Mr. ESLING:

What did the -company do in this war? It said to the British government: We wall supply you with all the lead and zinc you need in excess of the requirements of the Canadian consumer. The company supplies that lead and zinc to-day to the British government at a price for zinc, for instance, which is less.than the average price in the five years prior to the war. In other words this company is supplying the allies -with zinc at S3.60 per hundred pounds as against what? As against the New York quotation of S9.25. Is that not something to be proud of? Is that not something w'hich the members of this parliament should consider-3-6 cents per pound as against 9-25 cents per pound in the United States? The price of their lead is also proportionately low. These prices-and I would just like the members to listen to this to see that there is no grasping or profiteering by one company- these prices mean that the British government is receiving its lead and zinc from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company at a saving of $22,000,000 every year. There is no grasping or profiteering there.

May I add this one iword. Responsible for all this loyalty and this endeavour to participate in the war effort is Mr. S. G. Blaylock, the president and managing director of the company. He did not come there as a high-priced official. I happened to be a resident of the city of Trail before the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company came into existence. I saw Mr. Blaylock come to Trail as a student from McGill to take employment in the assay office. He grew up with the plant. He was in daily contact with his fellow workers. He saw their problems, and! he made it his purpose in life to solve those problems, and he is solving them to-day. I do hope that these few words may commend the industrial policy of the Trail plant to other industrial institutions in the Dominion of Canada.

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

I was personally very much impressed yesterday afternoon by the minister's defence of the dollar-a-year men upon whom he has relied for production. I am not at all critical of these gentlemen as individuals. I feel as I am sure the house does that the minister, intent as he was on securing the maximum possible production, chose the men that in his opinion would give that result. There are, however, many people across this country, and they are not by any means all C.C.F.'ers, who are critical of that policy and who fear that the minister, intent on getting production during the war, has paid too little regard to the ultimate result in terms of the post-war period of the policy he is following. There are many people in this country who

have good reason to remember that these very men who were eulogized here yesterday must take their share of responsibility for what happened in this country in the pre-war years, and a great many people across this country are fearful of a recurrence of those conditions if these same gentlemen are left in control of our economy when the war ends. Certain it is- I think there can be no question in any one's mind-that the policy being followed by the government to-day inevitably affords to big business an opportunity to entrench itself in the economy of this country, and in almost every instance large corporations will come out of this war in a much stronger position than they were in when the war began.

I listened with interest to what the minister had to say of the qualifications of the directors of Polymer. With all due respect to the minister and the admiration which he as a professional man has for the business man, I fail to see why, because a man is president and director of a long string of mining companies, he has by reason of that fact any special qualifications to be a director of a firm the purpose of which is to construct a plant for the production of synthetic rubber. The same applies to the president and director of a yeast company or to the directors of a bank or the directors of a financial institution. I fail to see where these positions give them any special qualifications for this particular position. I was rather surprised that on that list of directors there was not the name of one single construction man. There must have been outstanding men in the business in which the minister himself was interested and it seems to me that would have been the logical place to look for a man of experience of that kind.

As to capital control, I referred on Tuesday to the extent to which the Aluminum company is gaining control over our water powers in this country. There are people in this country, and again they are not confined to the ranks of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-there are many in Ontario-who are vitally interested in the publicly-owned Ontario hydro-electric system, who are wondering what will be the effect upon publicly-owned hydro in this province of this cost-free governmental war-time financing of the Aluminum company and its Shipshaw plant. I have correspondence from the mayors of a number of municipalities in Ontario who are very much alarmed at the prospect of the Aluminum company being in a position, because of its low capital charges, to produce after the war electric power more cheaply than any other concern on this continent. They are alarmed at the prospect in the post-

War Appropriation-Supplies

war period of that company being able to block as they have done in the past the further development of publicly-owned enterprises. I do not know to what extent the minister or the members of the house are aware of the powerful international hook-up in connection with the development of the St. Lawrence watershed. I have before me the seventh annual report of the power authority, which on page 44 gives the names of seventeen directors, among them Mr. Arthur B. Davis, Mr. Edward K. Davis, Mr. Geoffrion, and Mr. Leighton McCarthy. Between them in one way or another these seventeen directors control Aluminium Limited, Saguenay Power, Aluminum Company of America, Montreal Light, Heat and Power, Beauharnois Power, Niagara Hudson Power, Shawinigan Water and Power, Quebec Power, International Power Securities, Gatineau Power, and a number of others such as security companies, which are mere holding companies. I have a further table, on page 42 of the same report, showing the international power hook-ups. Heading the list is the Mellon aluminum interests. There are twenty-seven companies in that hook-up. Pully half of them operate in Canada. One of the companies in that hookup itself controls fifty-seven other companies, which between them produce and distribute 90 per cent of the power which is used in the state of New York to-day.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

International Power has been ordered to be dissolved, has it not?

