oil to Ontario, and this is now being studied.
I do not think anything has been done on that score. It was under consideration at that time, so the minister pointed out. But again
there was procrastination, and nothing has been done. I am sure that if we now had a pipeline from Alberta to the head of the lakes or to the Pacific it would be of great assistance to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I say that because I imagine oil supplies would be more necessary along our coasts than in the central provinces, because of the proximity to the danger zone.
The next question I asked at that time was:
How much additional survey and exploration work will be carried on in Alberta and other parts of Canada in an earnest endeavour to increase our oil output?
This was the answer:
The increase of effort this year has been made in Alberta and bordering parts of Saskatchewan where the geographical and topographical field parties have been increased from six to seventeen.
While these questions were asked of the minister, and while he said that investigations were being made, so far as actual increase in production is concerned nothing of real importance has developed. The time has come when we have to do something more than merely investigate. If thorough investigation was made at that time the minister should now be in possession of sufficient information to start immediately something worth while in this regard. I can well realize the minister's attitude with respect to the development of further fields, from the point of view of its being more economical to drill wells than, say, to develop the tar sands of Alberta. But I take it the main concern should not be the expense involved, but rather the question: Can we get the production?
I believe I was not far wrong in the statement I made a while ago to the effect that the actual output of production did not increase to any appreciable degree, that it was practically the same. Especially I believe is this true in Alberta. There is an increase of a few thousands of barrels a day. When the war started it was something like 26,000 barrels- the minister will correct me if I am wrong-and it was increased by a few thousand.
I have an article before me which makes comment on that situation. This is taken from the Monetary Times of January 3, 1942. Under the heading "Crude Output Stays Constant", it says:
The output of crude petroleum and natural gasoline from Canadian wells maintains a fairly constant average as disclosed in reports covering operations for the months of September and
War Appropriation-Supplies

October, yet at the same time showing a sizeable increase over production one year ago. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports the output of crude petroleum and natural gasoline for October last as 871,491 barrels; for September the total was 878,782 barrels.
There is not a great deal of difference there.
In October, 1940, the output of the wells was 817,596.
Again it is practically the same.
Taking the aggregate for the ten mouths ended October 31 the totals are: for 1941, 8,370,968 barrels; for 1940, 7,086,161 barrels.
Alberta's contribution to this yield was 856.191 barrels of which 844,407 came from the Turner Valley field. 991 from Bed Coulee field. 1.302 from Wainwright-Ribstone field and 6,900 from other fields.
As a new source of supply it is recorded that 2.591 barrels of crude oil were extracted from the tar sands of northern Alberta during the month of October.
I believe that statement fairly well bears out what I said. I suggest it reveals that the tar sands present a great potential source ox supply. It may be said that production irom those sands would involve too much time, and that too great an expenditure would be required to get an appreciable amount of production. But no matter whether that be true or not, if we can increase production, that is the thing we should make every effort to speed up. My information leads me to believe that there is a tremendous amount of fuel oil there.
On February 18, 1942, I raised the following
question in the house, as reported at page 686 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In view of the serious situation in the far east, and the possibility of our losing our far eastern oil supply, what is the government going to do to cause an actual increase in Canadian production of oil?
Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Munitions and Supply): Various steps have been taken. The tax structure was revised at the last sitting of the house to encourage drilling for oil throughout Canada. That revision had a very stimulating effect in the direction indicated. At this time steps are being taken to develop small oil areas for specific uses.
Those negotiations are going on at the present time. I do not know that we have gone further than that. But I can say that we think we are developing considerably the production of oil. I have no suggestions to make to the government to enlarge our operations in that respect.
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):	Is anything
being done with the tar sands?
Mr. Howe: I have a very exhaustive report on the subject of tar sands, and I should be very glad to let my hon. friend have a copy of it. It indicates, however, that the location of the sands and the possibility of development is too remote to be of any great use in this war.

The Minister of Munitions and Supply made available to me the report to which he referred. I read it, but I must say I was not very much impressed by the recommendation or the suggestion which would be left to the minister in that regard. The report was confidential, and I have no intention of referring to its terms. However, the fact that there has been considerable production from these tar sands and that the minister knows definitely that oil is there makes it imperative that something should be done, and without dalay. In fact, it should have been done a long time ago. As the minister said:
It indicates, however, that the location of the sands and the possibility of development is too remote to be of any great use in this war.
The minister has possibly changed his views, at least to some extent, since that time, because when he was speaking in the house the other day he had this to say, as reported on page 2478 of Hansard:
The position of oil development within Canada has, of course, been changed considerably by the events of recent months. I think most people had looked upon the tar sands of Alberta as a great reserve of oil for some future period when the more easily accessible oil resources would have been exhausted. But to-day we think of that same area as a source of immediate oil production.
I am pleased that the minister has apparently changed his views and now is of the opinion that something should be done immediately with the tar sands in Alberta. He continued:
-provided the problems connected with its development can be solved rapidly and with some degree of certainty.
An intensive study of the tar sands is under way at the present time. That 6tudy was organized by my department, and we have interested in it the leading oil engineers of this country, not noly men in the public service and on the staff of the national research council, but also oil engineers from industry. We have interested Consolidated Mining and Smelting, who have had a good deal of experience in meeting mining problems in that area.
I may say that the mining of the sand itself is one of the major problems that has not yet been fully worked out. We have asked all these interests to prepare a report for the government and advise whether a devlopment should be undertaken at this time and the extent of development which the conditions would warrant, whether we should proceed with a pilot plant or whether the situation is such that we can immediately develop on a considerable scale. I am expecting the report shortly, and appropriate action will be taken.
There are two suggestions there which I think are worth mentioning. The minister

War Appropriation-Supplies
has in mind the possibility of starting a pilot plant. I believe the plant already there has been doing good work in that regard, but the minister may have in mind the starting of a government pilot plant. Surely the work which the Abasand people have done in that area should be sufficient to indicate definitely to the minister whether or not it would be practicable to start a plant. His views seem to have changed, and it would be a shame if even at this late date the minister should not decide to go in there, even though it was necessary to put up a government plant. I think that idea is quite commendable. It will probably cost a lot of money to establish a plant which can make speedy production of this greatly needed fuel, but the minister would be well advised to continue to keep in mind the possibilities of putting up a plant.
There is also the suggestion which I made to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), that a pipeline be laid to the Pacific coast, either from Turner Valley or from the tar sands themselves. A military road is now being put through that part of the country, and it might prove to be of great assistance either to bend the road a little so that it would touch the tar sands or to build a feeder road from the tar sands to the main road. Airports are being constructed all through that northern country, and something should be done immediately with these tar sands so that the fuel required for the planes using the airports may be provided by these sands. The time is long past when this development should have taken place. Even though we are three years late in doing it, I hope the minister will see the urgency and the necessity of starting something immediately.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to make one or two inquiries of the minister with respect to the tourist situation in Nova Scotia and with respect to the position of the garages in the maritime provinces. I think I speak for most of the people of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces when I say that as a war necessity they are willing to submit to any inconvenience and do without gasoline if necessary, but they naturally do not want to be discriminated against as compared with the rest of Canada. During this session we have heard a great deal about parity prices and so on, but there must of necessity be a feeling in the maritime provinces that there is not a parity of sacrifice or inconvenience when they are reduced to two-fifths the quantity of gasoline allowed to the people in other parts of Canada.
The tourist business is very important to the maritime provinces, but as things stand at present this business is practically ruined for the coming season, unless the minister can make an announcement within a reasonable time indicating that the situation has been eased and that gasoline will be available for tourists to enable them to visit Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick is also affected, but not to the same extent. If the minister cannot do this, he should make a definite declaration as soon as possible that the situation will not improve,
I am sure the people interested in the tourist business will submit and make their plans accordingly.
The next appeal I have to make is with respect to the garages in the maritime provinces. Their car business has been destroyed, their tire business has been restricted almost to the vanishing point, and their gasoline sales amount to hardly anything. I appeal to the minister to extend his programme of "bits and pieces" so that some war business may be assigned to the garages. There is a feeling in these outlying parts of Canada that they are not getting a fair share of the enormous war expenditures such as are being made in central Canada. I suggest to the minister that he assign some senior official or outstanding business man to a study of the requirements of the bits and pieces programme in order to determine what business can be allocated to the garages in the maritime provinces. This would compensate them in part for their regular business destroyed by present war conditions. They have splendid workmen in most of these garages who would very quickly adapt themselves to different processes of manufacturing. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is due these people in the maritime provinces who find themselves on the verge of ruination. The Department of Munitions and Supply will receive a gratifying response and get excellent value for any business so placed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Answering my hon. friend's question about equality of sacrifice, I might emphasize again that it is not a question of levelling out supplies across the country; I wish that could be done. For example, in the United States, Texas, Louisiana, Indiana and Illinois are flooded with gasoline and oil, whereas the eastern seaboard is down to scratching the bottoms of the tanks. That, of course, is a matter of transportation. We might have all the gasoline in the world in the Turner valley and yet be short in the maritimes; in fact, it would probably be much easier in the ordinary course of events to get gasoline from Louisiana than from Alberta.
War Appropriation-Supplies

It is simply a situation which has arisen unexpectedly. Who in this country would have believed that tanks could not ply between Halifax and the gulf of Mexico? Yet for a considerable period of time they did not travel that route; they were all tied up.
We believe that the situation is temporary. In the meantime we are using all the railway equipment that is available to serve that territory. I believe that every tank car that can be mobilized is in service between Sarnia and Montreal and the maritime provinces. The pipeline from Montreal to the seaboard has been closed down completely for a very considerable period. Added to that is the fact that in the maritime provinces are located our most important seaports; the demand there is heavy for the navy and the armoured services, and we are bending every effort of course to protect these needs.
The department has had a great deal of concern for the garages. We appreciate that their situation has been made difficult. I might point out, however, that since the sale of automobiles has stopped the repair business of most garages has risen considerably, and probably it will continue to rise. As cars get older they will require more repairs. But where a garage has some equipment and desires to get into war work, to the exclusion of other work-naturally we cannot mix war work with repairs of automobiles-we have provision under which in most cases something can be done for those establishments.
Mr. MaelNNIS:	The hon. member for
Bow River (Mr. Johnston) discussed] the question of oil. I want to discuss for a few minutes the subject of another kind of production.
The united nations at this time are at a stage of the war in which we shall have to put everything we have got into it if a decisive result is to be achieved this year. So far the obstacle to better military results has always been a shortage of materials. We are now reaching the point of attaining a superiority in war equipment, yet most people will agree that equipment remains our great lack. I have in my hand a statement made by Lord Sherwood, Joint Undter-Secretary of State for Air, in the House of Lords last January. It is true that that is four months ago, but I believe that what he then said still holds true. Winding up a debate on air defence, the under-secretary said:
I he British authorities believed their defence system to be better than that of the Germans.
"Of course there is the difficulty there always has been about weapons in this country, because 
we are still a long way behind what you would properly call a real preparation for a war. We are short of weapons but we shall get these weapons."
I believe we have made very material progress, and I do not want the minister to construe anything I say to-day as criticism either of himself or of his department. I have criticized him and it on occasions, but never with relation to his ability, his energy and his capacity to organize andi get production under way; I believe those qualities of his are recognized throughout the country.
But there are obstacles to greater production in Canada which only government action can remove. Our industries are not producing to capacity.- They have not done so since the war began. As I mentioned in this chamber the other day, there has been much ado about the slowing down of industry by the workers, but I expect to show before I sit down that that has not been a great factor in curtailing production.
I have before me a brochure on steel production in Canada, prepared by the executive director of the steel workers organizing committee, Mr. C. H. Millard. The figures which I am going to give the committee will be based on information contained in this publication.
For the year 1939 our production of steel was 1,384,870 tons, or 68 per cent of capacity. In 1940 there was an increase; our production was 2,012,294 tons, or 85-1 per cent of capacity. In 1941 there was a still further increase, the production being 2,280,000 tons or 93-3 per cent of capacity. The estimated production for 1942 is, I believe, 2,800,000 tons, or 90-7 per cent of estimated capacity. The figures for 1940 and 1941 are taken from a bureau of statistics publication-.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, steel comes in various ways. I suppose he means billet steel.
Mr. MaelNNIS: I imagine this is the steel in its raw state.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Forged billets.
Mr. MaelNNIS: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because the pig iron figures are somewhat larger.
Mr. MaelNNIS: Yes. At this rate of production, in 1940 we produced some 375,000 tons of steel less than our capacity; in 1941 we produced some 250,000 tons less than we could have produced; and according to the estimate for 1942-and production, judging from what has already taken place, will I think likely be larger than the estimate- we shall be short some 300,000 tons of our

War Appropriation-Supplies
capacity. These 300,000 tons translated into tanks, ships, corvettes, and other war equipment of the kind make a presentable array of material. Members of the committee who have made any study of these matters are aware that there is a definite shortage of steel in Canada for our war production.
H.	R. MacMillan, President of Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited, was reported in the Financial Post of February 6 of this year as having said:
Within another six months construction on the current shipbuilding programme will reach its peak. Greater speed would be possible were it not for the shortage of ship plates of which Wartime Merchant Shipping is currently using
15,000	to 20,000 tons monthly.
On February 27 of this year the steel controller said:
The shortage of steel is now' so acute that its use for articles required by the Department of Munitions and Supply and the armed services is being curtailed wherever possible.
The acuteness of the situation has been developing since the war began. The Canadian Press carried a statement by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) under date of November 24, 1941, in which he said:
Since the outbreak of war Canada has added considerably to its steel production but the expansion programme has not kept pace with the demand of war-time industry, one reason being a disinclination to spend time and money on plants that would be uneconomic in peace time. During 1942 Canada will require two million tons of steel from the United States, it has been estimated here, to supplement its own production. Most of this tonnage represents types that are not rolled in Canada.
I am not at all sure that we are taking advantage of all our resources for steel production in Canada any more than we have taken advantage of our capacity for producing oil. I will show that there are at least possibilities that should be investigated. But the fact of the shortage of steel is curtailing production not occasionally but almost continuously. The member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) put some questions on the order paper which were answered on March 4 of this year. He asked:
I.	Has the shell shop of the National Steel .Car at Hamilton been closed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	What type of shell wras being produced at this shop?
The answers given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply are:
1. The National Steel Car Corporation Limited, Hamilton, is making four types of shell.
He states the kinds of shells, and then he goes on:
A section of the 4-5 A A shell shop was closed from February 12 to February 23, 1942.
That is a shutdown of eleven days. In answer to the second question he gives the reason for this shutdown, namely, lack of steel billets and the difficulty of securing tonnage of steel to the extent required. Since that date employees in the National Steel Car plant have been idle again. My information is that in the first three months of this year they have not worked more than two-thirds of the time. Possibly that is not true of all sections of the plant, but I am told that they lost thirty days in the first three months of the year.
I think we should pay some attention to the statement I quoted from the Minister of Munitions and Supply, or at any rate the statement that was attributed to him on November 24 last, that one reason for the shortage of steel is a disinclination to spend time and money on plants that would be uneconomic in peace time. I submit that we cannot carry on the war while thinking of what may happen to industry when peace comes. If we do not win this war it does not matter much what happens to industry when it is finished, because we shall have nothing to say about it. I am convinced that we should not allow persons with vested interests to retard the war effort by thinking of what is going to happen to this or that industry when the war is over. There has been far too much of that already and it has had disastrous effects on the war industry of the allied nations.
When I saw this item attributed to the Minister of Munitions and Supply I thought of the statement made by him in the house on May 22, 1940. We were discussing then, as we are now, the war appropriation resolution, and the minister-then minister of transport-said this, as reported on page 128 of Hansard:
In the last war, Canada's chief production was shell cases. We are now tooled up to produce this type of equipment far in excess of our own needs, but to date British orders have not been forthcoming in a quantity proportional to our industrial capacity. . . .
This has been disappointing to our manufacturers, who have been building on the precedent of the last war. I can only say that this war bears little resemblance to the last one in the nature of the requirements from Canada. The fact that to date Britain and France have been satisfied to rely largely on their own production and mechanical equipment and have not been disposed to encourage Canadian production of heavy equipment to the extent of furnishing up to date plans and specifications has undoubtedly prevented Canadian industry from playing its full part in mechanical warfare. I am happy to say that there are now indications that this will not continue.
This was on May 22, 1940, when the German armies were riding roughshod over France. Evidently it took that event to bring the
War Appropriation-Supplies

private capitalists of Great Britain and France to their senses. But it was too late to save France. We had better learn a lesson from what happened in France. It happened to a large extent because war production in those countries was under private control, and they were thinking far more of the profits they would make and the state of their industries than they were of building a machine to overcome Hitler's army.
The president of the Steel Company of Canada, Ross H. McMasrter, is reported in the Globe and Mail of March 19, 1942, to have said :
It was felt that further outlays, designed to expand capacity far beyond any discernible future needs, could only be undertaken in the national interest-
Evidently these people in normal times are not working in the national interest.
-and, therefore, the company should be supported in such expenditures by the dominion government.
He went on to report that the government was financing the construction of a new blast furnace and additional open hearth furnaces. But at that time there were in one of our steel plants in Canada both blast furnaces for the production of pig iron, and a rolling-mill; but the capacity of the blast furnaces was some 20,000 tons more than the rolling-mill could handle. In about a year from that date the government I understand came to an agreement with the company and the rolling-mill facilities in that plant have been increased.
Now we have the same story in Great Britain, in Canada and in the United States. See the information brought out by the Truman committee of the United States senate and the Tollen committee of the house of representatives. It is high time this parliament took steps to see that we no longer allow private interests to interfere with Canada's war production. We have taken complete control of the lives of the young men of this country. They cannot move around without permission; they can be picked up anywhere, at any time, and ordered to report for military service; their lives may be snuffed out at any moment. Since we are doing that with human beings, surely it is time we should see to It that industry is brought under the same or even more effective control.


Mr. EVANS:: Would the hon. member be satisfied to have labour conscripted too?


Mr. MacINNIS:: Labour is conscripted
to-day.


Mr. DONNELLY:: To work for $1.30 a
day?


Angus MacInnis: I have heard plenty about that $1.30 a day. If one takes into account the pay and other things that a soldier receives, dependents' allowance, et cetera, you will find that he is receiving more than the average worker in industry. I hear a lot about the $1.30 a day but I do not hear much about the officers' pay. It is always the $1.30.


James J. Donnelly: What are your miners getting-ordinary labourers?


