Mr. HOWE:

No. It will go into the Sarnia plant as a polymerizer with other ingredients.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

It

will be shipped to Sarnia?

Mr. HOWE:

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

With

reference to the manufacture of rubber, it has been pointed out that there is likely to be a scarcity of oil products, such as gasoline and lubricating oils, and therefore greater attention should be paid to the distillation of alcohol from wheat. Of course we on the prairies are interested in that particular phase of the subject from the standpoint of disposing of our wheat. The minister thinks that would be impracticable at the moment. When speaking, he said that the time was not now opportune to discuss that phase of the matter because there was a plant already nearing completion in Sarnia and if that demonstrated that he could not get enough it might be necessary to start a plant in the prairies. But once the plant is completed at Sarnia and members from the prairies start pressing to have a plant put up in the west the minister will be one of the first to tell us that, having gone to all the expense of putting up a plant at Sarnia, while it might be more expensive to process the product there, nevertheless it would not be feasible to start another plant at tremendous cost in the west.

I would point out that there is great danger of our becoming extremely short in petroleum products. In fact, there is a danger that we may have to depend upon our own sources of supply. I think I am safe in saying that as regards increased production of petroleum products as a result of drilling wells, what has been obtained since the war started is almost negligible. We have not made progress in that field. A number of wells have been drilled but there is not very much production from that source. What astonishes me is this. We know definitely that we have oil in the tar sands. The minister has given his view on this question on many occasions but the fact remains that no one

War Appropriation-Supplies

can deny that a supply is there. We know definitely that it is there in unlimited quantities, to the extent of over one hundred billion barrels. That is a huge supply and. there is no guesswork about it. We know that it can be procured from the tar sands because they are doing it. The question, therefore resolves itself into one of expense in the process of separating the oil from the sand. There is a distillery there in which they are producing 400 barrels a day now.

Mr. HOWE:

No, they are producing nothing.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

Well,

before the fire they were producing 400 barrels a day.

Mr. HOWE:

I do not know; I guess so.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

I believe it was something like that; it was not a large amount; but the main point is that they were doing it. Now, if we are to face a shortage of rubber, and in fact we are facing such a shortage, why do we not go ahead, even though we have a plant at Sarnia which is going to produce rubber from petroleum products? Why do we not go ahead and separate the oil from those tar sands thus assuring ourselves of both oil and rubber? I am sure if the minister would put his genius to work-because I am not questioning that he has ability-and would get his department on the job in earnest, the production of oil from the tar sands could be accomplished, and I think he is the man to do it. He is not so much concerned, as he said the other day in referring to aluminum, about the price of the product; I think he pointed out that his job is production. I agree with him in that respect ; that is the main thing. If profits are being made that matter can be attacked from a different angle; nor am I suggesting that it should not be attacked. In all seriousness, however, I think the minister should review the situation in regard to the tar sands, to see if something cannot be done in this connection. Only a few weeks ago I learned from an authoritative source that at the present time American interests are up in the northern part of Alberta trying to estimate the possibility of bringing about this production; that they are determined it can be done and that they are going to approach or have approached the provincial government to see if there is any possibility of carrying on that work with American capital, because, as they say, they could not get anywhere with the dominion government. There may or may not be something to it, but the point is that people are much interested in this matter. The last time I dealt with this subject I read from an

article which appeared in a United States newspaper pointing out the urgent need for Canada to do something in regard to the tar sands in the Athabaska district, saying that this was an essential project for the defence of Alaska and in connection with the hard surfacing of those roads. I believe the minister pointed out some days ago that the sale of the byproducts of that process would almost pay for the cost of development. That is a. consideration also.

However, that is just incidental to what I was going to talk about. The other day the hon. member for Macleod had something to say in regard to the supply of water at various airports. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the fact, but we are spending a great deal of money on these airports owing to the fact that greater precautions were not taken in regard to locating water before the sites were definitely decided upon. I remember asking some questions in regard to the Shepard airport, which is just a few miles away from Calgary; those questions were made an order for return, which order was brought down as sessional paper No. 166 on Wednesday, February 24 of this year. I was inquiring about the cost of drilling wells and transporting the water from Calgary. It appears that two wells were drilled at the Shepard airport after the site had been decided upon and construction was fairly well advanced. The return did not give the cost of drilling the two wells; no doubt the minister could supply that information, but at the moment it is not material. After drilling these wells, which I believe gave a sufficient supply of water, according to the report the mineral content of the water was such that it could not be used, so that they had to pipe water from the city of Calgary. That was done because proper attention was not paid to the matter of the water supply before the site was decided upon. The cost of piping that water was $22,019.44, and the rates paid for the water are given in the return. To me they seem exceedingly high. The answer to question 7(b) was as follows:

The water obtained from the city of Calgary has not been provided for a full year and is on a graduated scale, payable monthly at command:

Cents per

thousand

First 5,000 gallons 40

Next 5,000 gallons 36

Next 20,000 gallons 33

Next 30,000 gallons 26

Next 90,000 gallons 18

Next 350,000 gallons 16

Next 500,000 gallons 14

Over 1,000,000 gallons 13%

According to the return it is estimated that 40,000 gallons per day would be required at the

72537-237J

War Appropriation-Supplies

airport, which figures at about $403 per month or about $13.30 per day for water alone. When you put that on a yearly basis it runs to about $4,892. If you consider the cost of piping, $22,000, and spread that over a period of say four years, which will give it another three years to go

supposing the war is over in three years-it means that the cost is about $6,000 a year for the piping and roughly about $5,000 for the water, or some $11,000 a year for the water supply alone. That is a tremendous price, all because proper attention was not paid to locating a supply of water before definitely deciding upon the site.