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

But that was the situation at the time of the investigation and at the time this report was made up. Our Ontario hydro system to-day is contracting with private companies, all tied up in one way or another with the aluminum interests, for about as much power as it is developing from its publicly-owned plants. I pointed out that the development of Shipshaw was the culmination of a policy which has been followed very definitely through the years, a policy to block the development of publicly-owned water powers, a policy to get control of these, to ring them about. I am sure the minister will agree that we can ill afford in this country to allow the water flowing down our rivers to pass into the control of an international monopoly. That is a menace.

Mr. HOWE:

Mr. Chairman, I am sure I do not know under what item the present discussion is taking place. Certainly it is not under item 1, because there is not a dollar of government funds being given to Aluminum company or to any water-power company as capital assistance. However, since the hon. 72537-236

member has said that Aluminum company has been blocking water power for years, and grabbing control of water power for years, perhaps he will tell us what powers have been blocked and what powers are controlled.

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

I wanted to show that from 1921 to 1924, for instance, the hydro electric commission and the government of Canada were committed to the policy of developing a publicly owned development on the St. Lawrence. I pointed out on Tuesday-

Mr. HOWE:

We are still committed, are we not?

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

Just a moment. I pointed out on Tuesday that the aluminum interests had engaged a very highly-paid counsel in Canada-

Mr. HOWE:

Mr. Chairman, are there no rules at all for this committee? On what item is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. COLD WELL:

I thought I heard the minister say a few minutes ago that he would be glad if the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noteworthy) would show in what manner the Aluminum company had blocked development of water power.

Mr. HOWE:

I should like to hear him speak on that, but I do not see why he should discuss it on this item.

Mr. COLDWELL:

The minister will find that the reference which the hon. member is about to make does bring into the picture

the Frontier corporation, which was used by the Aluminum company to block power.

Mr. HOWE:

There is no appropriation under this item for the Frontier Corporation.

Mr. COLDWELL:

But the minister

challenged the hon. member to show how this involved the Aluminum company, and the hon. member is doing so.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member for York South is for the most part out of order, but in this instance he is replying to a question asked by the minister himself. I cannot see, however, that there is any relation between hydro development, or Shipshaw, and the item under discussion. So far we have made no progress in the consideration of this item, and while I do not know what the temper of the committee may be at the moment, I venture to say that every hon. member is anxious to have some progress made. I would ask hon. members therefore to comply with the rules from now on and to stick to the item before the committee.

War Appropriation-Supplies

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The minister invited this.

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

In answer to the minister's question as to how Aluminum company had blocked the development of the publicly owned enterprise on the St. Lawrence, I was pointing out that from 1921 to 1924 both the Ontario government and the federal government favoured the development of that project. In the meantime, I have already shown, the aluminum: interests had engaged the services of a very highly-paid counsel to look after their interests in this country. Following that, I find that in 1926 the Ontario government, the Ontario hydro-electric power commission and the federal government had changed their policy with regard to the development of that project as a publicly owned concern. In 1927 the Canadian government, in reply to an invitation from the United States to participate in negotiating for the St. Lawrence treaty, replied that the government's policy must wait on the report of its national advisory committee. Just prior to that the Ontario hydro oommission had informed the international commission that they too would be forced to contract for private power. Two months before they made that statement they had already entered into a contract with the Gatineau Power company, and when the national advisory committee reported to the federal government they recommended the development of the all-Canadian section which was to be developed by private ownership. The following is a quotation from their report:

We believe that if a reasonable time were permitted in which to enable the resulting power to be economically absorbed the development of this national section would be undertaken by private agencies able and willing to finance the entire work, including the necessary canalization in return for the right to develop the power.

That point of view was embodied in the government's report to the international committee in the following year. The interesting feature of that report is that the chairman of that national advisory committee, Doctor McDougald, was one of the men who were first interested in the organization of Beauharnois, and Aluminum company was present and represented.