Angus MacInnis: Well, what are they getting? In the first place they are not getting it every day, and in the second place those are largely the higher paid workers. We might as well be clear on this. If my hon. friends refuse to conscript industry, and continue to allow industry to interfere with and slow up our war effort, that is their affair; but it is time the people of this country knew it. It is time the people of this country knew that my hon. friends opposite put steel and coal and lumber before human life.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: All right; you asked for and you got it. Now find your way out of it.
I want to say a few words in regard to the possibilities of the production of steel. In 1937, I think it was, the government of British Columbia made a sale or lease of an ore mine to a Japanese syndicate. I think it was on one of the Queen Charlotte islands. The last I heard of it was that this syndicate was running a railroad from tide water to the mine.
I do not know whether any development work has been carried out, but if the minister's department has not investigated the matter this would be a good time to do so, because I believe there are possibilities for a steel industry in the province of British Columbia.
An item appeared in the News Herald of Vancouver, of January 28, 1942, reporting Doctor J. F. Falker, deputy minister of mines for British Columbia, as follows:
Certain eastern interests oppose establishment of a steel smelter here, but several others are definitely interested. We could be rolling steel from scrap within 15 months in a coast plant, and within two years we could be producing from B.C. pig iron. The industry could be established for $20,000,000. No. 4 seam at Comox produces coal which would provide ade- . quate coke, and there is lots of lime at Texada and elsewhere. A British Columbia steel industry could be established in time to be of definite aid in the war effort and would be of great value in post-war reconstruction, serving as far east as Alberta and western Saskatchewan.
I suggest to the minister that if his department has not already looked into this matter it is well worth investigating. My opinion is that some development work has already been done there.

War Appropriation-Supplies
I want to say a word or two about the slowing down of industry, caused not by the workers going on strike but by employers simply closing their plants. On my way east I stopped off at Winnipeg. I met a young man who was working in one of the aircraft plants there, Macdonald Bros. Aircraft Limited. He told me that that plant [DOT] had been closed down from 3.30 p.m. on April 2 until 3.30 p.m. on April 5, and that some parts of the plant didl not reopen until April 6. I was interested, because when I was on the coast there was a dispute over overtime in the shipyards at Vancouver and the press was strongly condemning the workers for the shutdown on Good Friday. Inquiring into the reasons for the shut-down at Macdonald Bros. Aircraft Limited I found in the Winnipeg Tribune that the president of the company said) that the shut-down over the long week-end was because the plant was ahead of schedule. I cannot understand what "ahead of schedule" means in war time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I might explain.
Macdonald Bros, is largely an overhaul plant. I presume they had caught up on their overhauls. It is not a manufacturing plant.


Angus MacInnis: It does not say here. As a matter of fact the person who was talking to me said that there was plenty of work to be done there. According to the Winnipeg Tribune, Mr. Macdonald went on to say that some employees had been working seven days a week and needed a rest. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that you can get the best results by working employees seven days a week for more than a couple of weeks at the most, because a person needs a day of rest to recuperate after five or six days' work.
As I said before, I am not bringing these matters up particularly by way of criticism of the minister, but because they are matters which this committee and parliament must heed if we are to get a full-out war effort this year.


Mr. POTTIER:: I think it is generally realized that we are facing a very perilous situation in regard to rubber and gasoline. Hon. members will, I am sure, agree with me that we have seen the shadows approaching of what is going to take place in the very near future. We have seen our gasoline supplies dwindling, then a rationing system established, and we are faced to-day with a cut in the unit value. More than that, we see that in different parts of Canada there is to be a further cut for one reason or another. Every day we read in the newspapers of some new regulation to take care of the growing shortage of rubber. We also learn from the press that
the people of the United States are taking a very serious view of what is happening and are afraid of what is going to happen. I read in the New York Times last week that one of the members of a committee of the United States senate made the following statement in regard to the tire situation:
One year from to-day there will be no rubber available for general civilian use, and those in essential civilian pursuits will have to take what they can get.
I think that accurately reflects our Canadian rubber situation. Here we have in this country some 1,300,000 to 1,400,000 automobiles, each with four tires weighing anywhere from twelve to twenty pounds. Each tire has a substantial portion of reclaimable rubber. Yet every day over our highways, here there and everywhere, this rubber of which we are short, perhaps not acutely short at the moment but of which in the future we will be acutely short, is being burnt up by motor cars speeding along at rates even above the government regulation of forty miles an hour-and for what purpose? For pleasure and other non-essential purposes. And that is being done in the face of the best information we can get that we have no further supply of mbber to draw upon. Some people may say "Oh, but what about synthetic rubber? That is coming." I am afraid that too many people are looking to substitute for rubber. Let us see what the possibilities are. I quote again from the evidence given before the United States senate committee only last week-and I take this to apply to our situation in Canada:
Those motorists who look hopefully to the operation of synthetic rubber plants to supply them with tires later, Senator Reynolds said, were simply indulging in wishful thinking. All rubber for the United States, as well as every pound that could be made available, he asserted, must go to the army.
I am afraid that that is our position here; yet we are burning some of this rubber for purposes that have nothing to do with our war effort. It may be said, "You are just burning some of it; you are just using a small proportion of it-the outer thread." I realize that, and I have discussed it with officials. But notwithstanding that fact, we are using some, and in fact we are using a substantial quantity of it. Then, further, the older a tire gets and the more it is worn, the less value there will be in the rubber one gets from that tire. When we take all this into consideration it seems to me we are facing a perilous situation, and one we have to be prepared to meet, not only in shadow but in fact.
Coupled with that is the gasoline situation. With respect to automobiles generally, what do we find? At the outset I referred to
War Appropriation-Supplies

changes made from one month to the other, if not indeed from one day to the other. There is restriction and cutting down as time goes by. Why? Because the supply is getting shorter and the situation is growing more serious.
Let us understand what the men who bring in gasoline by tankers have to go through. Let us realize the hazards they have to face in order to bring gasoline to people who travel the roads for no purpose other than their own entertainment. I have heard of a letter from a man on a tanker travelling along the Atlantic coast, in which he said: "We followed the coast night after night, and we could see automobiles going back and forth, and their lights travelled while we, in the tankers, were risking our lives just because it was thought that we should keep them on the move." This particular tanker was torpedoed; some of the members of the crew were lost, and the survivors had a most distressing time.
I do not think a gallon of gasoline which might be used for pleasure or for non-essential purposes should be brought by tanker. I urge upon the minister and the government that they give this matter serious consideration with a view to bringing about a change in that regard. Let us see what the benefits would be. To begin with, it would save money which could be diverted into war loans and used to defray our war expenditures-money which is now used for no useful purpose at all. We would save space for railway transportation by making railway facilities available for the carrying of munitions and the like. We would save the loss of tankers and thereby cut down our shipping losses. We would eliminate the necessity for some of our naval patrol, which could then attend to other spheres of battle. We would have more gasoline for our own military purposes-for the army, the navy and the air force. We would have more rubber, and that surplus rubber could be taken to supply our armed forces. In addition we would save a certain number of lives hazarded by bringing this oil, gasoline and other supplies to Canada.
Taking all these points into consideration I say the time has come when the Canadian people, who have been living in what I believe can be truly said to be the best country in the wTorld, having in mind our food supplies and our liberty of movement and action, are prepared to do away with private cars for pleasure or non-essential purposes. A few selfish ones might criticize, but this is not a time when we can think of selfishness, or when selfishness can be tolerated or listened to. If we lose this war-and I do not mean that we are 
going to; I do not think we are; in fact I am convinced we are not-what would be the value of motor cars and the like? Let us throw them on the altar of sacrifice, and be prepared now-not wait for a year -to adopt a policy under which all pleasure and non-essential driving shall be done away with.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) mentioned the great need for steel and the shortage of it. The minister knows about that shortage, and that is why we are asked to take part in salvage campaigns to collect steel, iron and scrap. Is it true that anyone wishing to erect a building in which steel is used must have a permit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Over $5,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If that is so, would it be possible for a firm, say in Toronto, to ship steel beams to some other plant, and have them cut there to specifications and sent to a building which had not a permit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would not be possible?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. FR  ASER@Peterborough West: That was what I believed the situation to be. May I point out that on May 13, 1942, the following question was answered in the house:
1.	Has the priorities branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply issued permits for steel to be used in the construction of a building or a house for J. Franceschini, recently released from internment?
2.	If so, how much steel has been allotted to this building?
The answer to No. 1 was "no", and No. 2 was said to be answered by the answer to No. 1. I now have information to the effect that Francheschini had steel beams shipped from his plant, or from the plant in which he is interested in Forest Hill village, to the Dominion Bridge company at Laehine, and that there this steel was cut and bored to specifications for a garage in the Lauren-tians mountains for Franceschini, a man who has been interned-and many people believe he should still be there. I suggest the minister should investigate the matter and see if there is any truth in the suggestion. There have been many reports to this effect.
I have received telephone messages and other communications.

War Appropriation-Supplies


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where in the Laurentians is this mysterious house? I have read a newspaper article about it, and had our people trace it down, but we can find absolutely no indication that Mr. Franceschini is building a house anywhere in the Laurentians. Has the hon. member the address of the house?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
have it in my room.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish the hon. member would give it to me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is down by Lucerne.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will look into it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
understand it is a very large place. I should also like to know if his firm has been given two contracts in the last week or so for airport construction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What firm?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The firm with which Franceschini is connected, the Dufferin Construction company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Dufferin Construction
company, to us, is just like any other construction company. I believe Mr. Franceschini has a stock interest in it. At one time he was general manager of the firm, but he no longer holds that position. A good many Canadian citizens also have a stock interest and a bond interest in Dufferin. We use Dufferin Construction company just as we use any other construction company. We use it to the limit of its equipment. I have no knowledge of their having had a contract in the last two months, but I know of no reason why they should not if they were the low bidder. If their equipment was desired, I have no doubt we used it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: First of all I want to congratulate the minister and the manufacturers and men of this country upon the work they are doing. The minister is held responsible for the size and scope of our production effort. At times he is praised, and sometimes he deserves it; at times he is criticized severely, and quite often he deserves that. Sometimes the manufacturers are blamed, but so far as the minister is concerned, in my opinion a good deal of the criticism he receives is deserved, because he has too much to do.
Just think of all the minister has upon his shoulders-and then he has added to them questions such as this Franceschini matter. What is his job? I am going to say a few words about that. He is purchasing agent for the army, the navy and the air force. He
arranges the production of weapons and military equipment. He is the purchasing agent for Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India and the United States. He is the sales manager for Canadian production in the United States. He has done a good job in selling goods over there, which has helped to maintain our dollar balance. What is the sum of our production to-day? It is just the orders placed by our forces and by the allied governments.
What more does the minister do? He supervises the wartime industries control board, which includes twelve controllers who try to ensure that materials and services shall be forthcoming. He supervises the consumption of materials, and prohibits consumption when materials are scarce or essential for war demands. Every order of a controller involving the imposition of a production quota must have his signature. He supervises the administrative machinery of the wartime prices and trade board and the priorities branch. He has virtual charge of all harbours and shipping. One has only to glance at the chart which he placed on Hansard of February 26, 1941, at page 1042, in order to appreciate the magnitude of the job he had then, his duties have since been considerably increased.
He has told us about the magnitude of our war production, which totals in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000,000-a very creditable performance. All this production must be carefully supervised. Have we wasted any money where waste could have been avoided? I know that economy and speed do not go together in war time, but has there been reasonable economy? Has there been extravagance only when speed was essential?-and we know how necessary speed is to-day. Could we have done more if the minister had had other ministerial assistance? Could our planning have been better? I think so. We used to make comparisons between the production in this war and the production in the last war, but really no comparison can be made.
The minister has another task, the mobilization of Canada's full productive capacity for the manufacture of munitions and so on. He still exercises control over the licensing of radios. I believe he has never calculated, certainly so far as this house is concerned, the present output in terms of what could be done. Have we reached our capacity? If not, when will we reach it? The minister said on May 14, as reported on page 2441 of Hansard:
I may add that Canada is, of course, producing munitions far in excess of the requirements of our own troops or the requirements for the defence of Canada.
IFar Appropriation-Supplies

But on page 2055 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is reported as saying:
We .cannot issue complete sets of the most modern weapons to the basic training centres.
In effect the minister said that we have not sufficient armaments, not sufficient antiaircraft guns, coast defence guns, and so on. Is that producing munitions in excess of our requirements? Have we reached our limit? The minister says we are expanding as fast as possible; but are we? Who is doing the planning? The minister has said this sort of thing before. In 1940 he told the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) that we could not make tanks and that we could not roll armour plate more than an inch and a half in thickness, I think it was. But we can now and we could then. He told the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and others that we could make only a few ships, that shipbuilding was a peace-time job. What are we doing now? We are doing it, and I congratulate him upon what he has done. Can we do more? He ridiculed the idea of wooden ships. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we are making them at the present time. Are there other things we can do?
There is the question of oil production. Of course we did not appreciate the fact that we would be short of oil because of torpe-doings on the Atlantic coast, but that danger was always there. There are the tar sands of Alberta, and hon. members from the mari-times have been talking about producing oil down there. It seems to me that something should have been done about this before now. I do not want to detract from any of the accomplishments; they have been most creditable, but some of them have been just a little bit late. The answer is that the minister has too much on his shoulders. He has much too much work to do. He is the government liaison officer. He is a member of the war committee of the cabinet. He is on the committee on scientific and industrial resources, the business committee of the government, and the treasury board. All these are very important duties. I might remark in passing that had it not been for the pressure which was exercised by the opposition in this house with respect to a number of these activities, I doubt whether our productive war effort would be what it is today. In these matters we have always tried to be constructive.
That the minister is a general executive minister and policy maker and cabinet liaison officer is a big enough job in itself. He cannot

do all that is required of him. I know that he is a pretty big man; he has a pretty big ego as well and thinks he can do these jobs. He has complained two or three times of being attacked, but as I have said before, it is his own fault. He has said that his health is perfectly good, that he is the one to worry about that Well, all of us are worrying about the minister's health. Remember that the country is worrying as well, and that is where the attacks are coming from; because he said in 'the first place that certain things could not be done, whereas they have been done. He just has too many things to do.


Mr. McNIVEN:: And he did them.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: He has done some of them. I am giving him credit for the things he has done. Also I am criticizing him for things which I will not particularize-some of them have been mentioned to-day-which either have not been done, or have not been done soon enough.
He has never calculated the present output in terms of what could be done. He has never declared whether we have reached the limit of our capacity. The productive problem has not been tackled from the point of view of all-out production As demands come in, the minister fills them, whether they be for the army, the air force, Great Britain, or some place else; he is the purchasing agent. But there needs to be more than that. There needs to be force behind the mobilization of production in this country Moments are precious, and regardless of orders, we have to make every gun, every tank, every aeroplane that we can produce, and accelerate our production to its maximum.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Did the hon. member read last week's Maclean's magazine?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, I read last week's Maclean's magazine. It is a very creditable showing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member did not believe it, I suppose.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will the hon. mem-bei tell us that that is all we can do? The job has never been tackled in terms of all that we can do. It is always dealt with in terms of what we have done; and the point is, when shall we know what our capacity is?
A great deal of the executive work which falls to the minister should be taken off his shoulders. He should be free to mobilize and plan and develop industry. He is the only executive officer engaged in this vast programme who is responsible to parliament. We took certain duties from some of the other

War Appropriation-Supplies
ministers because we thought they had too much to do, and gave them to the Minister of National War Services. There is a precedent; why should not the Minister of Munitions and Supply be relieved of some of his present duties? There should be another minister engaged in this work, responsible to parliament. He might be assigned to take charge of supply. I would not venture to suggest to the committee, because I do not know enough about it, just how the work should be redistributed, but I am sure that this should be done, because the public know that the present minister has too much to do.


Mrv BLAIR:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to criticize the minister; I rise to congratulate him upon his wonderful power of endurance. I do not see the necessity of our sitting here and listening to all the nonsense which we have been hearing too long already. In my opinion a party which has denounced for years all war expenditure and every preparation for war, which has declared that not a single man or a solitary dollar should be devoted to the defence of the British empire, and made other statements of the same kind, should rise now to proclaim the entire inefficiency of the war effort of the Canadian people.


Mr. MacNICOL:: To what party does the hon. member refer?


Mr. BLAIR:: Nor do I think that the Tories of Toronto should send up written speeches to be read in this chamber. We are sick and tired of this kind of thing. I say, if you want to say something get up and say it and don't be reading your speeches. The ruling was given a while ago that speeches should not be read, but the practice still goes on.
Most hon. members are in sympathy with the government. I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) in which he expressed sympathy for the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He suggested that the minister should be given time and opportunity to do his work. What time is left to him when he has to sit here day after day listening to speeches? Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that he is helped by the talk which we have had during the last three or four days? It is utter nonsense. I think too that some consideration should be given by the speakers to other hon. members who are busy men, men with their own work to do at home, men employed outside this house in many and various ways. Have we to sit here listening to all these foolish speeches at this critical time of war, when all of us are needed in our homes and in our own districts to carry on
with the work of this country? Are we to be held here day after day by such nonsensical speeches as we have been listening to?
I do not wish to criticize exclusively hon. members on the opposition side. There is a section of our own party of which we are heartily ashamed; I wish some of them were here so that I could not be accused of talking about them behind their backs. I admit that they are a nuisance; they are a fly in the ointment.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid that a remark of that kind may be offensive to hon. members, and I would ask the hon. member to refrain from such expressions.


John Knox Blair: 
Thomas Vien: I do not believe that it is in order for the hon. member to say that speeches by other hon. members are nonsensical.


John Knox Blair: I will withdraw that statement, and say that if there is any sense in them I cannot see it. Maybe I am a little dense, but I could not see anything sensible in the remarks of a lot of the speakers. They are appealing to the minister to get on with his work and at the same time they are detaining him with speeches that have no value.


Clarence Gillis: At the risk of offending the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair), I wish to make one or two observations with regard to an interjection by the hon.

