Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Marcil, for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: The necessity of supplying munitions to Great Britain during the continuance of the war in view of the fact that they are being decreased and stoppage of the1 same is threatened.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for

Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) desires to move, seconded by Mr. Marcil, for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: The necessity of supplying munitions to Great Britain during the continuance of the war in view of the fact that they are being decreased and stoppage of the same is threatened.

I may say with reference to this proposed motion, that it is competent for me to rule that it is not a matter of such importance as to properly be discussed under rule 39. On the other hand, when I have a doubt in my mind, it is my duty to submit the motion to the consideration of the House. Many considerations present themselves to me. One is that the subject of munitions has been discussed at various times during the present session. The one feature of the case that leaves a doubt in my mind is that tihe supply of munitions has recently been curtailed. The interpretation which has been placed upon the rule is that a definite matter of urgent public importance must be one of recent occurrence. The circumstance that the decrease in munition supplies has been recent leaves a doubt in my mind as to whether tihe hon. gentleman ought not properly to have the right to present his motion to the House. Having that doubt in my mind, I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member and afford him the opportunity of presenting his motion. That being the case I purpose submitting the question to the House as to whether the hon. member shall have leave to move this motion.

(Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances, I would not make any objection to a motion of this kind although there is .a doubt in my mind as to whether this constitutes such a question of urgent public importance as to justify the House in interrupting its course of necessary business in order to give up the time which will be consumed by tihis discussion. The matter referred to in the hon. gentleman's motion is:

The necessity of supplying munitions to Great Britain during the continuance of the war in view of the fact that they are being decreased and the stoppage of the same is threatened.

There is no doubt that this is an important question to various interests in the Dominion of Canada. If the decrease in munitions as manufactured and supplied from Canada, does not result in a decrease of effective and aggressive power at the front there is no Imperial menace and no menace to the Allies or to the Empire. There is no doubt in my mind-I do not imagine that there is any in the mind of any hon. member of this House-that whatever variation or restriction in kinds of munitions which have heretofore been'made in Canada and the manufacture of which will be gradually decreased is well within the ken of the British Government and will be decided with absolute regard to the necessity for these munitions of war at the front. Therefore, it is a matter only of comparative urgency, simply to certain interests in the Dominion of Canada-

Mr. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that under the rule of procedure, it is open to my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) to take objection, but not to argue the question.

Mr. SPEAKER:

As I understand, the right hon. member who is leading the House (Sir George Foster) purposes making an objection, and he is laying the groundwork for that objection. Otherwise he would not be in order in speaking at this stage.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Under the recently applied closure rule the discussion of this motion is not in order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

This is not the closure...

Mr. PUGSLEY:

But the closure rules apply.

Mr. SPEAKER:

A certain amount of latitude will always be allowed by me to

[The Speaker.]

the leader of the Government or to the leader of the Opposition in addressing the House or in giving reasons for taking a certain position. While the right hon. the leader of the House, as I understand, proposes to make an objection, I think it is but right that he should have opportunity to lay the basis for it.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I had no other idea than to make an objection but I wish to give point to my objection by laying the groundwork. I have given one reason why I make objection, but there is another and a still more urgent one. This House has been in session for six months; we are approaching within four weeks of the time when the term of Parliament will expire by effluxion. We have very important business now on the Order Paper which we proposed to go on with this day. This motion is interposed. I think it is a matter of relative urgency, which the House should take into consideration, as between this motion and the measure which is before the House taking into account that it has to be passed through this House, and through the Senate, and that the time is very short in which to do that. I think the. relative urgency is altogether in favour of going on with the regularly proposed business of the House. Furthermore, and stronger still, it is the wish of this House, and it has so been expressed that as soon as possible the country may come to a decision as to the point at issue. It is impossible for the country to have a basis of coming to a decision, unless we have a franchise measure and provision for the preparation of the lists passed by both Houses, for the country to give its decision upon. That is absolutely necessary. When these great matters absolutely necessary to the decision of the country are pending, why should we interpose with a subsidiary matter and one of less relative urgency? It is on these grounds, which might be amplified if it were necessary for me to do it-hon. gentlemen can see the point for themselves-that I object to the time and business of this House being broken into by the discussion of a question, the discussion of which cannot come to any final issue and which precludes the attention of the House being given to hiatters of infinitely greater urgency and more essential importance.

