February 23, 1951


On the orders of the day:


LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):

I

wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to a press report, a school is being opened in Peterborough to train postal employees. If this is correct, why Peterborough, of all places?

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES
Sub-subtopic:   OPENING OF SCHOOL AT PETERBOROUGH
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser:

The hon. member ought to

know. It is the best place in the country.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES
Sub-subtopic:   OPENING OF SCHOOL AT PETERBOROUGH
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

I should like to know

whether that report is correct or not.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES
Sub-subtopic:   OPENING OF SCHOOL AT PETERBOROUGH
Permalink
LIB

Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):

I shall have to check on that matter. I know we have opened a number of schools for the training of our employees. I do not know whether one was in Peterborough.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES
Sub-subtopic:   OPENING OF SCHOOL AT PETERBOROUGH
Permalink

DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT

CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT

LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved

that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to present a bill (a) to constitute a department of defence production, to be

presided over by a minister, with appropriate provision for the employment of officers, clerks and employees; (b) to provide that the minister shall take steps to mobilize, conserve, and co-ordinate all economic and industrial facilities in respect of defence supplies and defence projects, and in connection therewith, to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and to construct defence projects, and for these purposes to confer appropriate powers on the minister and to provide for the establishment of a defence production board revolving fund; and (c) to provide further that the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition, or use of materials, or the supply or use of services deemed essential for defence purposes.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Will the Prime Minister make a statement on this resolution?

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Charles Eugène Parent

Liberal

Mr. SI. Laurent:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This resolution, and the bill to be introduced if and when the resolution is adopted, are to implement the following announcement in the speech from the throne:

You will be asked to approve a bill to establish a Department of Defence Production to act as a procurement agency for the defence forces of Canada and also for such defence requirements of our allies as may be met from Canadian production.

In moving this resolution I do not think it is necessary for me to take very much of the time of the house. That such a department is essential will be4, quite apparent, I think, to all hon. members.

On February 5, in the debate on the address in reply, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) referred to the necessity for a separate department to deal with all matters of production and supply that were entailed by the increased defence program that he was announcing at that time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) also spoke in the same vein on February 8.

It seems obvious that a defence supply program of the magnitude already indicated requires for its execution wide powers, and we have endeavoured to indicate in the terms of the resolution the extent and scope of those powers. We feel that the implementation of that policy cannot properly be left to agencies or branches of any of the departments which already have important functions to perform, but that it requires a full-fledged department of its own dealing exclusively with those matters.

Hon. members will recall that, at the beginning of the last war, legislation was enacted to provide for the establishment of a department of munitions and supply. This department was to have responsibility for the production and the procurement of all the ammunition, vehicles, clothing and other supplies required by the three services of our armed forces. The department was not set

Defence Production Act up at once. At first those functions were carried out by the war supply board, but the new department soon became necessary, and it was set up in April of 1940. That was done notwithstanding the fact that at that time the procurement program was not, in magnitude, anything like the one we are undertaking at the present time.

After the close of hostilities with Germany and Japan, the powers connected with defence supply were transferred to the minister of reconstruction and supply and were carried out in co-ordination with the demobilization that was proceeding at that time. Then, still maintaining the principle of non-military procurement of the requirements of the armed services, these functions were transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the responsibility for procurement rested with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, while the nucleus of a production organization was maintained through Canadian Arsenals.

The arrangements I have just mentioned were quite satisfactory for the post-war period and entirely adequate for the size of the defence program that was then being carried out. Now, however, the situation has changed. The greatly increased defence program not only calls for greater purchases, but, what is more important, requires some direction of the production program in such fields as production, aircraft, shipbuilding, vehicles, armament and ammunition. The present high level of demand for practically all major commodities has already made it necessary for the government to take a certain measure of direction and control or allocation of such an essential material as steel, for instance. The action taken so far has been under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act passed at the special session of parliament held last fall.

It seems to us that a point has now been reached where the authorities and arrangements that have been satisfactory so far are no longer felt to be adequate to handle the situation we are in today or to deal with the problems that are apt to arise in the immediate future. I am sure most hon. members will agree that these greatly increased demands should not be superimposed on a civilian department already charged with responsibility in other fields. It seems to us, in the interest of good administration and efficient operation, that all those activities relating to the procurement and production of defence requirements should be coordinated in one department.