War Appropriation-Supplies
member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was discussing the necessity for a greater mobilization and organization of the country's industrial capacity. I make this comment now for the reason that when any member in this house or anyone outside the house seeks to drive a wedge between the armed forces and the industrial workers, such person, in my opinion, comes directly under the defence of Canada regulations wherein it is stated that such an offence shall be punishable by internment-any offence that causes disaffection in his majesty's forces. When a member begins making comparisons between the rates of pay received by soldiers and the rates of pay received by the industrial workers, and makes such comparisons in the way in which they have been made, that sort of thing creates friction, dissension and a great deal of misunderstanding. What prompts me to make this statement now is the observation of the hon. member for Wood Mountain in comparing the rates paid to miners with those received by the armed forces, and he takes the low rate of $1.30 a day paid to soldiers. I know a little about both the army and the miners and their rates of pay. I drew the lowest rate of pay in the army and did the dirtiest jobs that could be done there, both behind the lines and at the front. I have also been a miner. I wish, therefore, to make this brief observation, that when an hon. member makes the bald statement that the soldier is working for $1.30 a day while the miner is paid $7 or $10 a day, such a statement is absolutely misleading and not in accordance with the facts, and it is time somebody clarified it in the interests of the general public. The miner's basic rate in the industry in Nova Scotia is $3.70 a day, and in OTder to get that $3.70 he has to crawl out of bed at five o'clock in the morning. To earn $22 a week he has to work six days a week, and to earn $1,154.40 a year he has to work six days a week every week of the year. That is the basic, the low rate paid in the industry. According to a table put on the record by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on April 28, the rate to which reference was made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain is set out, and if one takes the $1.30 a day allowances and so on, in a year the soldier earns SI,547.50 with allowances for two children. That is the lowest amount paid in the army, if one takes allowances into account. I know of no industrial worker who is working on a datal rate who earns that amount of money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh.


Clarence Gillis: There is no "oh" about it. Anywhere it will be found that on piece work CMr. Gillis.l
they are paid more than that. I am talking, however, about the lowest rate paid, the basic datal rate, and an examination of the earnings of industrial workers prior to the outbreak of the war will show that the average was somewhat under $1,000 a year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Away below that.


Clarence Gillis: It was under $1,000. I am speaking from memory and it is some time since I saw the figures. I am not suggesting that the soldier is paid enough; I certainly know that his dependents are not getting what they should. But as I have heard the matter discussed in this house, I know that it is driving a wedge between the armed forces and those who have to produce to keep the forces in the field, without which production they are absolutely helpless.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not like to doubt my hon. friend. I am the one who said "oh," because I did not understand what he said. He said that no man working for wages was getting as much as $1,500.


Clarence Gillis: I am speaking of the fixed,
datal rate. Where a man gets so much an hour and works sixteen hours a day the wages run up. Take the miner who cuts, shoots and loads the coal and who is paid on the basis of 69 cents a ton in Nova Scotia, which is the lowest rate paid for cutting, shooting and loading coal. Forty per cent of the men employed in the mining industry do this kind of work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ordinary shipyard worker gets 75 cents an hour.


Clarence Gillis: He is paid by the hour.


Angus MacInnis: What is an ordinary
shipyard worker?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Shipyard mechanics.


Angus MacInnis: They are not ordinary
shipyard workers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is the ordinary shipyard worker-the boy who carries the water?


Clarence Gillis: They are to be found in
shipyards working for as low as $3.50 a day. That is a fixed, datal rate. The man who says that the soldier works for $1.30 a day and leaves it at that is making an incorrect statement, a statement which is misleading as far as the public is concerned, and it only tends to build up resentment in the minds of the boys in the army against the fellows who have to do the producing. As I said before,
I have done both, and if I had my choice to-morrow of going back to a coal mine or putting on the uniform and crossing the Atlantic ocean I would go over the ocean. I

War Appropriation-Supplies
have no illusions about it. There is no one else on the face of the globe who earns his money the way a coal miner earns his or who takes more chances with his life, and he is getting very little for it. The average person in central Canada imagines that because he pays $15 a ton for his coal the miner gets the money. The miner gets 69 cents a ton for cutting, shooting, blasting and mining the coal, 1,000 feet underground and1 five miles under the Atlantic, and he lasts about ten years at that work. If the boy in the army is shot up he gets a pension. When the coal miner is through he goes on relief. There are as many industrial cripples across the country as there have been war cripples in the last twenty-five or thirty years, and the former get very little compensation for it, except in the relief lines. They are the forgotten men, too young for old age pensions, too old to earn a living, just relegated to the scrap heap. But that is not what I rose to say. I was prompted to make these remarks because I have listened to that kind of talk bandied across the floor from time to time, and it is not good for either the army or the industrial worker. My intention in raising the question at this time is to bring it briefly to the minister's attention in order that he may perhaps avoid some of the mistakes made in the past. I think it is the job of a member of parliament to bring such matters to the attention of the minister. It is not done for the purpose of criticizing. I appreciate the minister's work and the job he is doing.
The first matter I should like to stress is that raised by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. McGarry), with respect to the development in that area of a deposit of magnetic iron ore by a man named McMillan. There are several reasons why I think the minister should take hold of that and find out whether there is sufficient iron ore there to be worthy of consideration. The main reason is that we need the material. Second, that particular section of Nova Scotia for the past twenty years has taken the greatest economic beating of any section of Canada. There is nothing in that whole county except a worn-out broken-down coal mine operated by the provincial government on a relief basis; they pay the lowest rate of wages on the north American continent, and the mine just staggers along giving the people depending on it a bite to eat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The provincial government pays the lowest wages?


Clarence Gillis: It is more or less a relief matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They should not be
allowed to do that.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) a few days ago announced certain tax concessions to prospectors to give men an incentive to go out and seek metals and minerals necessary to our war effort. This man has discovered what he believes is a deposit of iron ore in sufficient quantity to guarantee operation. According to my information he has spent some $1,200 in probing it. According to a letter I have from him, he is prepared to go ahead and produce up to
1,000	tons a day. I understand he is now in this position: he is not financially able to go ahead and develop the project. According to his lease the property must be worked a certain number of days per year in order that the lease may be held. He has had engineers from the Dominion Coal company carrying on boring operations there for some time. I understand this is crown land. Just a few days ago he was notified that the coal company are pulling out and not carrying on any more work there, which means that he is not going to be able to put in the required working time to hold the lease. He is of opinion that the Dominion Steel and Coal company are ready to step in and take it themselves. This individual is well qualified, according to his credentials; he knows metal mining, having been an official in metal mines in the United States and in western and central Canada. If there is ore there in sufficient quantity to mean something and if it is on crown land and he needs a little financing to put it into production, I see no reason why the minister should not go ahead and at least investigate the situation. If we can advance money to industries, some of which are very well off, in order to expand their plants, I cannot see any reason why the same thing should not be done in this case where it would serve the purpose of opening an industry in a section that is in absolute need and of assisting a man who has proven himself a responsible citizen and is doing something for his country to the extent of spending some $1,200 to $1,400 on the project. In addition, he would be producing materials that Canada needs badly. It is a matter that the minister should consider from every angle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to get a report on it.


Clarence Gillis: Another thing I should like to bring to the minister's attention is the letting of contracts. I obtained a return in relation to the Sydney airport. The estimated cost of erection of the buildings was about half the
War Appropriation-Supplies

final cost. There was a great deal of controversy about the matter in that end of the country, but the situation was not as bad as reported. There is, however, something wrong with the engineers who estimated the job, or there was a great deal of waste in the construction. The estimate of the engineers was that the cost of the buildings would be about $445,178. The final figures are not yet available, but to date the cost is double the original estimate, and the buildings are not yet completed.
The reason why I mention that again is that I think there is a system on the part of the contractors, recognizing that these things are not too closely checked, that when government engineers estimate that a project should cost, say $100,000, one contractor puts in a bid of $96,000, another $92,000, the lowest tenderer gets it, and I am safe in saying that on the basis of this airport return, when the project is completed it will probably cost twice the amount of the lowest tender. I think they are deliberately underbidding because they know that the precedent has been set; that they are not too closely checked and that they can throw in another building here and there and make money out of the job. I know the minister's department is very competent. I know he has not the time himself to scrutinize all these matters with the care required. I am in hopes that the recently appointed committee on war expenditures will pay strict attention to the manner of letting contracts, because from evidence we have had from time to time I am reasonably sure that things are not as they should be. I am not blaming the minister for that. There is no individual who could check that matter as closely as it should be checked.
The next matter I wish to bring to his attention is wartime housing. I am not going into it from the national aspect, but I shall refer briefly to the housing situation in Sydney. As I have pointed out from time to time I. think the Dominion Steel and Coal corporation are practically running the province of Nova Scotia. In a return I had of correspondence that passed between the city of Sydney and the department on the question of wartime housing I know the situation is bad. Anyone residing in that city knows it. Perhaps 1,000 additional men have gone to the steel plant. In addition, the plate mill, when going at capacity, will employ 400 to' 600 men. Many public works projects have been undertaken in that area. There is a big one now in progress at Point Edward just across the harbour. There are thousands of men in the city and area that were not there

when the war broke out. I notice in this correspondence between the city of Sydney and the Department of Munitions and Supply that the city had no say with the representative who was sent there to make a probe. He spent twenty-four hours in the city, and I think he spent twenty-three of those hours with Dominion Steel and Coal corporation officials. The officials of the city of Sydney were ignored absolutely. According to this return the whole report is based on the fact that this man was advised by the officials of the Dominion Steel and Coal corporation that wartime housing was not necessary, that there was no importation of labour, that practically everyone employed in the war industries there was taken from local labour. That is not true. I know that from Inverness county, Richmond county and other parts of Nova Scotia and other parts of the country, many men have come into the city to work in war industries, aggravating the housing situation. There are also thousands of merchant seamen in the port, and there is also a large airport. Airmen from all over Canada are coming there with their wives, and hunting all over for a place where they can stay.
The report states: "We are not responsible for the influx of people belonging to the army, navy" and so forth. Technically they may not be, but certainly it should be someone's responsibility to provide homes for those in the armed forces. Those employed in industry are very likely going to stay there and they have an incentive to build their own homes, but the men in the armed forces are not going to build homes for themselves, and accordingly they rent. There is no control over the renting of rooms, and prices are terrible. There are wholesale evictions in that city. I suggest that in future when a representative of wartime housing is sent to make an examination of the requirements of a city he should secure his information from those who are responsible for the civic administration. Dominion Steel and Coal corporation are not affected by these wholesale evictions, but the mayor and council are, and they are badly affected at the present time. I may be suspicious, but at all events I am of opinion that the company wish to have a clear field for themselves, because they are in the housing game. They have thousands of houses-


An hon. MEMBER:: Shacks.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; they are not houses, but the company are getting rents and profits from them, and are endeavouring to keep the field clear for themselves.

War Appropriation-Supplies
There is another point I wish to make in that connection. Apart from the fact that the houses put up by wartime housing are a waste of money, they are not constructed properly and will be tom down after the war. They will not stand longer than ten years. If wartime housing is a project to enable those employed in industry to have a house fit to live in, the houses should be constructed properly, and furthermore $26 and $30 a month rent is too much to ask a working man to pay because the great majority of them cannot afford to pay that much. If the government is going to put up simply shacks for the duration of the war, it might as well put up tents, and then there would not be so much money wasted, as there will be when these houses are tom down after the war. I am really ashamed of that project. I have been in some of these houses in Halifax and Dartmouth, and if the minister happens to visit the island of Cape Breton I should like him to look at the homes that are being built there under a cooperative plan for around $1,800. They have complete radiation, six rooms, and they are being built by the people themselves in groups. If the average contractor were to erect a house of that kind, he would ask not less than $6,000, but the people who are putting up these houses cooperatively are doing the job themselves for $1,800. There are five groups building their own little village on that basis. If the minister will then look at the houses in this wartime housing project, he will see the difference, and I think he will get that cooperative group, instead of Wartime Housing, to put up the houses in future. Wartime housing is, in my opinion, an absolute waste of money.
I have read many documents and listened to many speeches since the outbreak of war, and I have heard economists on the radio and in committees making speeches, all stressing the fact that if we are going to build for the future, any housing project undertaken now should be related to our peacetime economy, with a view to the houses being used after the war. Just the opposite is true of wartime housing. I was very much encouraged to sit on the rehabilitation and reconstruction committee. I think the government has chosen excellent men -who are writing excellent reports, but what is actually being done does not dovetail with those reports at all.
Another matter I would bring to the minister's attention is the need for a greater utilization of our resources. There are deposits of dolomite at New Campbellton in Nova Scotia on the Cape Breton island end. I have here quite an article about it which appeared in the Halifax Herald. Evidently
there was some work going on there; at one time the government were interested in it, and it was expected that an industry would be established there and that dolomite could be used for machine tools and so forth. But our government apparently lost interest in it. Then some United States firm became interested in it, but later dropped out. If the minister does not know anything about this matter, I shall be glad to send him this clipping. I do not want to read it because it is lengthy. The matter is important, however, and some people are very much disappointed that the development is not being gone ahead with.
To turn to another matter, officers in the army certainly seem to require some very elaborate furnishings. Recently in Halifax I was handed a duplicate invoice from the T. Eaton Company Limited for thp fitting up of officers' quarters and, according to this, there are rugs on the floor costing as high as $195 apiece.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is paying for them?


Clarence Gillis: The Department of Munitions and Supply. I will give the minister this invoice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The officers furnish their
own mess.


Clarence Gillis: This invoice bills the
Department of Munitions and Supply, and I see that one rug costs $195; another, $130.50; another, $214.75, and another, $130. The total bill is $746.25 for rugs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member send
the invoice over to me, please?


Clarence Gillis: Yes. I do not know whether this expenditure can be justified, but it certainly seems exorbitant to me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to see the bill.


Clarence Gillis: I will send it over to the
minister and he might check up on it.
I do not want to occupy any more time, but I felt I had to make these few observations. I realize that no minister is able to keep track of all these matters himself, and when some members rise in their places and deprecate the fact that other members take up the time of the house, I say that there is not enough time for members to take up provided that they utilize it in the proper way. There are 245 members of this house. My opinion is that each one of them is responsible for a certain section of the country, and it is his job to do a job for that section. If there is anything that is not right, it is the member's job to assist the minister in correcting what is wrong. I think each
War Appropriation-Supplies

and every member, if he does his job conscientiously, can be the greatest asset any minister or government can have through the cooperation members can give in making constructive suggestions-not merely criticizing for political purposes.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) drew attention to a memorandum on steel put out by the steel workers' organizing committee. I suggest that every hon. member should read it, because I understand all have it. It would be interesting to some of our hon. friends who from time to time make the statement that the C.I.O. is a sabotaging organization, or something of that sort. The committee to which I refer took the trouble to send their national director across the country to every steel plant in order to meet the ^employees of those steel plants. I happened to have the privilege of sitting in with them at Sydney, when the memorandum was being prepared. The men in the plant, through the medium of their unions, or through whatever medium he could reach them, have attempted to find out if ways and means could be devised to meet the steel situation. They know much better than we do that there is a shortage, and that it is going to continue. I saw the director sit in with these union committees, and organize production committees of men in the plants, to devise ways and means on the job of improving the situation.
I should like to draw attention to the significance of scrap material. They point out very definitely in their memorandum that to the average man scrap is just junk, and serves no useful purpose. In the last analysis, however, it is found that it is one of the most important war materials we shall have to get. They point out that in 1939 Canada's foundries and furnaces used 1,293,877 tons of scrap and that in 1940 they used 1,819,162 tons. To put it even more strikingly, 65-8 per cent of the materials which went into the foundries in 1940 was scrap, and of all the ingredients used in the steel furnaces during the year 55 per cent was scrap. Thus the proper collection and distribution of available scrap becomes of vital importance to our war effort.
I do not wish to read all the memorandum, because it would take too much time. I would point out, however, that they make definite recommendations with respect to the organization of committees to gather scrap, and to see that it is placed in the hands of those who need it. They indicate one very pertinent fact, that one plant-it is located

in Nova Scotia-has two years supply of scrap material ahead, while another plant has only seven weeks supply. They recommend that some organization be set up to distribute that scrap material to those sections where it is essential, and where there is a shortage of it. There is no reason why one plant should have a two years supply, and another plant a supply which would last only seven weeks. The plant with only the seven weeks supply will either close down or be put on short 'ime. Amherst is an example of that. It has been closed for some time, although it may be operating to-day; I am not sure. It was, however, closed down for the want of scrap material, despite the fact that another plant has a supply sufficient for two years. Amherst should have had some of that scrap.
There is no doubt that large quantities of scrap across the country are not being salvaged. There are thousands of tons of steel rails in the different cities of Canada. The cost of reclaiming this might be a little high, but it could be salvaged. I know that around coal mines in Nova Scotia there are thousands and thousands of tons of scrap, which is not being salvaged at all. In fact, in the mines there are thousands of tons which could be taken out and used. I have in mind one mine which has been closed up and, as far as I know, has not been used for some time. I know of an old mine in Inverness county, the Mabou mine, which was operated thirty years ago, and in which there are a couple of miles of rails. Someone by the name of Stewart in New Glasgow has an option on that mine. He is not doing anything with those rails, and he has refused to allow anybody to lift them. It seems to me that they are still there; at least they were there last summer, because I was there and saw them.
In view of the necessity for raw material and for scrap to-day, nothing like that should stand in our way. If scrap is needed, then the fact that someone holds a piece of paper written in 1895, or some such time, giving him an equity in those rails, is no reason why that paper should hold good. That material belongs to the country; it is necessary and it should be taken. However, I shall not say any more about that, because the minister has the report.
There are many recommendations made in the report of that organization. They are practical recommendations and, if applied, will solve the scrap and other problems. I should hope that they would be considered by those who are directing the war effort. The steel

War Appropriation-Supplies
workers' organizing committee ought to be commended for the time they took and the money they spent in bringing that material together. I know for a fact that the director travelled across the country.
I now come to the rationing of gasoline in the maritime provinces. I heard the minister's statement, and I realize the necessity for what is being done there. If we cannot get gasoline there, then we shall have to ration what is available. My suggestion to the minister is that all the available gasoline in the maritime provinces should be rationed on the basis that every non-essential car be taken off the road. Seventy-five per cent of the gasoline being used in Canada is, in my opinion, being used only for pleasure driving. Anyone who may be travelling on the roads at two or three or four o'clock in the morning knows that there are thousands of cars travelling back and forth that are certainly not performing a useful service as far as the country is concerned. If war is as serious as people say it is, and as I know it is, then this should be our first consideration. I do not consider it any hardship to walk a mile or two miles to my work. I drove a car for twenty-two years, but I have not taken the wheel of one since war broke out, and I do not intend to.
The basis that I have suggested is the one on which gasoline should be rationed, if there is a shortage. But if we are going to be rough and tough about the matter, then we shall have to be absolutely certain that no favouritism is shown. What about commercial travellers and insurance agents, who are in a special category? A car is not necessary to an insurance agent, any more than it is to me-and probably not as much. Cars are not essential to insurance agents, because their districts are not so very large that they cannot be travelled on foot or by other conveyances. They always did that, until a few years ago. I do not think it is too great a sacrifice to ask of them; it will do them good, and make them healthy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: While they are in a special class, they must show necessity before they get anything better than category A. They may make a case for themselves, but I believe only a small proportion are getting better than category A.