I can quite see that occasions may arise when it may be necessary to locate an airport at a particular point whether or not water is available, in which case it might be necessary to pipe the water to that spot. I do not think that was the case here, however. In the instance mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod the other day, water was located at a distance of about six miles from the airfield. Surely it would have been comparatively easy to move the site another four, five or six miles, especially when you consider that the water supply may cost up to $11,000 per year. I believe that is one thing the minister would do well to take in hand, in case other fields should be constructed in future.

The other day the minister made reference to the production of coal. I am extremely interested in this question; I believe everything possible should be done to increase the production of this commodity. Everything points to the fact that this coming winter we are going to find ourselves worse off, so far as supplies of coal are concerned, than we were last year; yet so far not a great deal has been done to increase our supplies. I believe this matter has come under the control of the minister only recently, and we hope he will be able to do something about it. At page 3551 of Hansard for June 11, 1943, the minister said:

Coal is one of our most pressing supply problems. Consumption has increased by more than forty-five per cent since the war began.

Then further down:

The result is that we have relied to an increasing extent on imports from the United States. . . . All of this means that Canada faces a possible shortage of 4,000,000 short tons during the current year.

That is quite a shortage. Then he went on to say:

I appeal to all those who are working in our coal mines to do their utmost to help us obtain increased production.

I think I can speak for the miners when I say they are just as anxious to increase the production of coal as anyone in this house. In all my meetings with the miners I have not found one who was not just as desirous as we are for increased production. But they do have their problems. And unless some effort is made to solve this problem, the minister will have a bigger job on his hands, as time goes on, than he has at present.

There is no question about supply, particularly where Alberta is concerned. The other day the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke with regard to his part of the country. It is estimated, I believe, that fourteen per cent of the world's supply lies in Canada, and that eighty-five per cent of that fourteen per cent lies in Alberta. There is a tremendous volume of coal in that province. The big question is: How are we to get it out? So far as

Alberta is concerned, whether or not the minister desires to open up more mines in that area, I can say to him that there is certainly plenty of coal there, if he wishes to go after it. There is an unlimited amount. Why, you can drive down the Drumheller valley and see the coal on the face of the hills. You can go into the Rocky mountains, and in one place you will find a mine with a million tons in it, which has been abandoned entirely. Oh, there is no difficulty there. The difficulty will be to get the supply of labour.

The minister has said that so far as manufacturing industries are concerned he will be able to take care of all the labour that will be moved from one plant to another. So that we shall not get many miners from that. Then, we shall not get many out of the army, because my experience is that when you try to get anyone out of the army you have a difficult proposition. And as time goes on you will necessarily have a more difficult task to obtain a release from the army. I say that because the time is coming when all who are in the army will be needed.

There is a great deal of loss of production through absenteeism, and that applies not only in the mining industry but in other industries as well. We saw it last year when we were travelling across this country, and we knew there was some loss of production in all branches as a result of absenteeism.

It has always been my contention, so far as coal mining is concerned, that a great deal of that absenteeism could be overcome if we modified our method of taxation, to same extent. The hon. member for Cape Breton

War Appropriation-Supplies

South pointed that out the other day, and I did the same on another occasion when I spoke on this question. The hon. member was right when he said that when it comes to increasing production, through overtime, there should be some modification in the tax structure. When a man has worked for seven or eight hours in a mine, and then for patriotic purposes, because the press is appealing to his patriotism, and because the minister himself is appealing to his patriotism, increases his production, and then because he may work another shift loses five or six dollars, I think he is just a fool to do it. And I make no apology for that statement. I would not do it, and you would not do it. I never ran across a business in Canada which would produce more, and be penalized because they did it.

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

Where is it? Name one industry which does.

Mr. HOWE:

There is no possible combination of circumstances under the present tax laws which penalizes a man, or which makes him earn less for working more. He earns more toy working more, and I defy the hon. member to show any other result. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue will support me in that. It is impossible for a man to work more hours and earn less money in his week's pay. .

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

I will give one instance. A lady wrote me the other day-and I have the letter in my office- stating that she received $100 a month for the work she was doing, and received a bonus of $17.45. Because she got the bonus she was taxed. She had to pay more because she got the bonus. That is one instance. Certainly if you raise a man's income from a certain field to a point where it gets into another field of taxation, just at that moment, while he may earn only a dollar more in the new field, he will have to pay more taxes.

Mr. HOWE:

No. My hon. friend does

not understand the tax structure, and it is destructive for him to talk about something he does not understand. I can assure him I know positively whereof I speak when I say that no possible circumstances can arise under which a man who works for forty-eight hours will get more money than the man who works for fifty hours or forty-nine hours, provided they both get the same rate of pay. I wish my hon. friend would not put on Hansard any other story, because he

is misleading, and dangerously misleading, the workmen of the country. There are too many destructive stories abroad now without having them spread from this House of Commons.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

All right; I will give the minister another question. He says he knows all about taxation. If he does, then I say he is one of the few people in this country who do, because we have been trying to make out our income tax returns in the last two or three weeks, and I have information that some have had to send their tax papers to an expert, or have him come and simplify the simplified form. But if the minister knows all about the tax structure-and of course I am not suggesting that he does not-then I say he is one of the few in Canada who do.

You should not talk about it unless you do.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

Here is another question: If a married lady is receiving $660, I understand she is subject to taxation. If she earns one dollar more she is going to be taxed, and she will lose in the process.

Mr. GIBSON:

No; she is not going to lose in the process. The income tax law provides that where a person is taxable, no tax will reduce her down to or below the exemption level.

Mr. HANSELL:

Is there not a case where a coal miner might-

The CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps the hon. member for Bow River should complete his statement.

Mr. HANSELL:

I was just trying to

help him out. But I imagine he does not need my help.