Until such time as the legislation has been passed and the appropriate recommendations made to His Excellency the Governor General, it would of course be technically

Defence Production Act discourteous to the crown to forecast who is likely to take the responsibility of administering that department. But in view of the experience of the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the last war, we have relied to a very substantial degree on him to draft the legislation which might be appropriate for such a department; and I have asked him, when the resolution has been adopted and the bill is under consideration in its details by the house, to make himself responsible for giving the reasons for the provisions that he has recommended should be in a bill that would provide for the kind of machinery which would be apt to do the job this department will have as its great responsibility.

I do not think that there is much more that I should say. I have no doubt that hon. members will want to give careful and perhaps critical consideration to the various provisions of this bill. But I imagine that there will be no diverging views as to the advisability of having one department made responsible for carrying out the procurement and production part of the very large program that was outlined to the house by the Minister of National Defence on February 5; and I would hope that most hon. members would wish to have the bill before them before entering into any long debate about the advisability of such a course of action.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):

Mr. Speaker, because of the very serious situation which Canada is facing at the present time, and because of the ever-present threat of war, members of the official opposition have no intention of opposing this particular resolution or the bill which will follow it, unless that bill turns out to be in terms which are objectionable.

From what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, I take it that there is no doubt this department will be under the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and judging from press reports, and also in the light of what has happened in years gone by, that he will continue to be the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Such being the case, one might perhaps question whether this defence production could not have been carried on as a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce rather than setting up a new department; because we all know that once a department has been set up, it is very difficult to do away with it, no matter how little it may be needed. As a general rule I think it is unwise to set up more departments of government.

However, as I have indicated, we do not intend to oppose this resolution; but I believe it would be as well for the minister who is to

have charge of this department to make some explanation to the house today, rather than act under the fiction that he has no authority whatever and knows nothing about this new department prior to the introduction of the bill. The house and the Canadian people would be helped by a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce setting out the present position with regard to defence production. It is perfectly obvious that there is to be a drive to increase our defence production. That drive will require the wholehearted support not only of hon. members but also of the Canadian people generally. In these circumstances it would be as well for the minister to give us a statement showing the present state of defence production in Canada and outlining his plans for the future. He did that during the war years, and the practice was very helpful.

There are several questions on which we should like to have a statement of government policy. For example, what is to be the policy with regard to dispersing industry in Canada? We were all startled to read in the press just a day or two ago that there is to be a new defence headquarters outside Ottawa, built underground at a cost of $30 or $40 million; and I believe a precaution of that kind is very necessary. But there are other centres in Canada which would be pbvious targets in an atomic attack. Some of them have already been listed, such as the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, and the great industrial centre of Hamilton; the west coast area of greater Vancouver; I presume also the city and island of Montreal, and the city of Toronto, and probably the city of Windsor. These have all been pointed out by government officials as probable targets in the event of an atomic war. The Americans have been told very frankly by the chief of their air staff that it will be impossible to prevent at least some planes from getting through in the event of war, and that they must expect atomic attacks. Canada must certainly expect them also. Therefore some statement should be made by the government as to its policy with regard to dispersing industry. New industries will be established; there will be expansion of present industries, but there will be very little chance of these .new industries being placed away from the present large centres, unless that is government policy and direct steps are taken by the new department to bring about that result. I believe that in the United States there is a policy of dispersing industry, and the Canadian people are entitled to know whether a similar policy is to be adopted in Canada.

Then, there should also be a statement, either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as to

whether it will be the policy of the government, acting through this new department, to strengthen parts of Canada which were not strengthened industrially during the last war. This involves spreading out our industries. It would involve, for example, establishing industries in the maritime provinces, on the prairies, and in British Columbia, away from the great centres of Ontario and Quebec where at the present time most of the industrial strength of Canada is concentrated.

We learned during the last war that a great deal could be done by the government in the way of placing industries, because of the powers exercised by the government over those industries. I do not know to what extent the government has in mind the policy of building up various parts of Canada, but we already hear complaints, for example, in connection with sustaining contracts. Those are the contracts which enable firms to try out types of production to see what they can do. The complaint is that such contracts are not being placed away from the large centres in Ontario and Quebec. My information on the point may be correct or incorrect; but there has been the suggestion that the government is not making very much of an attempt to spread out industry in Canada.