Clarence Gillis: There are homes in which there are two or three cars in one family, all holding ration books. That is something which should be curtailed. I have received telegrams in protest against the curtailment of gasoline in the maritimes, and I have some understanding of the situation. If the gasoline is not there in sufficient quantities, then we shall have to ration what we have. As I said a moment ago, however, the rationing should be done on a basis of essentiality. One man
may want more than two gallons, whereas another man who really does not need his car is wasting gasoline by running it. Until the basis I have suggested is adopted, the government will have trouble. I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but I did want to make these observations.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Mr. Chairman, I had prepared an address which was to have taken the whole forty minutes, but after the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair), I have condensed it from forty minutes to four minutes. I do not intend to make any general remarks because this has been attended to quite well by other speakers, but I do want to bring two or three suggestions to the attention of the minister, and I do not do this in any critical spirit. Notwithstanding any remarks to the contrary, and for the most part they have been given in a fine spirit, I want to congratulate the minister upon the full, frank and exhaustive resume which he has given of the work of his department. That department started not long ago from scratch, and in a marvellously short time it has built up all across this country an edifice of which the average Canadian citizen is not fully aware. It has done this with a speed and with a degree of stability that is simply astounding to those who study what has been done-600 contracts in a day, 400 planes in a month, 600,000 Canadian citizens working in war-time production. That is the record of which any minister might well be proud. As I said, however, I did not rise to speak in general terms.
A few days ago I received a resolution which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. This was adopted by the rural municipality of Daly, Manitoba. I think I know all the members of this rural council, and they are not the critical type. They desire to help, and anything they say in this resolution is with that end in view. We keep coming back to this gasoline question, which is a burning question in more respects than one. The resolution reads:
Whereas farmers are not allowed to buy gasoline by the barrel under the oil ration regulations and in numerous eases must travel many miles to procure same, thereby losing valuable working hours and wasting gas travelling to and from town unnecessarily, therefore the council of the rural municipality of Daly respectfully request the oil controller to allow farmers to buy gasoline by the barrel as heretofore, having the coupons deleted from their ration books, which action would prove a saving on gasoline and allow farmers more time to attend to their farming operations.
Respectfully submitted.
Some of these things may not appear important to many hon. members, but with respect to rural conditions they are o-f prime

War Appropriation-Supplies

importance. These men are all short-handed for farm labour, which is also an important question. In many instances farmers have to leave their work on the farm, go perhaps two or three miles to their homes, prepare for their trip into town, take a chance when they go out to their cars on having a flat tire because of the poor quality of tires now being used, try to get into town at least half an hour before the closing hour, and then find a congestion of other cars waiting to be served. They would like to be able to buy gasoline by the barrel against their coupons, and I am placing their request before the minister.
There is another matter, one which I think has been raised by other hon. members. I have received a good many letters urging that some change be made in the regulations so that farmers can go in and buy gasoline at least two evenings in the week at an hour later than that prescribed by the regulations. The farmers find they have to lose too much time when they must reach the station before the present closing hour. As I say, they are not making this suggestion in any critical spirit; it is only in an effort to conserve time and gasoline, which is, I think, a most praiseworthy motive.
Another suggestion I have to make is that the department take some steps to see to it that certain service station operators and many of those in other lines of business who have been practically put out of business because of the present regulations should be taken care of in some other line of work. These people have claims upon the public; they have built up their business over a term of years, and some of them are now forced to close their doors. There is other work that most of these men can do to advantage, and I suggest that in any openings which may be available they be not subject to the regulations of the civil service commission. In saying that, I am casting no reflection upon that commission; I have no reason to do so, but I think the tests should be reliability and ability to do the job. Any man who can pass these two tests should get preference.
I was glad to hear the minister say that as far as possible smaller companies, garages and others who have suffered severely because of certain restrictions, will be given every preference possible. I have always been a believer, and I am more so to-day, in the decentralization of industry. I do not think it is a healthy condition for any country to have its industries centralized. I am glad to know that the minister is aware of the advisability of taking care of these smaller institutions as far as is practicable. That is all I have to say.
I Mr. Matthews.]
First, I suggest that our farmers should be put to the least possible inconvenience in filling their gasoline requirements. Second, I suggest that service station operators who are suffering because of the present regulations be given some preference whenever the occasion offers. Third, I suggest that the smaller repair and manufacturing companies in this country be given an advantage wherever possible over the larger centres of industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a brief statement to make which perhaps I should have made before. A number of hon. members have suggested that provision be made in rural areas to permit gasoline stations to remain open in the evenings for the convenience of farmers. I may say that arrangements have been completed whereby gas stations five miles distant from a city will be authorized to keep open one evening a week. Arrangements can probably be made so that gasoline will be available two or three evenings a week to farmers coming into town.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will that be only for farmers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be available to anyone who comes along.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: What about purchasing by the barrel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That cannot be done.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion with respect to the minister's work and his share of this $2,000,000,000 appropriation. I am not by any means satisfied that our resources are being used to the degree to which they could be used. I am not disposed to find fault with the minister.
I think he attempted a colossal task, a task probably beyond the power of any one human being, and I believe that he has wrestled with it heroically. I may not be deemed, in saying that, a very good opposition member, but I do not see why a man should not have a little credit when he has earned it. At the same time it is well for us to bear in mind that there is in our keeping, perhaps right in this chamber, perhaps in the minister's department, the future of six hundred and fifty million people-the people of the whole British empire and of the United States. If we fail to produce the armoured cars-the tanks, the aeroplanes and the other necessities of war to the degree to which we can produce them, in whatever degree we fall short we shall jeopardize the future of all those free peoples who constitute our friends.

War Appropriation-Supplies
I am not at all satisfied with respect to the gasoline matter. I simply cannot be convinced that everything has been done which could be done to provide this country with gasoline and other fuel. I firmly believe that there are people, organizations, with ulterior motives, deliberately preventing the development of the fuel supply of this country, blocking the efforts of the minister to produce the maximum.
The committee which the minister mentioned, which has been selected from his own department to examine into the possibility of producing oil from the Athabaska sands, should be able to get right to work and produce results, and produce them quickly. This business of dawdling along, waiting until next year, hoping that the war will end before they have to produce oil, is not to be tolerated. That is exactly how I feel about the matter. I do not think the committee is on its job. I do not believe it is producing results. As we say out in the west, "I don't believe it is cutting the mustard." I think it ought to be told to get right to work and make a report soon. I should like to know who these committee people are, and when they are to hand in their report. What is it about the Athabaska tar sands that they do not now know? They have been studying the 'Athabaska tar sands for many years. Voluminous reports are to be had. What they do not know, it seems to me they could find out very soon if they chose to do so. The minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol), spoke of a number of problems, but very vaguely. I do not see why those problems could not be detailed to this committee so that we could know exactly what they are. One is likely, of course, to hear rumours that are not entirely correct; nevertheless I do not think that all is well with the Athabaska tar sands situation.
The minister mentioned that he had taken into counsel certain companies and is expecting them to advise him whether it is well to go ahead. Has the minister chosen companies which can be entirely trusted? There are some companies, from whom I certainly would not take advice with respect to the development of gasoline in this country. I believe that some of them have ulterior motives-just as we learned the other day is the case with certain companies in the United States. The rumour is prevalent in several parts of Alberta that oil wells were drilled in times past, discovered to be good producers, and deliberately capped and taken out of production. These rumours are persistent. I do not know whether there is
any truth in them. Obviously, no member of this house has time to investigate. The minister	himself	has	not time.	Would	itnot help matters if he were to insist that every company which has drilled for oil in Alberta or any other part of Canada should produce a detailed account of every drilling it has made and what was done as a result- to make sure that there has been no sabotage? I have heard, from men whom I would not dare to	doubt,	that	wells are	deliberately
kept out of production.
There is another matter which gives me some concern. Is the minister afraid that if gasoline were produced from Athabaska tar sands, it would cost a few cents more than we are now	paying	for	gasoline?	Let it	beclearly understood that if we lose this war, we shall never have any further anxiety about the cost	of gasoline	in the Athabaska	tar
sands. The issue to-day is one of winning the war or losing it; the result might easily be determined by the quantity of gasoline we did or did not produce in any one year, and that year might be the one upon which we are entering at the present time.
Has the minister at his disposal all the money he needs? Is he restricted in any respect? If I could be completely satisfied on that score, my mind would be more at rest. Why worry about the cost of the gasoline? Let us ask this question: if one Adolf Hitler had control of the Athabaska tar sands, does anyone believe for a split second that he would be worrying about the cost of producing the gasoline? How much is Hitler paying in the effort to get through to the Caucasus? What does anybody imagine will be the cost of the gasoline when he gets there? Cost is not entering into his consideration ; what he wants is to get the gasoline; and that, Mr. Chairman, is what we must have, too.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: When the committee rose at six o'clock I had been discussing briefly the question of mobilizing our fuel resources in Canada, and I had expressed serious doubt whether any really earnest measures were being taken to meet the danger of a shortage of fuel. I consider that this government's neglect of our fuel supply is altogether reprehensible. I do not believe that any government can possibly be excused before the people to-day or before future generations for neglecting the fuel interests of this
2564
War Appropriation-Supplies

dominion, and I say that for three main reasons, the first being that we have gone mechanical. All over the land, especially in the four western provinces, practically every farmer has gone into mechanized equipment, which means he has probably traded his horses for a car; he has bought an interest in a combine; he is depending on gasoline engines; he has disposed of his pasture. The result is that he has gone into mechanized equipment in such a way that it is impossible for him to get back into a position where he can use horses. This has put our whole economy, particularly agriculture, on a precarious basis; and under such circumstances, to neglect to provide for an adequate fuel supply in Canada is not only a blunder but comes near to being a betrayal.
I maintain that our fuel supply has been neglected. Especially am I led to suspect this by reason of the fact that we have almost entirely neglected alcohol. Alcohol can be made successfully from potatoes. Have we had any potato-made alcohol? Have we had any plants established for the production of alcohol from potatoes? Has there been any programme for the growing of potatoes for that purpose? None that I have heard of, notwithstanding the fact that Canada, from coast to coast, is eminently adapted for the production of potatoes. Then, in regard to wheat, I am informed that good alcohol can be made from this grain. We have had a good deal of talking about making alcohol from wheat; but talk is as far as it has gone, and now the farmers of. the maritimes are limited beyond endurance in the matter of gasoline, while in the west we are getting far less gasoline than we need. Still, only talk. Alcohol can be produced from beet sugar molasses.


Mr. McIVOR:: Does the hon. member not think it would be a waste of wheat to make alcohol from it?


John Horne Blackmore: We might have a billion bushels of wheat in,this country and yet, if we ran out of alcohol, we might be beaten by Hitler. What does the hon. member think about that? It would then have paid us to turn 400 or 500 million bushels more of wheat into alcohol. Bear in mind that we are fighting for our very existence, and when wre are fighting for our existence we must have alcohol fuel., I do not see why so many hon. members seem to do their thinking all in one compartment. They do not think over the whole field. They simply do not realize that we are in danger of being defeated because we lack alcohol or; because we lack gasoline. Sugar beets, will produce alcohol, and the molasses from: such beets can be used to advantage. Have we seen any evidence of a desire to
fMr. Blackmore.]
increase our beet sugar production so as to allow for the possibility of producing alcohol from molasses secured from beet sugar? No evidence at all. All these things serve to indicate that the government must be asleep as far as alcohol and gasoline are concerned. Either that, or it must be under the influence of someone or another who has an ulterior motive. I hope I am wrong, but the evidence seems to indicate that I am only too right.
I wish to turn now for a few moments to another aspect of the question. I am worried about the controllers we have. I know only one or two of these gentlemen; in fact, I hardly know any of them. I do know, however, that the set-up we have under these controllers, twelve of them, each possessing almost absolute power over the particular industry over which he has been placed, is in a position to do this country irreparable harm. Take lumber control. I know nothing about the lumber controller; I have never met him though I think I know his name. But I have heard that prices have been set on lumber at such a figure that many mills that could produce lumber and would do so have been caused to go out of business; prices were fixed at such a level as would enable certain types of mill to succeed but would squeeze out certain other types. If there has been a deliberate design on the part of the lumber controller to accomplish that end, then I say that man has been very unkind to Canada. If lumber mills have been squeezed out of existence at the very time when we need lumber in Canada, and then if, after the lumber controller has destroyed a good deal of the productive power of Canada in connection with lumber, we turn round and say that there is not sufficient lumber to build the houses the people want to build, obviously we have been thrown into a position so false as to appear grotesque.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have kept prices down so that people can build houses. I know of no mill in Canada that is closed. If my hon. friend1 knows of one, I wish he would let me know. To the best of my knowledge the mills are working full out, with a market in the United States for any surplus at better prices than in Canada. I would say that the lumber situation is in a very satisfactory condition at the moment.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to have
the minister tell us that. One reason why I am saying this is to give him a chance to deny. But from remarks I have heard-and I have definite information from two or three men who, I am sure, knew-there are mills

War Appropriation-Supplies
in British Columbia and certain parts of Alberta that were closed during the past winter because prices were too low.
May I pause here for a moment on the question of price. The minister says that we have kept prices of lumber down in Canada so that people can buy the lumber. That is a most laudable object, entirely commendable. But we can render lumber available to the people of Canada at a low rate without keeping the price to the producer down. That is a fact which is yet to be learned by a considerable number of hon. gentlemen who sit on the government benches. They do not seem to realize that it is possible to do what I am told is done in England, for example with respect to eggs. The producer can be paid 75 cents a dozen for eggs, and the, eggs be sold to the consumer at 50 cents a dozen. The government absorbs the 25 cents. The application of that principle is coming; it must come. It will seem strange to people trained entirely in orthodox thinking, but one of the greatest dangers that confront us to-day is the orthodox thinking which prevails everywhere. If we insist on managing our affairs according to orthodox thinking, and our enemies and competitors follow another kind of thinking, they get ahead of us.
With respect to lumber, there is no reason why the price cannot be made sufficiently remunerative to enable every lumber producer in Canada to produce to the full and yet the lumber be sold at a low rate to the consumer. I use lumber merely as an illustration to show that the set-up is exceedingly dangerous to private industry and may result in so much destruction of our production as will subject us to the danger of inflation because of a shortage of goods. This is a result of the system of controls that we have. I am not sure that any controller is abusing his power, but I would feel very much safer if there were a system of supervising controllers so that we could be sure that no controller is taking advantage of his position to help his friends at the expense of other producers.
I turn now to another matter which is causing a good deal of difficulty in my constituency and other parts of western Canada. There have been restrictions in regard to automobiles. We have been told that we can have only so many tires; that only so much gasoline is available; that no new cars are being produced; the result is that many people who have come to depend entirely on cars for transportation are at their wit's end to know what to do.
I call this to the attention of the minister in case he has not noticed it. Twenty years ago before the coming of the automobile
every farmer had his buggy- and his wagon. There were plenty of buggies, plenty of wagons, in the stores of the implement dealers. There are now no wagons on many farms. In many instances there are no buggies on the farms. There are no wagons or buggies to speak of in the hands of the dealers; men do not know where they are going to buy wagons and buggies. I wonder whether provision has been made for the manufacture of wagons and buggies to take the place of the automobiles.
This is a most serious situation. It is difficult to get harness; it is difficult to get horse-drawn machinery, where men- have gone in for ploughs that require a tractor, not to mention the difficulty of getting horses. When men have put all their working capital into automotive equipment and machinery they have no capital with which to buy horses and horse-drawn vehicles. The result is that farmers in many parts of Canada are faced with a situation which to them appears utterly impossible. I -wonder whether the minister is taking precautions to see that that situation is met.
These are some real difficulties which I have presented to the minister. I think it would relieve us if he could tell us that all is well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are taking special precautions to try to give the farmers the tires they need to carry on business. As far as the gasoline situation in the prairie provinces is concerned, we are fairly secure because we have a local source of supply partly in Alberta and partly in the neighbouring states.


John Horne Blackmore: Is anything being done regarding the manufacture of alcohol from potatoes or wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have an ample source of alcohol so far. All the distilleries in the east and in the west have been turned fairly well to the production of alcohol. We can step up our production of alcohol as much as is needed for any ordinary purposes.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the minister any means for supervising the work of the controllers so as to make sure that they are not abusing their powers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; the chairman of the control board has a staff for that purpose, and of course the deputy minister and I exercise authority over the board. No order can be issued without my examination, approval and signature.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the minister any means whereby a man might be able to send in a complaint? Suppose a lumberman finds
War Appropriation-Supplies

prices are being set in such a way as to discriminate against him; is there provision whereby he can write in and complain without endangering himself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He can, and does very frequently. We get plenty of complaints.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: The other day when the minister was before the committee he informed us that since the commencement of the war he had awarded contracts totalling over $4,000,000,000. I envy him his ability to discuss in this house, with very few references to his notes, such a wide variety of expenditures. I might remind the committee that total expenditures in connection with the last war, together with disbursements in connection with demobilization, amounted to $1,695,000,000, or only a fraction of the amount handled by the minister's department. If we add all expenditures chargeable to the consolidated fund, chargeable to capital, all railway subsidies, all other charges and the cost of war demobilization from confederation up to 1935, the total will be less than three times the amount of money being spent by this one department.
It is physically impossible for members of this house to follow intelligently all the expenditures of this large department, but this evening I wish to discuss one company which is under the supervision of the minister, and which, in my opinion, has not received sufficient consideration here. I refer to Wartime Housing, Limited. Unfortunately, at the commencement of the present war Canada was in a very bad way as far as housing our people was concerned. At the commencement of the last war we had, in most cities, vacancies of from 7 to 15 per cent of the total, while at the commencement of the present war less than one house out of every one hundred was vacant in most of our cities. Unfortunately, during the years prior to the outbreak of the war the cities of Canada did not carry out regular, thorough surveys to ascertain the exact condition of housing within their limits. I have a report coming from the city of Halifax and issued in 1932 in which are set forth the conditions prevailing there. From the investigation made it would appear that 11,197 men, women and children were living under conditions believed to be serious enough to be included in a special survey. The most recent survey available from Montreal is one which was published in 1935, which admits that
18,000	persons in that city need rehousing, and that a total of 70,000 dwellings were required at rentals below the levels which private industry could afford. An excellent report was prepared on conditions in Toronto when the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. 
Bruce) was lieutenant-governor of Ontario. According to that report, not only were bad housing conditions discovered but the presence of a serious housing shortage was also detected. The report goes on to say:
A surplus of households is at present absorbed by doubling up and overcrowding. If reasonably full employment were to return, and marriages delayed by depression were to take place, it is probable that a shortage of some
25,000	dwelling units would become apparent.
The most comprehensive report available comes from the city of Winnipeg, where they have been so fortunate as to have a public health department which each year conducts a very thorough investigation and submits a full report. In the most recent report we find that they have reached an all-time low in the number of vacancies, which means that more and more families are having to crowd together. The report goes on:
This condition is, of course, in conflict with our health and other by-laws, but it is evident that there is little we can do about it.
And further on:
During the past five years, the total dwellings and suites provided was 1,886, while during the same period, there were 18,322 marriages-one dwelling or suite for approximately every ten marriages. Of course many of the marriages are of people from outside the city, but if three-fourths of the marriages were of city people, the rate would be only one dwelling or suite provided for approximately every seven marriages.
I believe hon. members will understand what a serious problem is presented by these figures. Since this report was made, a great many of the young men who have joined the forces have married. These young men are risking their lives to fight for their homes; yet on coming back to Canada many of them find that we have not homes available for them. Their families find it impossible to secure housing in many of our larger cities within the price range they can afford. The report concerning Winnipeg goes on to say:
Surely our present housing shortage cannot continue much longer. The risk to health of our substandard housing, not to mention that of the fire hazard in our nondescript tenements, may be brought home to us with painful remorse.
This report gives an idea of how costly it is to maintain these large slum areas in our cities. A few years ago a survey was carried out in Winnipeg, for the purpose of which they divided the city into three areas, numbered one, two and three. Areas one and two included the worst slum districts, while area three included the rest of the city. The report indicates that the arrests per thousand of population in area No. 1 was 21T; in area No. 2, 52-2, and in the rest of the city, 6-5.

