February 23, 1937

LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):

I received notice of the hon. member's question and telephoned our port manager to-day. The facts are not exactly as stated by the hon. member. It is true that the steamship Bellingham arrived at Vancouver yesterday with a cargo of 250,000 pound? frozen fish

consigned to the Canadian Fishing Company Limited, but the contract for the carrying of this cargo calls for the running of the cargo at the dock of the Canadian Fishing Company Limited, Vancouver. After unloading about twenty-five per cent of the cargo the ship's crew discontinued servicing the winches,' thereby causing a stoppage of work on the part of the longshoremen. The reason given for this action by the ship's crew is that the longshoremen working the ship are not members of the International Longshoremen's Association. On the other hand, the Canadian Fishing Company Limited refuses to permit I.L.A. men to discharge cargo at its dock. It is to be noted that the Canadian Fishing Company Limited is not a member of the local shipping federation. Representatives of the local International Longshoremen's Association called upon Mr. Burns stating that the reason for the action of the ship's crew was that before leaving Ketchikan for Vancouver the crew had been assured that the cargo would be unloaded by I.L.A. men. They then wished to ascertain whether Burns would permit the unloading of this cargo at the harbour board's fish dock. Mr. Burns pointed out that this was quite impossible for the reason that the water depth of the fish dock would be insufficient, it being about ten feet only, to accommodate the steamship Bellingham. Moreover, the landing of the cargo elsewhere than on the Canadian Fishing Company's dock would create a breach of the contract between the vessel owner and the company under which the latter could refuse delivery of the cargo; in other words, before any arrangement could be made to unload the cargo at any dock, arrangements would have to be made for the disposal of the cargo. It is perishable cargo, and if it is unloaded at our docks and thrown out ihere it would belong to no one. We should like to know before it is unloaded what the disposition of it is to be, and who is to pay the charges.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

Topic:   LABOUR DISPUTE
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT DOCK FACILITIES AT VANCOUVER AND UNLOADING OF MOTORSHIP BELLINGHAM
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE


Naval services'-To provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $4,486,810.


LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

This vote is for naval services. Last year it was $2,654,000; this year it is $4,486,000 or an increase of $1,832,000.

1140 COMMONS

Supply-Defence-Naval Services

The government has decided that two new ships shall be purchased for the protection of both our coasts. I take it for granted that the government's views in this respect are sound, but on the other hand we must not forget that the coasts on both sides are hundreds of miles long and there are many bays on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic seaboard, besides the gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence river. It is necessary, therefore, for the new ships to be the most effective and speedy. Our entire fleet on each side will consist of one man of war only, and the life of that man of war is that of a dog, twelve years. I submit, therefore, that when the government decides to purchase one battleship for the defence of each coast the ships should be the most efficient and the speediest, and ships that can give the best service. I believe hon. members will agree with me in that. I do not object to the vote because it is too large-and I am wondering whether there will be an amendment to reduce it- but I do object to it because it is too small. We do not need second hand ships, and if the government is of the opinion that we must have ships to defend our shores they should be the very best. If we have a small ship let it be the latest one from the shipyards. I cannot therefore vote for any amendment to reduce this item, because I do not think it is large enough; and for that reason I cannot support this item in the estimates.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CON

Harry James Barber

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARBER:

Will the minister explain

this vote and tell us what proportion will go to the Pacific?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Perhaps

I had better break it down. The increase is $1,832,310, made up as follows:

Pay and allowances, $359,325.

Stores and allowances, $350,760.

Medical services, $3,500.

New ship building, in connection with four mine sweepers to be constructed in Canada, $700,000.

Repairs and maintenance, $128,400.

Works, lands and buildings, $200,000.

Miscellaneous effective services, $92,225.

There is a decrease of $1,900 in non-effective pay vote. May I make it clear that the vote for two destroyers purchased from England is not in the present increase; it is to be introduced in a special supplementary estimate for 1936-37. The main increase in this vote is for the four mine-sweepers and stores and equipment on both coasts.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CON

Harry James Barber

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARBER:

What will be the total expenditure for naval protection? The estimates are divided into three parts; we have roughly $19,000,000 for land forces, and about

$11,000,000 for air forces, and I understand there is about $5,000,000 for naval protection. What will be the total for naval protection-$5,000,000 or $7,000,000?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The two destroyers were really under this fiscal year's expenditures because negotiations to purchase them were completed last year and they will be charged against expenditures for 1936-37. The total of $2,000,000 should be added to the figure shown for the present year.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CON
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Yes in all.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. HEAPS:

Can the minister give us any idea what the annual increase in the estimates will be to take care of this expenditure now proposed?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The

appropriations for 1937-38 are:

Ships-

Saguenay (destroyer), $296,925.

Champlain (destroyer), $25,000.

Skeena (destroyer), $295,525.

Vancouver (destroyer), $25,000'.

Crescent (now Fraser) (destroyer), $300,000. Cygnet (now St. Laurent) (destroyer), $300,000.

Armentieres (mine sweeper), $41,980. Vessels in reserve (Ypres and Festubert), $22,950.

New schooner, $28,650.

New construction (towards 4 mine sweepers), $750,000.

Fitting ships for R.C.N., $56,000.

Barracks-

R.C.N. barracks, Halifax, $436,500.

R.C.N. barracks, Esquimalt, $485,145.

Dockyards-

H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, $102,225. Armament supply depot, Halifax, $168,0-50. H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt, $78,500.

Armt. supply depot, Esquimalt, $332,180. Port Defences, $42,300.

Naval Intelligence-

Headquarters, Ottawa, $13,650.

Halifax, $7,800.

Esquimalt, $6,900.

Naval headquarters, Ottawa, $54,625.

Officers and men overseas, $278,000. Cemeteries, $1,550.

Comox rifle range, $1,330.

Ottawa W/T station, $22,300.

General Account, $19,250.

Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, $43,500. Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $250,975.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. HEAPS:

I did not make myself clear. What I want to find out is what increase in the estimates will be necessary as a result of the expenditures we are incurring this year for increased naval armaments and new ships. Will that mean an increased future outlay each year?

Supply-Defence-Naval Services

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

It will

be the difference in the number of ratings and stores necessary for the new destroyers as against the old ones. The new ships are considerably larger and will require an increased personnel. There will be an increase personnel for the new mine sweepers and training schooner. Otherwise there is no increase.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. HEAPS:

What will be the increase?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

About $300,000 or $400,000, but that is subject to correction.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Dubois

Liberal

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

Mr. Chairman, I did not take part in the debate which took place last week on the amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), but the public and this house knew very well where I stood on this question of armament. However, I wish to avail myself of the present discussion of the military estimates to say once more that I am against any direct or indirect contribution to extraterritorial wars. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Sylvestre):

That item 67 of the national defence estimates be reduced by $1,832,310.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Arthur-Joseph Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East) (Translation) :

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to my hon. friend moving his amendment, but the reason he sets forth is not fair. He states that he is against extraterritorial wars, but these estimates which we are discussing have no connection whatever with extra-territorial wars.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I want to tell the committee that I am entirely satisfied with the explanations given to me by the minister a moment ago. The committee will see in due course what to do with the supplementary estimates in regard to second hand ships.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART:

What is the cost of the mine sweepers?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink

February 23, 1937