We should also like to know whether it is the intention of the government, acting under the powers to be given to the new department, to build up Canada for the future. Let us for a moment consider the use of our iron ore, of which we now have huge reserves. The Americans are very much aware of those reserves. Hon. members will have noticed that now almost the whole of the argument in the United States in support of the St. Lawrence waterway development is based on the need to get Canadian iron ore down to the American steel plants on the great lakes.

Has Canada any plans in mind for the use of that iron ore in the development of Canada? Is there any plan to use it for the purpose of steel production in Cape Breton island, or anywhere else in the maritime provinces? Is it to be used to develop plants on the St. Lawrence to produce steel, or to produce it in Canadian centres on the great lakes? Here again there cannot be the development there should be in Canada unless an aggressive lead is taken by the government. Out on the west coast we are greatly concerned as to whether a large aluminum industry is to be established in the Prince Rupert district. Apparently the final decision has not yet been reached. It is known, however, that aluminum will be badly needed, not only by Canada, but also

Defence Production Act by her allies. The minister should tell us whether it is the policy of the government to give every encouragement to the establishment of that aluminum industry on the west coast.

Then, we should be told the relationship of the new Department of Defence Production to the Department of National Defence, and also to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Just where does the Department of National Defence fit into the picture? During the last war the department of munitions and supply was really a branch- a very strong one; perhaps I should have called it a partner rather than a branch-of the Department of National Defence. It would now appear that the new Department of Defence Production is to be closely allied with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that relationship should be explained by the ministry.

I believe the businessmen of Canada are most anxious to co-operate with the government in a defence production plan. That is certainly so on the west coast. A day or two before we came east to attend this session the members from greater Vancouver, some of whom I see in the chamber today and who, I am sure, will confirm my remarks, were invited to a meeting of the council of the Vancouver board of trade for the purpose of learning the steps the council thought could be taken to enable them to help the defence production program of the country.

Today I should like to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce about one or two of the suggestions made by that council. Most of their suggestions, may I say, had to do with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which I presume will play a large part in handling the defence production program. It was pointed out to us that, under the present practice of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, tenders in most cases are asked on a basis of price f.o.b. point of destination, and that in practically every case the point of destination is the central ordnance depot in Ottawa or the sub-ordnance depot at Montreal.

That policy worked out in this way: the Vancouver manufacturer produced his goods and was able to offer them at a certain price. But because contracts were called f.o.b. point of destination he had to add the freight. On the other hand the manufacturer in Montreal had a much smaller amount of freight to add to his tender. He had the same production price, but had to add a much smaller amount of freight to bring his product from Montreal to Ottawa. In arriving at his tender he would add the cost of freight from Vancouver to Ottawa, deducting perhaps ten or fifteen cents

Defence Production Act -just enough to bring him under the Vancouver tender-with the result that he would get the contract and also the benefit, with the small allowance I have indicated, of the difference in freight between Vancouver and Ottawa and Montreal and Ottawa. In effect the government was paying the Montreal manufacturer the greater portion of a freight bill from Vancouver.

That sort of thing is just ridiculous, and it is most unfair to the manufacturer out in the more remote parts of the country. In addition, it is a waste of the country's money.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is that his own theory, or is it the theory of the Vancouver board of trade? I can tell him that if all supplies were bought f.o.b. factory those supplies would practically all be supplied by firms in Montreal and Toronto, regardless of destination points.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

I am pointing out some of the complaints made by these businessmen. They were not speaking in a partisan fashion; there was nothing political about it.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

Oh, I understand that.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

They were simply suggesting that some action should be taken by the government to remedy what they considered an unfair practice.

Another suggestion was that in some cases at the present time tenders are called by the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the complete production of a firm over a certain period. The result is that a firm making a successful tender must give up its production for civilian purposes during that period, and so many cannot afford to tender on government contracts. The suggestion was that tenders should be called for the whole or part only of the production. For example, they pointed out that tenders might be called for 25,000 battledress outfits. Apparently the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been calling for large quantities of them. The goods are shipped to the depot here and then shipped out again, some perhaps back to Vancouver. I believe that this has also been happening in the case of some of the other things about which I spoke a few minutes ago. Some of the goods that are purchased are sent back to the different depots across the country. Why should it not be possible for a firm to tender on the requirements of the depot in the particular area in which it is located? It was represented to us that it would be far more reasonable if, for example, tenders for 10,000 uniforms were called for in British Columbia and Alberta; more firms in those provinces would tender on that basis.