War Appropriation-Supplies
Cases handled by the children's bureau per thousand of population in area No. 1 was 9*1; in area No. 2, 9-2, and in the rest of the city, 4-2. Juvenile court cases per thousand of population, in area No. 1, 16-9; in area No. 2, 23-7, and in area No. 3, 11-5. St. Boniface out-patients per thousand of population: in area No. 1, 22-9; in area No. 2, 34-2, and in area No. 3, 5-3. Hospital public ward admissions per thousand of population: in area No. 1, 91-1; in area No. 2, 101-4, and in area No. 3, 52-9. Scarlet fever and diphtheria: in area No. 1, 13-6; in area No. 2, 15-7, and in area No. 3, 7-5.
This report gives the comparative cost to the city of social services in the two special areas compared with the rest of the city, indicating that in terms of dollars and cents it is an expensive business to allow these large slum areas to exist. The report goes on to say that with regard to seven essential services the cost to the city in the two special areas was $639,000, while the cost for the rest of the city was $612,000; but if the cost for these slum areas had been at the same per capita rate as for the rest of the city, that cost would have been $189,000. In other words, there was a yearly cost in areas Nos. 1 and 2 of $450,000 in excess of the cost for the rest of the city, which means that it cost the people of that attractive city nearly half a million dollars yearly to maintain this large slum area. It was estimated that if a million dollars had been spent in slum clearance, it would have been possible to amortize this amount over a twenty-year period at an annual cost of $77,000, which would give the city a saving of about $350,000 a year.
I might direct attention to an interesting report that was presented to this house in 1935, when a special committee was set up to look into the housing situation. I am sorry to say that only three of the members of that committee are still here: the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church); the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray), and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). In this report there is a statement showing the cost of the slums in the city of Cleveland:
According to an intensive survey made in Cleveland of a slum district where two and one half per cent of the population lived, 22 per cent of the murders were committed, 6-8 per cent of boy delinquency, and 12J per cent of the tuberculosis deaths occurred in this area. Although the per capita cost of fire protection in the city of Cleveland is only $3.12 the cost in the slum area is $18.72. Although the total tax income of this area is only $225,000 the total municipal expenses are $1,356,000, leaving a deficit of $1,131,000, which must be made up by the rest of the community. If you add the contribution
of the various unofficial agencies, such as visiting nurses association, maternity hospitals, etc., we add $615,000, so the total deficiency is $1,740,000.
In the same report a table is submitted showing what proportion of the family income should be spent in rent. White-collar workers, receiving an income of from $1,000 to $1,500, might spend one-third of the income for rent, or $34.70 a month. Artisans, receiving an income of $850 to $1,025, spent one-quarter or $19.60 a month. Semi-skilled workers could not spend over one-fifth, or $12.50 a month on the average, and unskilled, on the wages they were receiving, could not spend more than $9.20 a month. The committee submitted recommendations which have received consideration by subsequent governments, but unfortunately the recommendations have not been acted upon to as great an extent as might have been expected. In the evidence it is emphasized that:
A national emergency will soon develop unless the building of dwellings be greatly increased.
The formulation, institution and pursuit of a policy of adequate housing should be accepted as a social responsibility.
There is no apparent prospect of the low rental housing need being met through unaided private enterprise, building for profit.
This report was submitted in 1935. Unfortunately since that time very little consideration has been given to achieving this general objective. I am very glad to say that the government has recognized that the housing of people in our industries is an essential part of our war effort. In the United States the same policy is being followed.
I have in my hands a copy of Business Week for January 3, 1942, in which it is stated that the President of the United States in the previous week had signed an appropriation to bring housing money up over the billion mark. It mentions that defence housing has gained recognition as a major war project. During the last war United States industry found that they had wastages of as much as 10 per cent, as a direct result of being unable to find for their workers housing adjacent to factories. We are already experiencing similar difficulties in Canada.
Recently I visited one of the munitions industries in the Toronto region. The people of Canada have invested over $5,000,000 in providing plant and equipment in this particular factory, and I must congratulate the minister upon the excellent work that ha3 been done there. As far as I could see they are doing a very good job, but the management informed me that they are now experiencing a problem which apparently had not been anticipated. There are men who are coming as far as fifteen miles to work. During a
War Appropriation-Supplies

time of unemployment men will travel fifteen or twenty miles, if necessary, to find employment ; but during a time of nearly full employment, if a man can find work within three blocks of his home, even if it is in a nonessential industry, he is likely to find an excuse for being dismissed from the essential industry. I am informed that this particular company has submitted a brief to the department suggesting that consideration be given to the providing of houses in that particular area.
A little over a year ago the minister persuaded the government to agree to set aside
810.000,000 for the purpose of going into the business of building houses. Since that time I understand commitments have been undertaken which will require at least $30,000,000. I am not criticizing the minister for the amount of money that is being spent. As a matter of fact I do not think he is spending enough money on this particular phase of the war effort. If we assume that it is going to cost a billion dollars a year to produce the munitions, it is conceivable that we shall have a wastage of 5 per cent or even 10 per cent. We suffer a loss of $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year as a direct result of not having adequate housing available in the areas the men are employed. Therefore I am not criticizing the minister for spending too much money on this very important project.
I do feel, however, that the projects are open to criticism, on two grounds. In the first place we are building potential slum areas under Wartime Housing, Limited. I know the minister has stated that these houses are to be demolished when the war is over. Past experiences in every country however, have demonstrated that temporary houses will not be torn down as long as there are in the various communities less desirable houses being occupied. If the moneys spent on wartime housing were being spent in isolated places where industries have been established-industries which will be demolished when the war is over-I would not be so concerned. But if we look over the returns which have been brought down to the house, we find that large sums of money have been spent in Halifax, Hamilton, Vancouver and other cities in Canada where there is a very serious shortage of permanent housing.
Therefore, in deciding a policy of wartime housing the government should consider first of all the amount of labour available in Canada, the amount of material available, and the time element-whether there is an immediate hurry to have these houses built. As far as cost is concerned, the pronouncement

by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence should be the policy of the government, namely, that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible. That being so, if it is physically possible to build permanent houses, then by all means let us make it financially possible. We cannot afford in Canada at this time to spend $30,000,000 on the building of potential slum areas. I submit that the temporary houses which are being built are going to become potential slum areas.
I feel the department is open to a second criticism, on cost and on construction. Hon. members have been invited by the minister to visit houses in Hull built by Wartime Housing, Limited. Some lion, members have accepted his invitation, and I think all who have made the visit will agree with me that the taxpayers of Canada have paid a great deal of money for flimsily constructed houses. A return brought down recently placed the cost of these houses at $3,379.
In Ottawa within the last year permanent houses have been built by the national housing administration, under the Department of Finance. I urge hon. members who are interested in housing to visit the wartime housing buildings in Hull, and then to visit the national housing administration houses in Ottawa. A return was brought down on March 27 giving information respecting the building done by the national housing administration. My first question was: "How many single housing units were built under the supervision of the national housing administration during the period September, 1939, to December, 1941?" The answer was "12,852 units." That is a valuable contribution toward solving our housing problem. It is not yet enough, but it is over 12,000 more than we might have had. Then I asked as to the average cost per house, and it was shown that the average cost was $3,750. My next question was as to how many low-priced houses had been built by the national housing administration at $2,500 each, and the answer was "2,433."
I have some plans before me showing the type of houses built under the national housing administration. I refer particularly to a house twenty-four feet by twenty-four feet with two bedrooms, a good sized living room, an attractive kitchen with built-in cupboards and so on and two windows, and a bathroom. This is a permanent house with a full-sized basement, containing a furnace. I recently visited one of these homes in Ottawa, and I was advised by the owner that this house was secure by his making a cash payment of $250 and monthly payments of about $20

War Appropriation-Supplies
including interest, principal and taxes, over a twenty-year period. Actually these people are getting a house of this kind for $250, because their monthly payments are no greater than the rent which wTould be asked for a similar house. They are paying $16.35 a month for twenty years to retire principal and pay the interest, and the taxes bring up the payments to around $20. Recently a change has been made requiring the amount borrowed under the national housing scheme to be repaid within a fifteen-year period. Under this plan, during the first five years when only small expenditures would be required for repairs, the payment amounts to $19.62, and for the next ten years payments drop to $14.60.
The point I am trying to make is that people who are living in these homes are home owners. They take pride in their flowers, trees and lawn; they take pride in owning their first home, and that is a very important consideration. In the basement of this particular home a ping-pong table had been in use during the winter months. This was a fine place for them to spend their evenings. In contrast to this, we have the type of house erected in Hull, built of inferior materials, without a basement or furnace, erected by Wartime Housing Limited. Strange as it may seem, people in Hull are paying $30.20 a month for a house that they will never own, a house that will never give them the source of pride which they would otherwise have.
Speaking in the house last November the minister made reference to having met someone who was living in one of these wartime houses who would not exchange it for a brick-veneer house built some years ago at a cost of $5,200. I do not, for a moment, doubt the minister's word, but he did not mention where that man lived. I think he must have lived up in the territory represented by the hon. member for Yukon. I cannot conceive of a person in Hull or Welland or Hamilton being willing to exchange a $5,200 brick-veneer house for a house built by wartime housing. I can conceive of a man who had built a house in Hudson Bay junction, where I lived for ten years, or in the Yukon or Churchill or the Pas, and who found that he was compelled to live in another province, being willing to trade a $5,200 house for a house of that sort. But I cannot understand anyone being willing to exchange a house that had cost $5,200 for any house built by wartime housing in the same area.
Recently I received from Vancouver an illustrated booklet showing three houses which had been built there under the national housing administration scheme. These houses are quite attractive looking, nicely painted, with brick
chimneys, lined flues, full-sized basements, furnaces, hardwood floors and modern conveniences. They were built at a cost of $2,500 each. In the same booklet there is a picture of houses built by wartime housing. When the booklet was prepared it was assumed that these houses were being built at a cost of around $2,000, but the return I have states that these temporary houses, without basements and without furnaces, were built at a cost of $2,996.97. I cannot understand how permanent houses can be built in greater Vancouver for a down payment of $250 cash and $20 a month for a twenty-year period, when other workers are required to pay from $20 to $30 a month for inferior houses which will never become their property.
There is one other point I want to make before I conclude. So far the government has not given consideration to the building of houses which will be available for the families of men who are with the navy, the army or the air force. From what has been said in the house, I gather that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) does not consider that the building of houses is his concern. I find that on April 28, as reported on page 1942 of Hansard, he stated what unfortunately appears to be the position of the government. He said:
I must take this position-it is the position taken by my colleague the Minister of Finance *-that this question of housing the citizens of Canada-not people moving transiently-is the problem of the municipalities rather than that of the federal government.
As I mentioned earlier, hundreds of men from every part of Canada have joined the air force, the navy and the army, prepared to go any place in the world and to risk their lives. The relatives of some of these men are coming to our civic authorities and saying that their husbands are away fighting for their homes, but they have no homes; they complain that they cannot secure houses. The wife of a private with two children receives a monthly allowance of $79. I should like to know where in Ottawa or Toronto or Hamilton or Winnipeg the wife of a soldier would be able to rent suitable quarters for one-fifth of that amount, or $15.80.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply is in charge of the building programme for the government, and I think he should give careful consideration to the building of low-priced houses to be made available to the relatives of those who are with our forces. Air force camps have been built in many small communities, and the relatives of many of the permanent staff would like to find

War Appropriation-Supplies


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I have explained this several times, but I shall be glad to go over the ground once more. The national housing policy presents quite a different problem from that presented by wartime housing. The money for national housing is available and has been continuously available to anyone who cares to take advantage of it. It has been used largely by speculative builders who took advantage of the terms quite legitimately in order to build houses, and sell them on a rental basis.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Where has that sort of thing been done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The town of Port Arthur is one place about which I happen to know something.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They are built by
speculative builders?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are sold on a rental-lease basis. The owner is seldom the initial borrower. Frequently he is, but I think the majority of these houses are built on a speculative arrangement.
{Mr. Nicholson.]


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the minister is misinformed in that connection. As I understand the act, the owner must be the borrower.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, we will not argue that; my hon. friend may be better posted than I am. But I know that in my own town the arrangements at least are made as a rule by a builder, perhaps for an owner, and the owner may be brought into it before the house is started. Usually these houses are built, not singly, but a number at the same time, in my own town.
I believe the mortgage is made by the owner direct with the department; I am not sure of the mechanics of the thing. This arrangement is, of course, for a house built by a man who lives in a community in which he expects to remain for many years. Wartime housing is not for that sort of an owner. As my hon. friend knows, we have moved great numbers of our population from one city to another, from the prairies to the cities, from the cities to plants built in small communities; and wartime housing is built to take care of the man who has been so dislocated. That is all that it was ever intended for. It is quite different and distinct from houses built under the National Housing Act.
For this purpose we have provided a type of construction which, while giving the owner every comfort, is not expensive. My hon. friend speaks of "inferior materials". He is quite mistaken. The housing materials which go into the wartime housing project are the best that are used in building generally. They are not elaborate, but there is nothing shoddy about the wartime housing house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister seen the houses in Hull?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The houses in Hull are like those elsewhere. Has my hon. friend seen a wartime housing development which has been in existence for a year or two? I went to Windsor yesterday and saw wartime houses there. I found that there was a wartime housing improvement association of tenants putting in shrubs and building playgrounds. I may say, as one who has something to do with this, that I felt quite proud of that community. I have yet to hear a complaint from a tenant. I visit these housing projects wherever I can, and I have heard plenty of criticisms from dealers in lumber, from dealers in hardware, and from people like my hon. friend, but I have yet to hear a complaint from a tenant; in fact some very nice remarks have been made by tenants of these houses. It is always a pleasure for me to visit them.
My hon. friend asks why they cost-as he says-more than permanent housing. I doubt

War Appropriation-Supplies
very much if they do. But I would point this out. The builder of a home under the National Housing Act becomes a permanent citizen of his community and he is entitled to the rights of a citizen. He goes on a street which is developed; he attaches to the existing sewerage system and the existing water mains. The city pays part of his local improvements and he pays the remainder in taxes over a period of years. He is a taxpayer; he is entitled to the use of the services of the city, to everything which is the right and privilege of the taxpayer. But wartime housing is a temporary invader of the community. It does not become a citizen; it does not pay ordinary taxes, but it relieves the city of any expenditure on its account. When we go into a city we very often build our own streets, our own sewerage systems, our own water systems. Sometimes the expenditures for these purposes are very considerable. There is a case in Hamilton, I believe, where we have built almost a complete sewerage system and a complete water system. All that is charged against the houses. Our tenants do not pay taxes. We, as owners, pay the city the school taxes, and something more, by an arrangement we have made in all the provinces and which has been approved by the provincial governments and accepted by the cities in which we build. Therefore the tenants of our houses pay their rents, but no taxes.
As to the reason why these houses are constructed as they are. We do not wish to establish populations permanently where they are to-day. It is not desirable. The city of Windsor, I suppose, has almost twice the population it had at the beginning of the war. These people came from farms; they have houses elsewhere; we hope that after the war a goodly number will go back to their farms; that is, to their permanent residences. We have built sizeable communities around war plants which we know definitely will close down after the war-for instance, plants manufacturing ammunition and plants filling shells. These are temporary war projects and must necessarily be sold. There is no post-war use, that I know of, of an ammunition plant or a shell-filling plant. We had them during the last war, and when it was over the buildings were torn down. I doubt whether these plants will be demolished, but they cannot, I believe, be adapted to any other useful purpose. This means that these communities will disappear after the war. The advantage of the present method of construction is that the tenants can take these houses with them if they like. They are easily demountable, easily removable. They can be put upon
permanent foundations, and first-class houses can be had with a very small additional expenditure. We hope that by building this class of house we can, after the war, if there is a movement of population elsewhere, take care of them. We have not a number of houses which, my hon. friend says, are bound to grow into slums. Nothing of the sort. If there is any tendency of that sort, the houses will be removed. In case the houses are needed where they are to-day, it is the simplest thing in the world to jack them up, put a permanent basement under them, install a central heating system, and thereby have as good a house of that class as can be obtained.
The type of house which we use is the type which is being used to the south of us for the same purpose. Demountable houses are being constructed there. Inquiries lead us to believe that the housing situation in the United States is not being met in as orderly a way as it is in Canada. We have been able to keep up to reasonable requirements, and we intend to continue doing so.
We do not lead the way in housing. We like to have a demand before we build, but we are reasonably keeping up with the demand. Officials of wartime housing are constantly studying the various centres of war industry to determine the housing needs. We have local committees who also study the question. If we have a considerable number of applications for wartime housing, there is no delay in starting a new project. In Windsor there are now, I believe, 1,300 houses. In addition, there are about 700 applications, and we are starting immediately to build another 500 houses in that city.
Therefore we are keeping reasonably up to the requirements of our war industries. As far as the ordinary civilian population is concerned, that is a somewhat different story. It is not the purpose of wartime housing to look after them. We still have the National Housing Act which can be used, and if, as my hon. friend says, it is so much better and cheaper, it is surprising that more people do not take advantage of it. In any event, we have the National Housing Act. We have helped out on occasions in many cities. If there is a demand of the type to which my hon. friend refers, we make available to the city, by arrangement, a certain number of war-time houses. I believe that in Hamilton we have made twenty available. Usually five or ten are all that are required. Windsor is exceptional. There, in addition to the twenty I have mentioned, we intend to make a few more available.
War Appropriation-Supplies

I assure my hon. friend that, where there is wartime housing, no conditions are allowed to rise which the city itself considers to be a condition of distress. We have always been quite willing to help a city in circumstances of that kind. I think wartime housing has served a useful purpose, and I am not at all ashamed of the type of houses we have built. As temporary houses go, I think they are first rate. We have a list of satisfied tenants, and I have yet to hear a direct complaint from one of them. The houses are well looked after by local committees, and on the whole I must say that the enterprise has turned out quite as well as I hoped it would when the work was first planned.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has not fully dealt with the question regarding the cost in Hull. The sum of $3,379 appears to me ts be a very high cost. I agree that in areas where the population will not be located permanently there is a real place for wartime housing, but these houses in Hull will be occupied, for example, by people employed in the Ottawa Car and Aircraft, and the situation here is that we need permanent houses, and a great many of them. If the time factor were of importance I could understand that some of these houses might be built, but in the return brought down the other day it was shown, with regard to the houses in Hull, that they were supposed to 'be completed, some by October 17 and all by December 17. I was there the other day and only thirty-four or thirty-six were occupied by the 1st of May, which would indicate that there has not been a very great demand for houses immediately for the people considered to be in war industry. These houses cost $3,379, and I submit that in Ottawa better houses have been built for $2,500. It is true that these minimum cost houses have only two bedrooms while the others have four, but how is the difference in cost to be explained? There are lots available in Ottawa where houses could be built, where it would not be necessary to go to the expense of providing the services that are furnished in Hull. Taking into consideration the needs of the community in Ottawa and Hull, I cannot see why the people of Canada should embark upon a programme of building houses, paying $3,379 for temporary houses, when better permanent houses might have been built for the same sum or less.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was interested in what the hon. member said, but it must be remembered that in the $3,300 there is included $20 a foot for right of way, $17 a foot for the sewer, and all the other things. They are all included in the price.