As to the latter objection which my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster') takes, that it is important to proceed with the consideration of the Franchise Bill which is

now before the House, I have only to say that we have a Franchise Act already and that we do not require any Franchise Bill at all. The measure which has been introduced is not at all an improvement in the Franchise Act which we have on the statute book. I think it is a distinctly retrograde step to interfere with the Franchise Act which we already have. However, that is only by the way. As to the motion of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) you, Sir, have taken the objection that the matter of munitions has been very often discussed during the present sessions. It has, but it has never been discussed from the point of view that is now raised by my hon. friend from Pictou. We have discussed this matter from different points of view but it now takes on an entirely new aspect from the fact that we are threatened with a suspension or cessation of the manufacture of munitions. That is the point to which my hon. friend wants to call the attention of the House. If it be true that the manufacture of munitions is about to cease in Canada, may I not suggest to you, Sir, that there is no subject of more importance to-day not only to the Imperial forces and the Imperial cause but to the Canadian people themselves than the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend. Everybody knows that the manufacture of munitions is about the only industry living and prospering at the present time in Canada and if it ceases altogether economic questions of the greatest importance must be taken into consideration. It is for these reasons that I say that the motion of my hon. friend is perfectly in order. It directs the attention of the House to the question of munitions from a point of view from which it has not been considered before and it is highly desirable that we should have the consensus of the House on this matter. .

Mr. SPEAKER:

Objection is taken by the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir George Foster) to the motion presented by the hon. member for Pictou. It is my duty to ask the House to decide whether it will accept the objection taken by the right hon. the leader of the House or whether it will permit the hon. member to proceed. Objection having been taken, I will ask those hon. members who support the motion to rise in their places.

And more than twenty members having risen in their places:

Mr. SPEAKER:

I call upon the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to proceed with the motion.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make to the House or the country for directing the attention of Parliament this afternoon to this important matter. We have on various occasions in the past, when questions of this kind have come up ' for discussion, been told that they were: not proper matters for the consideration of Parliament. I do not know upon what ground that suggestion is made because any one who follows the deliberations of the Imperial Parliament has seen that the methods of producing munitions and the arrangements for their supply, are subjects often discussed in that Parliament. No subject has engaged the attention of the British Parliament to the Same extent as this question of the organization of the nation for the purpose of obtaining its munition supply. In every nation which has engaged in this war, in every overseas dominion that has played its part at the front and has had anything to do with furnishing supplies, either food supplies or munitions for the purpose of enabling the fight to be effectively carried on, the problems of this service have always been regarded as of the first importance. In view of the fact, Sir, that we have been told that this country should be congratulated upon the wonderful part it has played in providing munitions of war in the past, when we are reaching a stage when the industry and the production are being absolutely menaced, if not actually and completely effaced, I am surprised that the leader of the House should venture to say that this is not a matter of prime importance.

My right hon. friend the leader of the House seems to be one of those gentlemen who, after they have expressed themselves with regard to the war, with that broad Tory spirit which has always been characteristic of him, think that, no matter what the views of other hon. gentlemen may be as to what Canada should do in the war, they have no right to open their mouths. I have as much right to express my opinion as to what Canada should do in this-war as has the right hon. gentleman, or any other hon. gentleman.

What are the facts in regard to this matter? Shortly after the war began this country was supposed to be in no position to produce munitions. There arose this great industry at a time of the great depression in Canada in the fall of 1914, which has given employment to thousands of men and women throughout the country. As the result of that industry, we have been able to send to Great Britain thousands of shells

of the most effective type and of the best possible construction, which have been of the most material assistance to the Allies and to the homeland in the fight in Flanders and elsewhere. Now we find that within the last two webks the intimation has gone abroad that those industries have in a great many cases absolutely discontinued the manufacture of shells. Great numbers of men and women have been discharged from employment. Many of these men are not of military age, but they were giving their best service to the country in the war. The women also were playing a great part by helping to produce munitions. Under those conditions I am astonished at the right hon. gentleman having the audacity to say to the House and the country that we have no right to discuss the question of the stoppage of that production. Not only have we been sending shells of different varieties, but we have been sending steel ingots from which the shells were being forged on the other side of the Atlantic. I understand the situation in Canada to be that a great number of the industries which have been producing certain types of shells have been notified that they must stop altogether. This notification comes without the slightest preliminary warning. Large amounts of capital have been invested in these industries, and machines of all kinds have been obtained and put to work. People who were dependent upon these industries for employment and for their livelihood have been laid aside without any notice whatever. There is no suggestion of compensation either to the people who have their capital invested or to the workers who have been depending upon the industry for their livelihood. Without a word of warning they are notified that no more shells will be produced.