Another complaint was that in some cases it is only possible to get essential materials by using quotas for civilian goods. A firm will have a quota for civilian goods, but if it tenders on defence requirements it has to use that civilian quota. We were told that it would be wiser to give a priority to the particular firm for defence needs and leave the quota for their production of civilian needs intact.

The suggestion was also made that before defence installations are placed in a city there should be consultation with the municipal authorities. Most Canadian cities now have planning boards, but the practice seems to be for the government to walk in and put in its installations without any consultation with those boards. That practice could well be altered.

One other statement we ask from the minister is with regard to the checking of expenditures to be made by this new department. The resolution provides for a defence production revolving fund. That is an unusual provision in connection with ' a government department. I am sure the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) would like to have such a fund for the operation of his department. This is obviously an unusual provision. Unless some method is devised to check expenditures I am afraid that they may well run wild.

There is no doubt that there will be hundreds of millions of dollars involved. Under the present law there is no effective way in which parliament can check such expenditures. It may be we could get around the difficulty by authorizing the public accounts committee to check current expenditures, or perhaps additional powers could be given to the Auditor General. But some method should be devised under which there would be an adequate check of the expenditures to be made by this department. I have no doubt that the minister in charge would prefer to have some such provision in the law. _ We are now in a time when it is difficult to get firm tenders. Prices are rising rapidly and many companies will not tender on a fixed price basis. There would appear to be far more danger of war profiteering under present conditions than there was during the second world war. Therefore we ask that some explanation be given of the means proposed for checking the expenditures by this new department.

These are the recommendations we have to make at this time. I repeat that it is of great importance that there be a full explanation of all these semi-mobilization measures, for the benefit of hon. members here in the

house as well as the people across the country. It is most difficult for Canadians to realize that they may be facing a third world war tomorrow; in fact it is also difficult for me to realize that, and I think for everyone in this house to realize that such could possibly be the case in A.D. 1951 after we have already been through two world wars.

Because it is so difficult to be realistic under present conditions, there is a greater necessity than ever before to have these policies made crystal clear, to have them explained fully to the Canadian people. I hope that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce will take the time to answer the questions I have placed before the house.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

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

Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):

Mr. Speaker, we shall not oppose this resolution, nor do we question the efficiency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who, it is intimated, will head the new department to be set up under the bill following the adoption of the resolution. The fault we find is not with the star performer of the government in the person of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but with the general government policy as it pertains to the purchase and extension of military facilities. There are two or three points pertaining to that policy on which we should like some information when the minister speaks to the bill.

Last week end I met a crowd of great war veterans in my riding. One question they asked which was not easy to answer was this: How is it that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is finding it so difficult to house service personnel at this time? They had read his statement in the newspapers about the great scarcity of housing for military personnel. I read the following in his report for 1949-50:

In 1948-49 we let contracts for 2,160 married quarters and in addition there were 273 housing units under construction at the end of the year. This year our housing program includes the expenditure by this department of nearly $17 million on married quarters with a considerably larger sum to be expended through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on houses earmarked for service personnel. Over $90 million was allocated for all construction for defence purposes this year, which may be compared with the total expenditure on defence construction of $219 million in 1942.

Then the minister goes on to say in his report:

For a good many years to come, expenditures on construction will constitute a major item in the defence program. We have to accommodate seven or eight times the numbers we had before the war, and have much larger requirements for operational units, stores, hangars, training establishments- indeed every type of construction in every part of the country.

Defence Production Act

The question that arises in my mind, and in the minds of a great many taxpayers, is why the building program has to be compared with our position before the war. We read here that in one year during the war, 1942, we spent $219 million on defence construction. The taxpayers of Canada, whose money paid for that construction, are asking-and I think quite rightly-what has become of all the construction provided during the war years, and why we now have to start all over again from scratch to construct all the various types of buildings needed for national defence.