James Lester Douglas: They are included in the $2,500 too.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member said, I understood, $3,300.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Those things are included in the cheaper houses too.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then there is construction. If the sewer goes through rock that is something that enters into the cost.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But all these things are known by wartime housing.


Humphrey Mitchell: The chairman of Wartime Housing, Limited, is a personal friend of mine, one of the ablest builders and contractors in the dominion. After all, eveiy man after his own line. I will, however, say this about the houses. They are better houses than I lived in when I was first married, when I spent the happiest moments of my life.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That does not prove anything.


Humphrey Mitchell: It does prove everything, I may say to my hon. friend the member for Weyburn. I have lived in cities all my life and I know something about cost of construction. I was in the building trades; I was raised in them, and I know something about the cost that enters into these houses, the cost of building roads, sewers, sidewalks and all the other services that are required. I know something of costs spread over a term of years, in taxes and so on, in an organized community, and all these things are included in the cost of houses. Wartime housing services industry; the service must be rendered quickly; and, as the minister pointed out, in the very nature of things it cannot be permanent. All one has to do is to go back to the last war and see what happened not only in Canada but in the country to the south of us. See what happened in the New England states. When the war was over and various industries collapsed, as they will, then there was another shift of population back to ordinary peace-time pursuits. I think we should take a long view of the matter. One thing that is necessary when the war is over is that we should have a cushion for the construction trades, and I do not know of a better cushion than the building industry. I should like to see a tremendous building programme when the war is over. That will be the time to embark upon a long-term building programme in houses of a permanent nature such as those to which my hon. friend refers. As I say, we should have a tremendous permanent building programme under the direction of the government when the war is over.

War Appropriation-Supplies
I have a vivid recollection of coming back from the last war and seeing the kind of houses that were built for the men who returned from overseas, and I hope that when this war is concluded we shall have a better type of construction for the soldiers who will come back from overseas than we had after the last war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the minister has not explained the difference of $800 between the two types of houses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not preventing anyone from building the other kind of house. If a man wishes to build under the National Housing Act, he can borrow 90 per cent of the money from the government and go ahead and build a house of that kind. If he can do so, why does he not?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister
is begging the question. The fact is that this is the Canadian people's money, and if we can build a good house for $2,500 we should not spend $3,300 to build an inferior one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The proper place to investigate the cost of housing is in the committee on war expenditures, where all costs are laid on the table and one can see where the money goes. It is no use arguing with me that this is an expensive house when I say it is a cheap house. I know what materials cost. I know what labour costs. I know what sewage and land cost. I know the houses are well built, built by an expert builder, and at reasonable cost. My hon. friend can debate all night that the houses are expensive, but if we lay the costs on the table it will be necessary for him ;o show where the money was wasted. I love to hear people who have no possible way of knowing anything about the building business, in this case, two gentlemen of the Gospel, which is a fine pursuit, arguing with me, who have been all my life in such business and know something about the facts, and telling me that these houses are too expensive. It is hardly an even argument, and we could go on arguing for some time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister mentioned the committee on war expenditures. That raises a very important question. Let me point out to him that the war expenditures committee has been selected, and when it was set up the Prime Minister said that it could be enlarged. Three subcommittees were set up. We tried to get that committee to arrange that there should be one representative from our group and one from the Social Credit group on each subcommittee, but we have no representative on the subcommittee investigating wartime housing. The minister therefore cannot throw the responsibility upon us. The minister says that certain men are clergymen and therefore do not know as much about houses as he does. That is possible. But even a clergyman knows the difference between a house with a basement and a house without a basement, a house with a furnace and a house without a furnace, and if the latter costs more than the former then an explanation is needed. As far as this group is concerned, we have one representative on the war expenditures committee, and the supporters of the government prevented us from having representation on the subcommittee investigating wartime housing.


Mr. CHURCH:: I have a few words to say in connection with this housing proposition. This was a Conservative policy in 1935 at a time when hon. gentlemen of the third party did nothing about it. During the dark days of the depression in 1935 when the Bennett government was in office a motion on the subject of housing and reconstruction was made by me when the construction industry was down and out. The resolution was debated for two days; a housing committee was appointed by our then leader, and after sitting for three months it presented a comprehensive report to the house. Under this resolution wartime housing only is before the committee at the present time.	I am not going to discuss
housing except to say that during the last war I had a great deal to do with the housing situation in Toronto and the many suburbs and municipalities clustered around that city with a population of 1,100,000 people. The city took over the street railway radials and started the buses, because the housing problem is largely a transportation problem, and provided good municipal services, water, roads, sewers, and other services. If you have the transportation and the sewers, water supplies, lights and heating, then the housing will go ahead. Twice the number of houses were built at that time than in the years after the war, and shortly before its close by the city building civic car lines.
Our housing committee made its report to the house in 1935. The Bennett government adopted it but was defeated in the general election of that year, but the main part of the report was adopted by the present government which came in and some $76,000,000 have been spent. That is permanent housing work. I wrote Mr. Pigott, the chairman of wartime housing, a couple of weeks after his appointment and asked him if he would make a survey of the houses needed in the Toronto district. He did, but the municipalities have to apply to them for wartime houses, or the use of them for soldiers. I found that the
War Appropriation-Supplies

So I urge upon the government a vast shipbuilding scheme, and not an hour or a day should be lost. We are not yet able and will not for a year yet be able to challenge the supremacy of Japan in the Pacific. Japan now has the same command over the Pacific that Germany has over the Baltic when the Russian ports are closed by ice, and in the Black sea. Japan does not need to establish a military blockade of the main forces of her enemies to keep them away from the areas she has seized so far. She is able to hold them without that. She is there in sea command. Japan is pursuing her campaign in an area stretching over fifteen thousand miles, going from island to island like a circus, but this cannot go on forever. I believe once she loses command of the sea she cannot supply or reinforce her scattered garrisons or draw from the conquered territories those supplies for which she entered the war. There is only one road to victory for the allies; that is, to reestablish command of the Pacific, as effectively as we now have command of the Atlantic. But command of the seas can be achieved only by the destruction or neutralization of the blockade being maintained by the Japanese navy.
I believe it is largely the fault of Canada that Japan is in her present position, because, up to the hour she declared war on us, we exported large quantities of copper, aluminum, nickel, pig iron, scrap iron and so on to enable Japan to build her fleet. At one time Canada had a magnificent merchant marine, built by the government during the last war and since. What did wre do with it and the Canadian National Railway Merchant Marine? In 1935, when Hitler was rearming, he was getting his base materials for the manufacture of war equipment largely from Canada and other countries. On March 23, 1938, Hansard, page 1614, appears an answer to a question by Viscount Bennett, showing the Canadian National Railways ships that had been disposed of, their size and the amount received
for them, as follows;	Tons	SaleName	deadweight	priceCanadian Cruiser 	. 10,500	$50,077Canadian Constructor ..	. 10,500	50,077Canadian Challenger . ..	. 8,390	40,013Canadian Highlander ..	. 8,390	40,013Canadian Britisher ....	. 8,390	40,013Canadian Leader 	. 8,390	40,013Canadian Scottish 	. 8,390	40,013Canadian Conqueror ...	. 8,350	39,823Canadian Victor	. 8.350	39,823Canadian Planter 	. . 8,340	40,061
Some of those boats cost a very great deal, a million dollars and more. The Princess type of boats also were sold, or thrown away, by the Canadian National Railways for a [Mi Church.1
trifle, together with many other ships which could be used very well to-day because war came two or three years after their sale. In addition, many of the scrapped national railway cars Were sold by the maintenance department of the Canadian National to private dealers, who in turn sold them to Japan to enable that country to get on with its preparations for war.
I suggest that there might be some reorganization of the work in the production department. Indeed, I have some suggestions. Would it not be well to arrange now to establish regional executive production councils in the provinces, who could decentralize this work of production. They could meet weekly in regional centres and thereby ensure administrative decentralization, acceleration of decisions and economy of money and man-power. Supply departments and all appropriate government services would be represented. There would be a reorganization of production, by regions, instead of having centralization of everything here in Ottawa and so speed up production in all departments. Such a committee would include representatives of employees' organizations, the federation of manufacturers, and the trades union councils of this country.
Regional boards such as I suggest would meet in a panel, and questions of production of all kinds in factories, including defects in organization for the laying out of the plant, difficulties in connection with labour or staff, the misuse of labour or machine tools, financial or labour difficulties, or the existence of administrative obstacles, would be dealt with. Statistics would be furnished to aid industry in connection with munitions plants-to show where production is behind. Any complaint could always be dealt with on the ground. This would show things up in the organization and administration and strategy of production.
I was glad to note that the hon. member for Davenport made such a fine speech the other day on the development of our resources. I read it in Hansard, and I have in mind a somewhat similar subject, namely the national coal supply and the use of an oil pipeline, brought up by me on May 3, 1929. I have had that subject of a national fuel supply before the house for many years.. It is only in the last hundred years that science has discovered the power inherent in coal, oil and falling water. I believe the points raised by the hon. member were well taken, and that we should do everything we can to tiy to develop production of the

War Appropriation-Supplies
natural resources of this country along the lines indicated, including a pipeline to Ontario.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In connection with shipbuilding I might give the committee some information which would be of interest. Tonight at midnight two west coast yards are each launching a 10,000-ton freighter. One of them was completed at the yard, in every way, in eighty days from the time the first piece of steel was laid for the keel. That is a record up to this date. Those two shipyards have just begun a three-shift, seven-day-weelc operation. They are the only two yards we have been able to staff up fully. I expect that later launchings will show a still shorter time of construction up to the point of launching. However, as I have said to the committee, we are at the present time delivering one ship, complete for sailing, every four days.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: May I return to the subject of housing? I am interested in this matter as a citizen of Canada, and as one who is interested in seeing that the people of Canada get value for their money spent. There is upwards of $30,000,000 I believe, being spent on this project, and it is only about half-way through.
After studying the matter I am of opinion that we are not getting value for our money. I went through several of these houses in different parts of Canada, and in every one of the cases the story is just about the same. I might cite an experience I had this last week-end when I visited some friends in St. Catharines. I went through a wartime housing project, and I gathered some facts. I took with me an experienced lumberman and a man who is a plumbing contractor. Both of those men know their business.
One of these houses is twenty-eight feet by twenty-four feet with no basement, nd foundation. The frames which the minister talks about are laid on posts which are driven into the ground. The construction outside is asphalt shingle, and it is spun rock wool insulated in the walls. The inside of the house is gyproc board, and it was very poorly put on, shoddily built-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a minute; is that my hon. friend's opinion or an expert opinion; and, if so, who is the expert?


George Hugh Castleden: It is not necessary to
give that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have yet to know that
these are shoddily built houses, and I cannot accept my hon. friend's word unless he gives authority.


George Hugh Castleden: I will accept-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will not accept it. I know
something about the plan of these houses, and I know the men who build them. The hon. member is giving an expert opinion.


George Hugh Castleden: If you are-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that the hon. member withdraw the term "shoddily built."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Withdraw
nothing-ridiculous.


George Hugh Castleden: I ask to be permitted to complete my statement. The evidence upon which I based the fact that this gyproc was poorly put on was the fact that the plaster supposed to be placed in the joints of gyproc was falling off.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Give me the street and
address of that house, and I will bring a photograph of it.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be very glad to do that on the minister's commitment that there will be no persecution or intimidation of the people who live in that house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The people who live in the
house I am sure did not tell the hon. member what he has stated.


George Hugh Castleden: I was in the Jiouse
with the people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And they told the hon. member, did they?


George Hugh Castleden: No; I saw the plaster
falling off; I saw it on the floor.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why, then, would I intimidate the residents of the house?


George Hugh Castleden: I know perfectly well
it is not wise to give people's names in this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have
learned that by experience.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a moment. Give me
one name that has been used in this house, following which there has been persecution. People are using loose language over there in that section of the house, and I do not care for it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister
is using loose language himself, and I do not like it, either.

War Appropriation-Supplies


George Hugh Castleden: I will give the minister the address, and he can have an investigation of the matter. I will be very glad to receive the report of the investigation. It is at 84 Grass street, St. Catharines. There is no furnace in the house; there is a furnacette, series DB. The plumbing, complete, as done by a private contractor-and this man estimated it-would be about $185. The contractors, as they are doing here, are putting up three or four hundred houses, and I should think that in large quantities it would be much less.
There was an electric heater in the kitchen tank, and the wiring was done without switches. There were pull sockets in the kitchen and bedroom. The floors in this house were finished with a poor grade of spruce. There was no fireplace in the living room, and no brick chimney. The outside of the house was asphalt shingle; there was no eavestrough, and there was an open porch. I have asked for a return showing the cost, but I have not received it. However, the average cost of these wartime houses runs between $2,500 and $3,200 in other places.
In the same city I went to another house which had been built by a private contractor under the national housing scheme. The people were living in that house. It was thirty-two feet by twenty-two feet. There was an 8-inch double brick wall, plastered on the inside, strapped and lath and plaster interior. The cellar was full size, with a 7-foot wall. There is a 10-inch cement block wall. Theijgtfs a pipe furnace complete, valued at $165:' The plumbing was of a superior kind, and the joints were hidden in the floor as they should be. They were not exposed, as they were in wartime housing building. There was a cement laundry-tub, a hot-water tank and a coil. There was a built-in bathtub, with shower. The wiring was complete, with double switches, centre lights, a nice fireplace in the living room, and a good chimney. There were double floors done in oak, and inlaid linoleum on the kitchen and bathroom floors. The outside was of rug brick and asphalt shingles. There was a cement walk and an outer porch. It was graded, and a lawn had been sown.
I asked a number of people to compare the values, and one said that he would rather pay $3,500 for the house built under national housing than $800 for the house built by wartime housing. I have great respect for the minister's knowledge of construction. The construction company he headed has a reputation throughout Canada, but I think he is mistaken when he states that the houses built by wartime housing are built so that they can be taken 
down and the people can take them with them. He says that everything is demountable in sections, but perhaps I may be permitted to give my opinion. I cannot see how one would be able to take asphalt shingles off these houses. The floors are laid across the different sections, and they could not be removed. The salvage value of what would be left would not be very much.
This lumberman told me that the salvage value would be about $400. That is what he would bid if he were figuring on buying. I do not see how it can be said that they are demountable in sections when one would have to take up the floor, tear out the gyproc and take off the asphalt shingles. As I say, this lumberman estimated the value of the lumber in the house at about $400. If the price of these buildings is anything like the price of the rest of the houses-I have a question on the order paper to-morrow asking for the cost of these houses

I think it is time that the matter was investigated.
Probably the real explanation was given by the Minister of Labour who, I think, settled the matter when he said, first, that he had not lived in a house as good as these when he was first married. That has no bearing on what it is costing the people of Canada to put up these houses. Second, he said that he was a personal friend of the president who, I believe, is Mr. Pigott, a dollar-a-year man, and of the .general manager, Mr. Goggin, who is receiving $10,000 a year as head of wartime housing. This wartime housing is a government company with the central managing point in Toronto, and it lets contracts to various contractors. I think the Minister of Labour put his finger upon the point when he said, third, that the main thing to look forward to at this time was that the construction industry should have a cushion after the war. I think it is far more important that the people should see that this administration gives value for the money expended. We should not be providing soft cushions for any industry at the expense of people living in homes like these.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think when my hon. friend said that he went through the houses with a lumber dealer he told the whole story. Naturally the lumber dealers are not fond of wartime housing because all the lumber is bought wholesale in carload lots.


George Hugh Castleden: That should make it cheaper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It makes it so much cheaper that the local lumber dealers can not handle it.

War Appropriation-Supplies


George Hugh Castleden: There was no competition. This man was an independent man; he was not interested in contracts, and he was not going there with that idea.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend said that he was a lumber dealer. I suppose he will not change his mind on that?


George Hugh Castleden: I am not changing my mind on anything I have said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will settle that he was a local lumber dealer.


George Hugh Castleden: I said that he was an experienced lumberman.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not a lumber dealer? Surely my hon. friend should know whether he was a lumber dealer. He said he was a lumberman. What does a lumberman do? Does he deal in lumber?