What is the reason of this? There has been no large discussion upon this shell question during this session of Parliament. Whenever hon. gentlemen on this side of the House ventured to mention the matter we were told it was a matter of Imperial concern, which is not correct for it is largely a question of Canadian concern. On 25th August last I asked the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Sir George Foster) for some information in regard to the matter, and he said:

Sir George Poster: I should prefer that the full answer be given by the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, but if there be any stoppage of the manufacture of shells in this country or any diminution, as I believe there is to

be, it is because the variety of shell whose manufacture will be diminished or discontinued is not now needed from Canada, as they are able to produce them in sufficient quantities in Great Britain.

'That is all the hon. gentleman knew of this important question two weeks ago. Has he learned anything further about it since? The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), on the following Monday, made a further statement in regard to the matter, and in the course of that statement, he said, as reported in Hansard of that day:

The minister-

That is, the Imperial Minister of Munitions.

has now advised that it is unnecessary to continue production in Canada on the present scale. He has directed that certain lines shall be discontinued; that other lines shall toe produced in lessened quantities; while some lines are to be continued as at present.

The effect of this will he to stop the production of shells and components at some plants which are now producing sizes no longer required.

The manufacture of the larger shells has been discontinued. The orders for these small shells have been coming in, but it is impossible to maintain these industries, or to continue their organization, under these conditions. The result is that the production of shells in Canada is to be stopped altogether. The Minister of Finance went further and said:

These changes have been anticipated by several important Arms, who have already resumed, or are planning to resume, their prewar activities in their own lines.

In all these steel industries there were no pre-war activities. Under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, in the summer of 1914, the steel industries of this country were closing their doors. Perhaps my hon. fliend's policy will bring about the same condition again. IHe does not oare whether shells are produced in Canada and sent to Great Britain, as long as he gets his Franchise Bill put through. The Government, through its inaction, is bringing back the pre-war condition, the pre-war lack of work and bread, which existed in this country previous to 1914, without attempting to provide a remedy. My hon. friend went on to say:

During July, we advanced $35,000,000 ; during August we are advancing $35,000,000, and we have arranged to continue the advances of $25,000,000 a month, during September, October, November and Dei'ember, so that the Dominion Government will continue to make the advances which we have been making in the past.

If hon. gentlemen in this House or any gentleman in the country can tell us, from

these two explanations, what the attitude of the Government is in regard to this business, I hope he will do so. For myself I confess an inability to gather it. The situation is that the shell industry in Canada has been stopped, and why? Is it because shells are not needed across the ocean, where the war, in all its cruelty and fierceness, is proceeding with greater intensity than in previous times? The demand for shells is just as great now as ever. Are we in Canada going to stop supplying shells? If so, why? We must remember that the history of this whole question of shell production in Canada is this: The Government, through the original committee, proceeded to form an organization which allotted contracts and initiated the shell production. That was carried on for some time. Then we had the Imperial Munitions Board. But nothing has been initiated by this Government in any way in connection with shell production. Why should we not ascertain, where we are in regard to this matter? Is the Government going to move in it, or is it not? What course was pursued in Great Britain? There they had a registration of the man-power of the nation, and they nationalized the shell industry. Every shell manufactory was taken over by the Government, and operated by them. It is a well-known fact that a great number of men were brought back from the front in order to engage in the shell industry in Great Britain, while a large number of women of the old land were engaged in these industries. Is it because there are plenty of shells being made in Great Britain, that they do not require assistance from outside? If that is the reason, the country should know it. If there is any other reason the country should know it. Is it because of any financial reason? In this connection I would call the attention of the House to a speech made by Mr. Rowell, as reported in the press, in which he gives a financial reason for the stoppage of the manufacture of shells.

Britain is giving her orders for munitions to the United States and our workers are threatened with closing down, for why? Because Great Britain has now come to the point where she cannot possibly pay in gold, after the great assistance she has given to the allies and she must purchase on credit. The United States can sell her on these conditions, and why should not Canada be able to do likewise?