In contrast with the minister's report, when he was crying for hangars, housing accommodation and buildings of all kinds in all parts of the country, in the same year when the Minister of National Defence was allocating $90 million for building construction, War Assets had a very efficient department solely occupied with the demolition and disposal of every type of building that had been constructed during the war. That is not something that happened three or four years ago, but last year. In the same year in which the Minister of National Defence was asking for $90 million and crying for all kinds of buildings, War Assets was demolishing and disposing of the same type of buildings that the minister was calling for.

I find, for instance, that they disposed of ten hangars last year at the same time that the minister was crying for hangars. Most of them were disposed of to private industrial companies, a few to municipalities and universities. I find that in the same year there were forty-one different parcels or lots of buildings sold, the type which the minister is now wanting for the purpose of housing military forces. I should like to bring a few of these to the attention of the house. There was a lot of ten buildings sold at Chebucto military camp, Halifax. There were sixteen buildings sold at the army camp at Saint John, New Brunswick; thirty-five buildings at West Camp, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; two buildings at Toronto airport; eight buildings at the former R.C.A.F. station at Boundary Bay, B.C.; fifty-five buildings at the former Sussex, New Brunswick, military camp.

Those fifty-five buildings were disposed of for $10,000, or at a price of less than $200 per building. I was in some of them when I visited there during the war, and it would seem to me that somebody got a fairly good bargain when he purchased that block of fifty-five buildings for $10,000.

There was a hangar sold at Jarvis, Ontario; another hangar at Jarvis; thirteen buildings at a former Quebec airport; buildings at division headquarters area, Prince George;

618

Defence Production Act buildings at Mount Pleasant airdrome, P.E.I., a hangar at Neepawa, Manitoba; another hangar at Jarvis; twenty-six buildings at the air force station at Stanley, Nova Scotia, and so on down the list. Altogether there are forty different lots of buildings. The taxpayers of my riding are asking how it is that, in the same year when the government was disposing of these buildings, the Minister of National Defence was crying for buildings and suggesting that we should have to appropriate possibly hundreds of millions of dollars for more construction.

Incidentally, while we spent $219 million in 1942, War Assets, which has been very busy through the years disposing of properties, indicate on page 10 of their report for 1949 that total sales of property from July 12, 1944, to March 31, 1949, realized

$53,943,274. In other words, $53 million was realized over a period of five years from the sale of these properties on which we had spent over $200 million in one year alone, and last year $90 million was allocated for this particular type of construction.

I think some explanation is due the Canadian taxpayer who provided the money for these buildings during the five years of the war. He is asking how it is that we now have to start again where we were in 1939, and build all over again. He is asking why it is that, when the Minister of National Defence needed the same type of buildings in all parts of the country, another department of the government was disposing of such buildings. That is one phase of policy on which we would like some explanation.

The second point I want to discuss briefly is one that has been already referred to, the question of the decentralization of war industries and war contracts. Much has already been said on that subject. I should like to refer to a report of an address by Mr. H. J. Carmichael, chairman of the Canadian industrial defence board, found in the Evening Citizen of January 25, 1949. The report reads in part:

... in an address prepared for delivery to the Canadian Construction Association he further advised that thought be given to dispersal of industries among smaller centres as a safeguard against the atom bomb and fast flying jet propelled bombers. This trend toward decentralization has manifold benefits other than that of national security.

Others have spoken of the need, but the fact that defence industries were centralized during the war is, I think, best shown by the number of employees who were engaged in war industries at that time. We get these figures from a document published by the department of reconstruction and supply, entitled "Location and effects of wartime

industrial expansion in Canada, 1939-44." These figures indicate the increase in wartime industrial employment from 1939 to 1944 by geographical divisions.

In September, 1939, there were 88,014 wartime industrial employees in the three maritime provinces. On July 1, 1944, there were 144,791, an increase of 7-8 per cent. Over the same year, the increase in central Canada -

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

Just for clarification, would the hon. member repeat what he said about maritime employment?

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

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

Mr. Noseworthy:

According to the table given in this booklet the three maritime provinces had 88,014 engaged in wartime industrial employment-that is the heading used.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

In what year?

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

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

Mr. Noseworthy:

In September, 1939.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT
Sub-subtopic:   MOBILIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Permalink

February 23, 1951