George Hugh Castleden: He understands lumber.
Mr. H0W7E: Does he deal in lumber? Can my hon. friend say yes or no?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes; he deals in
lumber.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right, thank you. The construction of these houses are let by competitive tender. Every reputable contractor in the countiy has a chance to bid, and the contract is given to the low bidder. The materials are bought in carload lots at controlled prices. If my hon. friend cares to sit in on the committee on wartime expenditures he will find that the prices will be laid on the table. He will then see, that they are very attractive prices indeed for materials. As I say, the materials are bought in carload lots with every discount that the trade can possibly stand. My hon. friend complains that his group is not allowed to attend this committee, but I have a note here which says-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister should not put words in my mouth and say that we were not allowed to attend the committee. I said that we had no representative on the subcommittee investigating wartime housing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that you are allowed to attend and take part in the deliberations, and I am told that when hon. members found that it was not a public meeting, they left the subcommittee. That is my information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a
question of privilege. The minister ought to get his information from the same expert
authority he has been demanding that other people should get theirs from. He certainly ought not to base remarks made in this house on notes handed to him unless he knows the note has some basis in fact. This group have never left any committee. I should like to point out to the minister that we have only one representative on the wartime expenditures committee, and there are three subcommittees. Consequently we have only a representative on the one subcommittee, No. 3, and we have no representative on subcommittees Nos. 1 and 2. Any hon. member may sit in on the committee, but we have no representation on those two subcommittees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless the first speaker attended the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is not a member of the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He attended for a while.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He attended one or two meetings, but it was made very clear to him that if he attended any sittings in camera he was bound to secrecy regarding information given there when discussing matters such as the one before this committee now. The point I want to make to the minister is this: He says it is up to the committee on war expenditures to investigate these prices, but our group has no representation on that committee. Despite the promise of the Prime Minister that the membership of that committee would be increased, the supporters of the government, eighteen out of twenty-four, turned down a motion moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) to increase the size of that committee so that we might have representation on the subcommittees. The only place where we can get any information in connection with wartime housing is in that committee because we have no representation on the subcommittees investigating the matter. We have never left any committee at any time, nor have we refused to sit on any committee in the discharge of our duties.


Mr. GOLDING:: I think the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) wants to be fair with the members of this committee and with the members of the committee on war expenditures. That committee was set up on the same basis as all other special committees are set up. I understand that there were eight special committees sitting to-day, and there are eight or nine cooperative Commonwealth Federation members. As hon. members have said time after time, it is simply impossible
War Appropriation-Supplies

to attend all these special committees, the three subcommittees of the war expenditures committee and the sittings of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We will take care of that.


William Henry Golding: My hon, friend appreciates that. With reference to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), he was invited to sit in. We were glad to have his opinion and he was permitted to ask questions. When the committee decided to sit in camera the hon. member withdrew, as it was his privilege to do. I do not think he felt that he was being treated unfairly by the committee. He had every opportunity of sitting there and listening to the evidence given and the questions asked in connection with this matter now being investigated by that committee. We hope to bring in a report on the matter.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: We are entirely out of order in discussing the work of a committee before it has presented its report.


William Henry Golding: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but it is unfortunate that you did not call others to order before now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to ask the minister about the policy followed to fix the rentals of these wartime houses. I have here a dispatch which appeared in one of the Ottawa papers last month, reading as follows: Replying to aldermen who alleged that rentals of Wartime Housing, Limited's houses in Hull of $30.20 a month are too high, Mayor Brunet said last night the reason was that representations were made to rent them at that figure to wartime housing officials. The representations were made so as to protect Hull property owners.
Are these rents fixed to protect property owners, or are they fixed on a basis of retiring the government investment over a period of five or ten years, or just what policy is followed in deciding that the rent shall be $30.20 a month? I understand the house has four bedrooms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not a four-bedroom
house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The only houses that are being rented in Hull are, I understand, the four-bedroom houses. The others, I understand, are not yet completed. Anyway, the press report says that the rent is $30.20. What policy is followed in relation to the item which I read?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is not correct. The standard four-room house is-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is a six-roomed
house. I said four bedrooms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The six-room house is rented at $30. Of the four-room houses, what we call the smaller four-room is rented at $22, the larger four-room at $25, and the six-room house at $30. These amounts were fixed1 on the basis of reasonable amortization of the cost, but were lowered somewhat to be in keeping with the average salary paid to the class of tenant that we get. It is somewhat below the amount required for amortization.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the original
order in council, P.C. 1286, was passed on February 24, 1941, it contained this provision:
Such agreement shall have no effect until it has been approved by the governor general in council; and upon such approval the company may exercise the powers and shall discharge the duties set forth in such agreement; and also may exercise and shall discharge such other powers and duties as may in such order in council, or from time to time be conferred or charged upon it by the governor general in council.
On the 24th of April another order in council was passed adding:
or by the Minister of Munitions and Supply under the authority of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
In other words, when the first order in council was passed it must have been thought desirable to refer these agreements to the governor general in council. Later, that position was reconsidered, and apparently they just refer them to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Why the change in policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As projects are approved,
each individual project is approved by order in council and the appropriation is made. As a matter of mechanics, the individual contracts are signed by munitions and supply. It is thought unwise first to get the project approved and then go back and get the individual contracts approved. Personally I see nothing sinister in that; if my hon. friend does, perhaps we shall change it back again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am merely asking
for information. I think I am entitled to it.
My next question is this. Section 4, paragraph (c) of P.C. 1286, reads:
(c) it may draw upon the personnel and upon the economic and other technical resources relating to housing presently available in the government service, and in particular shall utilize the services of the housing branch of the Department of Finance.
Valuable work has been done in this field by the national housing administration, by the Department of Pensions and National Health, and by the national research council. The research work done over a period of

War Appropriation-Supplies
years could be made available for wartime housing, and particularly they should use the services of the housing branch of the Department of Finance. I find that the later order in council, P.C. 2842, deletes this paragraph. What was the reason for the deletion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A considerable part of the staff of the national housing branch was moved in with wartime housing. They seemed somewhat unhappy about the arrangement, and gradually drifted back to Ottawa, and I doubt if any of them are left. But such information as was at hand was supposed to be placed at the disposal of wartime housing, and I daresay it was.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My information was that no advantage had been taken of the work done by the national research council, or by the Department of Pensions and National Health. I know that similar information can be obtained, over a period of time, but it seems to me that the provision in paragraph (c) of section 4 was a valuable one, enabling the company to "draw upon the personnel and upon the economic and other technical resources relating to housing presently available", and I cannot see any good reason why, on the 24th of April, it was decided that they should not take advantage of that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure they have drawn on all the information that could be of any value to them. The question was thoroughly studied. Mr. Somerville, one of the directors, is an architect of wide exeprience, who has always interested himself in housing projects. The other directors are men of considerable experience, and I know that in the course of their work they have consulted not only our own institutions, but various authorities in Washington and elsewhere. I believe that no lack of study has been given to these houses.


Mr. GREEN:: Perhaps we can take up another subject for a few minutes. The minister has made statements which would lead one to believe that the government is now thinking of embarking upon a policy of finding oil in Canada. Of course the reason is quite easy to see: there is a great shortage of oil.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no change of policy.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister explain in what way the government proposes to carry out that policy? For example, does the minister propose to encourage private
companies to do the exploring for oil and to undertake the research work, or will such companies be subsidized by the government, or is it the intention that the government itself will drill the wells and take whatever other steps are necessary to try to find more oil in Canada? That is one question I should like the minister to answer.
Another is with regard to power. He told the committee last year that it was not the policy of the government to aid in the development of power. In the intervening period, I believe, some assistance has been given to certain power companies in the way of allowances for taxation purposes. I do not know whether that has been done extensively, but I understand that it has been done in some instances. It would be of interest to the committee to know the present policy of the government with regard to power.
The third question has to do with shipbuilding. The minister said the other day that we are launching a merchant ship every four days, and that he hoped that the programme would be accelerated until we were launching a ship every three days. Of course, this merchant shipbuilding is of vital importance to the united nations, and it would seem to be a matter of going the limit-we must build every ship we possibly can. Is it the intention to provide more berths in the present shipbuilding yards, or are new yards to be developed, or what is the policy of the government with regard to the extension of the shipbuilding industry?
In that connection the minister might explain the new government company which has been set up to take charge of the operation of these ships. I think it is called Park Steamships Limited. It would be interesting to know the details as to just what that company is supposed to do, whether it is to operate all the ships that are being built, or whether some are to be turned over to Great Britain. Can the minister give us a report on the developments that have taken place recently along that line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has not been the policy of the government to date to invest directly in the development of oil. We have encouraged drilling by permitting a write-off of development expenses of a well before the earnings of the well become taxable, and that has been a stimulant to drilling. We have extended the work of the geological surveys. The government is now in partnership with the government of New Brunswick and is making a thorough investigation of the oil shale deposits in that province. Conversations are going on with regard to the development of the Peace

War Appropriation-Supplies
River area of British Columbia. The government of that province undertook some time ago to develop this field with public funds.


Howard Charles Green: They are still drilling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are still drilling, and it seems to us that while it is a sound way to proceed, perhaps it is too slow to meet the present situation and we are suggesting other means of doing it. We have not arrived at any conclusion, for which reason I will not say much about it. As regards the Alberta tar sands, I do not know whether I can announce a policy at the moment. This field is being thoroughly studied, and we hope to formulate a policy after we have determined what the problem is. There has been a small pilot plant operating on the tar sands, but its operation has never been wholly successful. There are several problems there which have never been worked out in a way to encourage development on a large scale, and one of the principal difficulties is the mining of the sands themselves. That is being extensively studied, and I hope that before the middle of June we shall have a report on it which will enable the government to evolve a policy. The path seems fairly clear, and it is reasonably certain that the government investment will pay, or at least that we shall get something worth while. We may, in the case of the tar sands, invest directly in the development. I offer that as a possibility only, because no decision has been arrived at and the complete facts are not available at the moment.


Mr. STIRLING:: Considerable survey work
has been going on for a long time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but the problems have not been worked out. The use of the pilot plant is to help to develop a satisfactory operation which will warrant large scale developments, and while that plant has been in operation there are a good many problems that require further development before a large scale plant will be warranted; that is, a plant running into tens of millions of dollars.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It produced 17,000 barrels last season.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but that is not very much oil.


Howard Charles Green: That large scale plant would have to be financed by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Probably.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is the plant at Alexander being operated on an economic
basis?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was burnt down, but my information is that it was never operated on an economic basis. It is a pilot operation. I may say incidentally that a plant of that size has a much better chance of being on an economic basis because the output would be used on the ground. A large development involves transportation to rather distant centres to find a market.


Mr. KINLEY:: Has the minister taken into consideration the oil shales in Nova Scotia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not studied the shales in Nova Scotia, but we have been studying intensively the oil shales in New Brunswick and, if the results are favourable, we shall look farther on.


John James Kinley: Years ago I was a member of the Nova Scotia government, and it was being considered by the department there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have that in mind for further study. In the matter of depreciation on power developments, I would point out the wartime depreciation board does not come under my jurisdiction. What write-offs there have been, I do not know. I know of no direct capital assistance to power development. I do not know of any write-offs except in the case of the development of the Aluminum Company of Canada, worked out in conjunction with aluminum contracts.


Howard Charles Green: Consolidated too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; they got a write-off from the wartime depreciation board for development incidental to their work, a development that could not be justified as an ordinary peace-time operation, but which was valuable to the war effort. Ordinarily we have not gone extensively into the development of hydro-electric power.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation in regard to power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All available power is all being used. Every spare kilowatt in Quebec is being taken to Arvida to make aluminum, and that will continue to be the situation. There is no shortage at the moment, but next winter we shall be short of power. Any worth-while hydro development usually takes two years to construct, and we are bringing in about one million horsepower for the next twelve or fourteen months; but even that is spoken for. We shall continue to use every kilowatt we produce, and we shall still be short.


Howard Charles Green: Are there any plans for developing more power?

War Appropriation-Supplies
25S3


Clarence Decatur Howe: Plans are under way, but not by this government. I have seen an announcement of the Ontario government's scheme, and there are plans for increasing developments at Beauharnois, Shawinigan and one or two other points. I have forgotten what my hon. friend's question was with regard to shipbuilding.


Howard Charles Green: I am not clear whether the government proposes to expand its shipbuilding programme. If it is to be expanded, is it to be done by building new berths in the present yards, or will new yards be developed, or what is the scheme for expanding the shipbuilding industry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The industry is constantly expanding. We never close the door on any industry; we are always expanding. We have laid keels in a new six-berth yard within the last week or two in Montreal. We are expanding berths at Vancouver island, and we are also bringing in new berths at Pictou and Sorel. We attempt to fully staff one yard before we start on the next. We have made mistakes; we have opened new shipyards too soon. Once a yard is fully staffed and on a full-time basis-we have only two yards in the country on that basis-it may be worth while to start another yard; but while a yard in a locality is expanding, it is not considered good business-and we were so warned by experts from the United Kingdom-to start another yard. We are expanding at the moment. We have in mind expansions for the future, but no definite plans. Future expansion will depend on how soon we shall be able to fully staff existing yards.


George Hugh Castleden: Can the minister give the number of wooden ships being built, boats and vessels, and so on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The debate seems to have become a general discussion of wooden ships. I thought what we were discussing was wooden cargo ships. It depends on what you call a ship. We have built some 14,000 since the war began, beginning with lifeboats, rowboats, motor launches and up to wooden minesweepers, wooden Fairmiles and all sorts of wooden naval craft. But of wooden cargo ships the number built is zero.


George Hugh Castleden: I was thinking of the smaller boats.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation in regard to wooden mine-sweepers? Is the government building them up to the capacity of the yards, or is it simply a case of ordering a limited number?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We can hardly build to the capacity of the yards unless somebody is prepared to man the boats when built. The department does not just run wild on a particular type of boat. If, during the next eight months the plan is to train men for, say, twenty boats, we build the twenty boats. Britain may ask us to build fifty for them; we do it. We sell some to the United States. But we cannot build ships just to build ships, except merchant ships; they are a recognized standard type and we are building them as fast as we can. But that is the only type that one might call a readily saleable commodity.
My hon. friend asked about the Park Steamship company. The government is building a number of ships for Canadian operation. It is intended to follow the practice followed in Britain; the government will own the ships, place them for operation in charge of steamship lines that are operating boats in the particular service. For instance, boats to Australia we place for operation with the Manx line; if they are operating to south Africa we would put them perhaps with Furness Withy, or whoever happened to be operating there. The steamship line is paid a small fee for operating the ships and they are operated for the account of the government. All the earnings are paid to the government. The Park Steamship company accepts ownership of these ships on behalf of the government and assigns them to the various lines, attends to the accounting and protects the interest of the government in the operation.


Howard Charles Green: The government itself will not be operating any of these ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: They will all be operated by private firms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Are all those merchant ships to be Canadian ships, or are some to be turned over to Great Britain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are building quite a number for the British government, some for the maritime commission of the United States and some for Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be disclosing information that should not be disclosed if the minister told us the number for Great Britain, for the United States and for Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would rather not do that. By mutual arrangement we do not disclose any figures in connection with business with the United States. I think it would be unwise. All
War Appropriation-Supplies

I can say is that we are building all the ships we can; we are keeping for Canada as many as we think we can get Canadian crews for, and disposing of the others.


Howard Charles Green: Is there anything in mind
as to what should be done with those Canadian boats at the end of the war, or is that looking too far ahead?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is. I do not know what the policy will be. We hope to have them considerably written down by earnings during the war. We may turn them over to the Canadian government merchant marine, or leave them in private hands, or dispose of them outright to private companies. I suppose that is a situation which must be left to the government of that day.


Howard Charles Green: The lines the minister
mentioned as operating these ships are not Canadian lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; so far as I know, there are no Canadian lines except the Canadian Pacific.


Howard Charles Green: So that at the moment they are practically all being operated by lines owned in other countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Donald Alexander McNiven: About two years ago the Saskatchewan government entered into an arrangement with two joint stock companies to search for oil in Saskatchewan. By virtue of that agreement these companies undertook to spend a certain amount of money, about $400,000, in a seismographic survey of Saskatchewan for oil. I believe that a substantial part of that sum has been expended during the past two years, and that some showings or evidences of oil deposits have been discovered. Within the last few weeks drilling for oil with the most modern equipment obtainable, has commenced at Ceylon, Saskatchewan, and at Radville, Saskatchewan. I believe that the survey for other showings of oil is continuing.
I should like to know from the minister whether, being familiar with that survey and that development, he is satisfied that sufficient progress is being made. I should also be glad to know whether, being familiar with other outcroppings or possibilities, the government would undertake to give some assistance? At a point thirty miles south and a little west of Regina a well was sunk to a depth of 2,500 feet and was not drilled further on account of lack of funds. That well was located as a result of advice from eminent geologists both in this country and across the line. Again, showings of gas have been

found at Shaunavon in southwestern Saskatchewan, at Riverhurst on the Saskatchewan river, at Unity in northwestern Saskatchewan, at Church Bridge in northeastern Saskatchewan; two wells have been drilled at Simpson, ninety miles north of Regina, one to a depth of 3,300 feet and the other to a depth of about 2.000 feet, and I believe a number of wells have been drilled on the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary around Lloydminster. There is a substantial showing of gas and production of low gravity oil. Would the minister consider favourably governmental assistance in finding out whether there are substantial oil deposits at those points?
The minister also referred to an anticipated shortage of power in the coming winter. I understand that in the immediate future Neon lights and other users of electrical energy for purposes not regarded as essential will be substantially curtailed. I gather from what the minister has said that the power development on the Saguenay river will all be required for undertakings now under way. I understand also that it will take about two years to develop the Carillon site in Ontario. Would the minister favourably consider developing the lignite coalfields in Saskatchewan as a source of power? There are twenty billion tons of coal, and that is a lot of coal. The overburden varies in depth from forty to one hundred and fifty feet, and for some ten years now that coal has been mined as a steam shovel proposition. The overburden is cleared by a steam shovel; the coal is picked up by a steam shovel, loaded on flat cars and taken to a plant where it is sized. At the mine mouth an electrical plant has been in operation for ten years.


Mr. REID:: What grade is the coal?


Donald Alexander McNiven: It is a lignite coal, with
from 7,400 to 7,800 b.t.u. Compared with Alberta or British Columbia coal it is not as good commercially, but power is developed there, and I understand it can be done very cheaply. I understand further that in the United States there is a surplus of steam equipment for producing electricity, due to the fact that many hydro plants have been brought into operation recently as a result of undertakings in the United' States, and these steam plants have been discarded. I do not profess to be an electrical engineer; my knowledge of the subject is most superficial; but I appeal to the minister, who has a practical knowledge of matters of that kind, to learn whether a steam plant of large proportions could not be constructed in Saskatchewan in much less time than would be required for the construction of a hydro plant.