I think the question asked by Mr. Rowell is a very pertinent one. The discussion to ascertain where we stand on this matter was absolutely necessary. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or will the Minister of Finance, tell us that the situation- is that, by reason of financial arrangements by Great Britain, she is now purchasing shells in the United States, while, by reason of no financial arrangement having been made by Canada, Britain is not going to purchase them in Canada? If these are the reasons we ought to know it; because if financial arrangements can be made under which this industry can be continued, such arrangements ought to be made, for Canada, and our people should be called upon, if necessary, to make sacrifices to that end. What has been the position for the last three years? All over this country, by reason of the shell industry, and the tremendous amounts of money that have been paid to those who work in that industry, we have had prosperity in every industrial centre, which prosperity has helped the Minister of Finance to swell his revenues and has provided the money with which his loans were taken up and our patriotic funds maintained. All these things were largely due to the shell manufacture and its correlative industries. Every iron and steel industry in this country that could produce shells has been working overtime; they have been disregarding the production of staple articles in order to -engage in the manufacture of shells. Are these activities to be stopped? Is this country to be thrown back to where it was in 1914?

Is the question one of transportation? Tremendous injury has been inflicted upon the shipping of allied and neutral nations by the German submarine campaign, and the suggestion has -been made in some quarters that that accounts for the difficulty experienced in transporting shells. While the shell itself is not being exported, I understand that Great Britain is still importing from the United States and Canada large quantities of steel ingots, out of which the shell is bored. If this raw material can be transported in large quantities, there is no reason why the shell itself cannot be transported. It does not weigh as much as the ingot, and it does not take up as much room; so that the argument made with regard to the difficulty of transportation does not prevail. If shells -are needed at the front and if they can be transported as easily as shell steel can be transported, what justification is -there for the present condition in- respect of the manufacture of shells in Canada?

I have referred to the advantages which have come to Canada as a result of this industry. Those advantages are well known; why should they be swept away?

If the question of finance is not at the bottom of it, why has the Minister of Finance made the statement that he has made? Why havie we had the statements that have been made in the matter by Mr. Eowell? Is it a fact that this country is not in a position to supply the money for the production of shells in Canada? Great Britain is paying the cost of the maintenance of our troops overseas. Instead of sending money across to pay those bills, we have been paying for the production of shells sent across the ocean. Is that practice to be discontinued? If Canada is in this way to stop paying what she owes to Great Britain, the people ought to know it; such a course would be a grave mistake on the part of the financial people of Canada. Is the shell industry of Canada to be allqwed to become extinct? Men over military age have mortgaged their properties in order that they might engage in the shell business; are they to be told,, upon a week's notice, that the whole of the product of their capital is worth nothing? Are the machines that have been used in the shell industry all over Canada to he scrapped? What is going to happen to my hon. friend's business profits tax? He will* have to revise his estimate of the amount of money that he will receive during the year 1917 if the business profits of the men who have been engaged in the shell industry are to be swept away for the remainder of the year.

The method adopted of dealing with 'the production of shells in Canada is not satisfactory. There should be no Imperial Munitions Board in this country; Canada should herself deal with the problem of manufacturing shells. Canada should do what Great Britain did: take over and

operate the shell factories. If the shell industry is to be destroyed it is not because shells are not required at the front; there must be some other reason. I represent a constituency in which 2,000 men are thrown out of employment, a great number of them mpn over military age, who now have no means of livelihood-and we are on the threshold of another winter. This matter is one of most urgent importance. I want to know, first, whether this country is to have its hands tied; whether A is to go out of the business of helping the Allies in the war through the production of shells.

I want to know, secondly, why it is that men who have invested capital in this industry are to lose their money; that workmen who have been dependent upon this

industry for their livelihood are to be thrown out of employment. I want to know whether Mr. Eowell was right when he said yesterday in Toronto that Great Britain had made an arrangement with the United States under which Great Britain should purchase supplies in that country, not by payment in gold, hut through the medium of credit. If the United States can sell to Great Britain under these conditions, why should Canada not be able to do so? It was in order that this important matter might be discussed that I moved the adjournment of the House. The men who have invested capital in this industry want to know why they should be struck down at one blow; the men who have been employed in the making of shells want to know why they should be put out of work when there is great need for shells across the ocean. Hon. gentlemen opposite, during the last two and a half years, have been laying the flattering unction to their souls that prosperity has come to Canada through the war, particularly through the manufacture of shells, and have claimed unlimited credit from the people. Yet when the shell industry is discontinued the matter is not of importance to them; Parliament, in their view, should not devote an hour and a half to its consideration.

Parliament has a right to know frankly and fully from this Government what they are going to do in regard to this matter. Are there difficulties which cannot be solved? Are the conditions insurmountable? Is Canada not to play her full part through the production of munitions in assisting Great Britain and the Allies to the utmost of her industrial ability? Is she not to provide employment for the older men and for the women who are compelled to remain at home?

Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :

Mr. Speaker, although I am of

opinion that it was entirely unnecessary for my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) to bring this matter to the attention of the House, a full statement having previously been made respecting it, I desire to make a very brief reply. On August 27, I stated, in reply to a question by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) with reference to this matter, that the Imperial Munitions Board, which represents the British Government in the placing of munition orders in Canada, had handed out to the press the following explanation with

regard to the production of munitions in this country on a slightly different scale from what had prevailed hitherto:

Ottawa, 21st August, 1917. Towards the close of 1916 the capacity for producing munitions in Great Britain had so increased that the Minister of Munitions advised that it was unnecessary to continue the production of munitions in the United States for British account, except for a few special lines. The production in Canada, however, was continued as before.

The minister has now advised that it is unnecessary to continue production in Canada on the present scale. He has directed that certain lines shall be discontinued; that other lines shall be produced in lessened quantities; while some lines are to be continued as at present.

The effect of this will be to stop the production of shells and components at some plants which are now producing sizes no longer required. In other plants, where shells are made of sizes of which a reduced output only is required, it will mean working during the day only, thus stopping night work. In other plants, however, where sustained production is required, operations will be continued night as well as day.

These changes have been anticipated by several important firms, who have already resumed, or are planning to resume, their prewar activities in their own lines, while others are engaged in the production or preparation for production, of equipment needed for ships now under construction or to be built during 1918.

The reasons for the diminution of shell oiders is clearly set forth in that statement. It is no doubt within the knowledge of the House that, by reason of the exchange situation which prevails between Great Britain and the United States, it is an object to Great Britain, from a financial standpoint, to manufacture as much of her own requirements as possible on the other side of the Atlantic. She is continuing to order in this country the shells which she sjtecially requires, and my hon. friend is entirely mistaken in his statement that the shell industry of Canada is to be effaced. He had the information in the answer which I gave him, which would have told him that that conclusion was entirely unfounded, as I know he believes, because, instead of the Dominion Government decreasing the amount which we have supplied to the Imperial Government for the production of shells in Canada, we have, during the last two or three months, greatly increased that amount. I pointed out to my hon. friend, upon the occasion to which 1 have referred, that we had been paying $25,000,000 per month to the Imperial treasury for the purpose of paying for munitions in the Dominion of Canada. I may say that in July and August we paid out much more than $25,000,000 each month

for that purpose. 1 may say further that we have arranged, as my hon. friend has stated, to pay the sum of $25,000,000 per month for September, October, November and December for shells, and it is our intention to continue such payments as long as the war lasts. Let us consider for a moment what that means. $25,000,000 per month is easily said, but $25,000,000 per month means $300,000,000 per year. That is equal to two loans of $150,000,000, one every six months

In order that this House may see how the Dominion Government has risen to the occasion so far as supplying funds to the Imperial Government is concerned, I desire to submit just a few figures, promising not to take up too much of the time of the House. In round figures we have supplied the following amounts to the Imperial treasury during this year: January, $20,000,000; February, $25,000,000; March, $34,000,000; April, $25,000,000; May, $26,000,000; June, $36,000,000; July, $48,000,000; August, $37,000,000; and the estimate for the month of September is $40,000,000. Not only is the Dominion Government supplying money to the Imperial treasury for the production of munitions in Canada, but it is by reason of the action of the Dominion treasury in financing the Imperial treasury that the dairymen of Canada today are able to sell their cheese to the British Cheese Commission. For many years the cheese industry of Canada has been built up by reason of the export market which existed in Great Britain. If the Dominion Government had not undertaken to supply the $40,000,000 which represents the value of Canada's export cheese, the dairy farmers of this country would not today be able to sell their cheese in Great Britain, and there is no market to-day for that cheese in the United States. The dairy farmers of Canada, by reason of the action of the Dominion Government in furnishing that $40,000,000, are deriving ever 21 cents per pound for their cheese. The Dominion treasury, therefore, since July, has undertaken to furnish $25,000,000 per month and more for munitions, and in addition has undertaken to supply $40,000,000 for the purchase of cheese by the British Cheese Commission in Canada, and some $10,000,000 additional for purchases made for the War Office account by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. R. B. BENNETT:

Have any arrangements been made with relation to the purchase of wheat?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

No arrangements have been made as to the purchase of wheat. That in the past has always been carried out, as my hon. friend knows, through the chartered banks of Canada.