War Appropriation-Supplies
May I assure the minister that if such an enterprise were to be undertaken it would have a definite post-war use. What is most urgently required in Saskatchewan is a large head of power that will be available as an inducement to industrial enterprise to come to that province. As hon. members know, ours is a badly balanced economy, and anything the minister can do consistent with Canada's national war effort to help us to balance our economy will materially assist in settling a very serious post-war problem.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is
the minister going to have the government do the boring for oil in the Peace River district or, if not, who is going to do it? While I am on my feet I should like also to ask the minister if the government has any intention of constructing an industrial alcohol plant for the production of alcohol to be used together with gasoline. I understand that this is done in England1 and Australia, and that there is a plant in Detroit producing over 12,000 tons a day. Have we any idea of doing anything along that line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has not
developed any oil wells, and I hope it will not be necessary for it to do so while I am minister, because my hon. friend has indicated the difficulties of a minister who undertook to finance oil wells. Of course in time of war the government would not be justified in drilling in anything but a proven field. We are after materials in a hurry, and naturally in spending government money we cannot take too many chances. We do encourage oil companies to drill because they have the experience and the equipment. We have encouraged them, as I say, by tax concessions, with which the committee is familiar. So far we have not gone beyond that. We are very much interested in the Peace River section of British Columbia. We need oil in northern British Columbia, and the reports indicate that the possibilities there are very good. I do not know what we will do, but certainly it will not be a direct government effort, and I doubt whether we shall subsidize a private company. However, we do hope some arrangement can be made to speed up the exploration of that area.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister if at the same time the department is going to look into the oil possibilities at the town of Peace River? Away back in 1921 they had producing wells there but for some reason or another, whether the wells were damaged or interfered with in some way, those wells were capped. That is not very far from the Alaska highway, either. I am told on the best
authority that there is oil at the town of Peace River, and last summer I saw the old wells that were there; I think there are five or six capped wells.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have nothing in mind
in that direction. At the moment we are particularly interested in getting all we can out of Turner valley; we are extending the operation at Fort Norman; we want to have a very good look at the Peace river section of British Columbia, and we are making a very thorough examination of the oil shales of New Brunswick to determine their extent and the development that will be necessary. I think that is the extent of our oil explorations at the moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the oil sands also.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the tar sands; we are going into that very thoroughly, to see what is required there.
With regard to the matter of power, as I have explained we have not invested any money directly in power plants. Two cases have been mentioned to-night in which special depreciation has been authorized by the wartime depreciation board, due to special circumstances, but I do not think the government will invest directly in power plants. I am well aware of the lignite coal situation. I promised the house that we would use a certain amount of lignite coal in our explosives plant at Winnipeg. I tried to buy some this winter, but was unable to do so. I was told by the fuel administrator that this coal was not for me, that it was too badly needed in other places. But I think I can guarantee to take all the coal that can be produced in that area. To build a power plant there, however, would be to overlook a number of other situations that are urgent. Just as in connection with drilling for oil, a government policy of building power plants hither and yon would be a very difficult policy to administer. I think the government will avoid direct investment in power plants. Was there another question I have overlooked?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Industrial alcohol.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are producing considerable quantities of industrial alcohol. We are not using it for high test gasoline; we are using alkylate, which is also a petroleum product. We have three large alkylate plants under construction, with one at Calgary nearing completion, but, as my hon. friend knows, industrial alcohol is used in a great number of war operations. We are using a very considerable part of the distillery capacity

War Appropriation-Supplies
of this country to produce industrial alcohol. We will continue to do so, and will continue to expand the operation as the demands increase.


Thomas Reid: I should like to ask the
minister two questions, one having to do with gasoline and the other with rubber. Gasoline rationing is now in force throughout the country and, generally speaking, I think it has been well received as long as it is applied fairly. But I am wondering if any restrictions have been placed on cities and municipalities to prevent the use of gasoline and oil in the construction of new roads. I am not citing this particularly against the city of Ottawa, because I think this is general throughout the country, but I notice that in connection with the asphalt pavement to be laid in the Riverdale section of Ottawa, it is estimated, according to the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, May 15, that 10,000 gallons of gasoline will be used in the construction of that new piece of asphalt pavement. I may be wrong, but I should think that asphalt pavement will not be in such great demand in the future, because the cars will be fewer in number. It will cause a great deal of heart-burning among those who are curtailed in their use of gasoline, if they see cities and municipalities extending their road-building programmes, and using gasoline and oil in connection therewith. Is there any restriction on cities and municipalities? Have they been prohibited from entering upon extensive programmes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; there are very severe restrictions. My hon. friend is receiving protests about the use of asphalts, and I am receiving protests from cities which would like to use tarvia. However, they are not permitted to do so, because restrictions are severe with respect to the use of petroleum products on roads. I was surprised to read that asphalt pavements are being laid. I had thought that was prohibited, but I may be wrong. I shall be glad to get the regulations and advise my hon. friend as to what the prohibition is. But tarvia, and products of that kind, cannot be used.


Thomas Reid: A regulation is in effect, I believe, whereby those having two spare tires have to report the same to the wartime prices and trade board. A request came in to me the other day, and when I made an inquiry from Mr. Williamson's office, who is in charge of rubber control, I was told that a party having two spare tires would have to report to the wartime prices and trade board. My question is this: I am wondering where

this overlapping is going to lead. The wartime prices and trade board have control of the handling of rubber. In a notice issued to-day the whole question of tire rationing is set out. I should like to know what anyone in the wartime prices and trade board has to do with looking after tires. I thought their duty was in connection with prices of various articles. I am pointing out to the committee that we had better keep our eyes on some of these boards, because if you give them an inch they will take ten miles.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wartime prices and trade board has charge of the control of peace-time articles, whereas the wartime industries control board deals with strategic materials for war, and the materials necessary for war production. The tire situation is rather involved. Of course rubber is a strategic material for war. It is under the jurisdiction of the controller of supplies, who is attached to the Department of Munitions and Supply. But the enforcement of the regulations has been turned over, by arrangement, to the enforcement officer of the wartime prices and trade board. This board has an enforcement department represented in all parts of the country, under the direction of Mr. McGregor. The enforcement of the rubber rationing regulations is carried out by that branch of the wartime prices and trade board.
The regulation as to trucks is, by arrangement, handled by the wartime prices and trade board-by Mr. Stewart. The regulation of buses, strangely enough, is handled by the transit controller in the Department of Munitions and Supply. There are reasons for each of these divisions. Perhaps one reason why trucks were regulated by the wartime prices and trade board is that I was once bitten and twice shy, and I was not anxious to undertake that branch of control. However, there is a pattern to it, and it seems to be working reasonably well.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was pleased to hear the minister say that they are investigating the oil shales of New Brunswick, and that there would probably be some developments there. It seems unfortunate that it took a war to bring about those developments, because we have known in New Brunswick for a great many years that we have rich oil shale in that province.
The minister also stated that it was not his intention to develop power plants. I had intended to ask if he would consider enlarging the power plant at Grand Lake in New Brunswick. I understand that one reason why we have not more industries in New Brunswick is our lack of cheaper power, and I believe

War Appropriation-Supplies
this plant could have been developed. An extension could have been made very cheaply and, in justice to my province, I believe we should have more developments there, more munitions plants and other war activities.
However, it was not my intention to speak particularly along that line to-night. There was another matter I wished to bring to the attention of the minister. I believe we have now exhausted the subjects ftf housing, wooden ships and oil. We have also discussed the scarcity of rubber, metal and other commodities, and have considered the provisions being made to see that enough is salvaged for our war needs.
I wish now to ask the minister some questions regarding the scarcity of paper in this country. I would ask first whether there is a scarcity of newsprint and paper? I ask this question knowing the great effort that is being made, from one end of the country to the other, to salvage paper. In every city and every town school children and organizations are gathering up scrap paper. I know that in military camps we are instructed to collect all paper, and as a result every little scrap of paper is collected and saved. I wish the minister would tell us the situation in Canada regarding this commodity. It does seem strange that while we are spending so much time salvaging paper in Canada, we do not seem to have any curtailment in the use of newsprint. I have not noticed that our newspapers are cut down in the quantity of paper they are using. When one buys the Saturday editions of newspapers he will find that they consist of forty or fifty pages, and I believe that in war time five or six pages would be sufficient. It is a strange anomaly that every schoolboy in every community is being asked to salvage paper, while at the same time we permit this great waste of paper throughout the country. I believe the government is setting a good example in many cases by using both sides of paper in its correspondence. Orderly rooms at military camps are instructed to use both sides of the paper in preparing their orders. Everything is being done to try to save paper, and we are told that such saving is necessary because paper is scarce.
Another matter which might very well be mentioned at this time is the export of paper from Canada. If there is a scarcity of newsprint, why is it that a paper such as the Chicago Tribune can have exported from Canada thousands of tons of paper used in the publication of that newspaper which, as hon. members know, was anti-British before the United States entered the war? It never loses an opportunity even now to disparage
our own Canadian effort in the war. It disparages the efforts of Great Britain and of the whole British empire, and still we in Canada are exporting a commodity which must be scarce. If it is not, then why do we have these provisions for the collection of salvage and scrap paper?
These are questions I should like the minister to answer. I have hesitated to bring them to his attention at so late an hour in the day. After such a long and trying day, however, possibly these questions will appear much easier to answer than some which were propounded to him this evening.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. As a matter of fact I have enjoyed the discussion very much. I am glad to give what information I can on the subject. I think there is a misunderstanding as to why campaigns for the collection of paper are necessary. This is not done because of a shortage of newsprint for the purposes for which newsprint is usually used. As a matter of fact there is spare capacity for the production of newsprint, because some of our mills are working only four or five days a week. But there is a great need for pulp or rough cardboard, wood pulp pressed into sheets for the packing of shells and finished rounds of ammunition. Newspapers or paper of any kind are just as good for that purpose as pulp made from newly cut timber. It is really to save a drain on our lumber mills and to prevent waste that we are collecting newspapers and using them for that purpose. I do not know whether there would be a shortage of paper if we had to use freshly cut pulp for packing shells, but there very likely would be. At the moment we are able to fill our own needs for newsprint, satisfy the export demand and still have some surplus capacity. Nevertheless I want to impress upon all hon. members that the salvage campaign for old paper is well worth considering.
As far as writing paper goes, there was a shortage of that at one time and it may still exist. I believe the campaign to use both sides of a sheet of paper for official documents is worth while, and I think it will carry on after the war. I see no reason why we should write only on the one side of a sheet of paper, and I think this habit of thrift is well worth cultivating.
As far as the oil shales of New Brunswick are concerned, my hon. friend probably knows that they were under private control for a long time. It was only after they were restored to the control of the province that it was worth while for governments to spend considerable sums of money investigating them.
25S8
War Appropriation-Supplies


Angus MacInnis: There has been a great deal of discussion to-night about oil shales. Among the many other things that we have in British Columbia are some deposits of oil shale. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister who brought it to the attention of the oil controller. He wrote me to say that he had investigated it last summer when on the coast, and he did not think there was very much in it. However, apparently some one in the department has changed their minds since then because I have a letter from the assistant oil controller asking me where further information can be obtained. I am glad to know that this matter will be investigated.
In connection with gasoline I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), that we should accept these restrictions, not reluctantly but with good grace in order to assist the government to conserve gasoline for the purposes we have in hand, and that none should be wasted for pleasure purposes while there is a need for our war effort. One of the difficulties that I find in getting people to see the necessity for saving gasoline is the fact that the regulations do not seem to operate equitably. I have received several letters about this, and I have one from a man who has a light delivery truck. He tells me that he has a wife and four children and, since he cannot afford a private car, he takes his family out in the truck on Sundays to the beaches or other places. It was intimated to him that he could not use his truck for driving around on Sundays, that he might have his permit cancelled if he did so. He feels rather badly about this. He states that if he could afford a private car he could get a category A card for it and use it on Sundays. He enclosed the letter he received from the regional office manager for the oil controller in Vancouver. This letter was most reasonable, and I think I should read it. It reads:
I have your letter of April 30 and although as yet there are no specific regulations which prohibit the use of your panel delivery truck for personal driving, I must point out to you that the commercial category books have been assigned to you for commercial purposes and in view of the serious shortage of gasoline you are not expected to drive such long distances as from here to White Rock and return for private purposes any more than the owner of a passenger automobile.
Are owners of private automobiles going to be restricted from driving long distances? Of course, if they do drive long distances their ration cards will not go so far. If some

way could be found whereby people who cannot afford a private car, or two or three cars, can be made to feel that they are not being discriminated against while other people in better circumstances are allowed their ordinary pleasures, I think it would be much easier. I do not know just how that could be done, but if it could be done it would help a great deal.
I should like to say a word on the matter of saving paper. I think a great deal of paper would be saved if there were less advertising. There is a lot of what appears to me to be the most useless kind of advertising, and I am sure it comes to every hon. member in reams. I have before me an advertisement by the Firestone Rubber company. They have no commercial rubber to sell because I imagine the government takes it all for war purposes, but yet here is a most expensive' advertisement, on expensive paper in colours. This all takes time and materials; it needs skilled labour to produce, and it seems to me that we are not putting everything into our war effort when we allow what appears to be waste. I saw an article recently, I think it was in the Financial Post, to the effect that the Aluminum Company of Canada, although it did not have a pot or a pan or any other article of aluminum to sell, had provided an appropriation of $1,000,000 this year to advertise these articles. I also have under my hand a full-page advertisement by Dominion Foundries and Steel Limited, Hamilton, Canada, which appeared in the Financial Post. These people do not need to advertise their wares at the present time. It takes time and it consumes materials to put out such advertising. There are many ways that we have not touched yet in which we can save waste and add to the efficiency of the work we have in hand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, every effort is being made to eliminate unfairness in rationing. I was told-in fact the gentleman concerned himself told me-of a motorist who was driving out of Toronto some time ago when he was stopped by an enforcement officer, who asked where he was going. He said he was going fishing. Where was he going? He gave the destination. The enforcement officer asked to see his category, found that he was in category C, and pointed out to him that that was a business category for business purposes, and that if he could go fishing on that category he did not need a C rating. The next day his book was exchanged for a category A book.
We are trying to bring all those who use their cars for pleasure into category A. In

War Appropriation-Supplies
fact it is quite possible that there will be a category lower than A for people who use cars exclusively for pleasure. We are trying to eliminate unfairness; that is, we are not giving high categories to people who do a good deal of pleasure driving.
Whether we like it or not, pleasure driving is going to be a real luxury. Gasoline is for those who have a real use for it in connection with the war effort. We are going to try to take care of people who must go to war plants; business executives; producers in the war effort, such as farmers, and other people who have a real need for gasoline. But the man who simply drives from here to there for pleasure is going to be without gasoline shortly.
So, I think, my hon. friend's acquaintance who had the truck was simply getting the same kind of treatment that the man in a business category who is using his car for pleasure is getting as the enforcement officers catch up with him.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What about the man with two cars in the family? I suppose that will be checked, too. I know of people who have two cars in a single family, and while I doubt whether their business entitles them to better than category 1A, through some agency they have obtained category C.
The other day I asked for an extension of the hours of sales of gasoline to farmers. I am pleased that the minister announced today that this request had been granted.
I also spoke of a certain oil company-I think I had better mention that it was the British-American-trucking their own products from Moose Jaw through southeastern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba. Since I spoke on this matter I have had a letter from the secretary of one of those towns pointing out that in twenty-four hours ten very large trucks with trailers went through that town. He estimated that those trucks used fifty gallons a day; they had very heavy tires on their trucks and trailers, and they were paralleling a railway line. The Canadian Pacific railway agent there tells me that they can obtain tankers along that line. Also the man-power situation comes into the matter, because each of those trucks requires a driver, whereas the use of a tank car on the railway would eliminate that. To what extent this practice is carried on I do not know, but it is a serious wastage. Further, it sets a bad example to the people in those towns, who wonder why they should curtail their own small supplies while those companies are
allowed to carry on in this way. I trust the minister will look into the practice and prohibit it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter of trucking oil was mentioned in this chamber a while ago, and at that time I sent a marked copy of Hansard to the controller for his action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Regina City in the excellent appeal he made for our province with reference to having a part to play in the economic aspect of our war effort. The hour is too late for me to say very much about the matter now, but it seems to me that there are two factors to which some attention might be directed.
The first is the one he has mentioned, and to which the minister has already replied-the possibility of developing power, either in the north, where we have considerable water power, or in the south where there are very large coal deposits. I can appreciate the point of view expressed by the minister. Nevertheless there is a strong feeling that a greater use could be made of the industrial resources of the prairie, rather than draining off the population, as has happened in the last year or two.
The other factor in the contribution which we might make has to do with the bits-and-pieces programme of the department. The minister has not made any detailed statement on it, and it is too late to-night, but I wonder if he would do so to-morrow. This afternoon he made a statement with reference to garage-men. He said that provision would be made for the type of establishment which was equipped to do something. My understanding of the set-up does not lead me to believe that that is taking place. Mr. Pyne, who has been handling the subcontract coordination branch in Winnipeg for western Canada, does not, I understand, place subcontracts direct from the government; he acts as a sort of employment agent for firms who have contracts and want to know of people who can take subcontracts. He does not place contracts; he only directs firms which have contracts to people who might take subcontracts. I believe that they are not making full use of the people who could be doing more in our bits-and-pieces programme. I am not going to take time to elaborate that to-night. I know that a survey was made of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. When I was west I saw a copy of the survey. I hesitate to quote from it from memory, but I believe there are 277 machine tools which were listed in the two provinces and which were not being used.
Questions

They would, of course, vary in size. I know a number of such cases. One man in particular with a small aluminum foundry has done some excellent work. But these people do not seem to have been able to make any contacts. They go to Mr. Pyne, who says, "I should be very glad to give you something to do, and as soon as some firm asks us for a subcontractor we will direct them to you." But that is not very satisfactory, and for two years these people have been twiddling their thumbs; either they have to move east and get a job there, or stay where they are and continue to do commercial work.
I would appreciate it if the minister would give us to-morrow some outline of the bits-and-pieces programme, whether it is his intention to expand it, and how it would be possible for these men who think they can play some part in Canada's industrial effort to be brought more directly in contact with the government and those places where there are contracts.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 20, 1942