1923-03-19

MEMORIAL OF THE LATE LIEUT.-COL. BAKER, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to consider the form of the memorial to be erected in the parliament buildings to the memory of the late Lieut.-Col. Baker, M.P.
That the special committee on the Baker Memorial have leave to report from time to time.
On motion of Mr. Kay the report was adopted.


Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce) moved:: That the first report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of chapter 12, 8-9 George V, an act respecting the Civil Service of Canada, be concurred in.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I would ask the hon. member to explain the effect of the report.
[Mr. Speakman.l


James Malcolm: The committee recommends that the order in reference should be so broadened as to allow the committee to make recommendations looking towards the betterment of the act; and that the committee be empowered to sit while the House is in session.


Arthur Meighen: On the understanding
that that is the effect of the report I have no objection to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82 to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
He said:	The purpose of this bill is in
some cases to reduce the forest areas and in the other cases to add to them. The proposal has been submitted to the provincial governments interested, and they have all acquiesced, with the single exception of the government of Alberta. Therefore, in relation to that province we are not removing from the park areas any of the lands included in the bill, rather we are making additions. That, briefly, is all the bill purports to do-simply to change the boundaries of the forest areas in the several provinces. *
Arthur Meighen: I have seen in the press a report of the intention of the government in regard to these forest and park areas, namely, to introduce some legislation affecting water-powers therein. That is not included in this legislation?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: No.
Mr. MEIGHEN- Is there such a bill?


Charles A. Stewart: The matter has been discussed, but I am not sure at the moment whether we shall ask for legislation this session or not.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DECEASED HUSBAND'S BROTHER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) moved the first reading of Bill No. 75 (from the Senate), to make lawful the marriage of a woman to her deceased husband's brother or such brother's son.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
FIRST READINGS	4
Bill No, 76 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ernest Warren Porter.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).

Questions
Bill No. 77 (from the Senate), for the relief of May Elizabeth Meng.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill No. 78 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maud Vera Butler.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 79 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian Black.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 80 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Elizabeth McDonald.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gretta Melville.-Mr. Ryckman.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government, in extending the civil service bonus for another year, to grant the maximum amount to employees unmarried with or without dependents?
2.	If not, why not?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The arrangements of last year will be followed.
2.	Answered by the answer of No. 1.


INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: By return tabled February 28, 1923, it appears that by order in council dated July 27, 1922, remission was made of sales tax on importations and sales or deliveries of material entering into the construction of the new international bridge for the Michigan Central railway, to be constructed at Niagara Falls.
1.	What was the character and nature of the material covered by the above order?
2.	What was the value of the said material imported from the United States?
3.	What was the amount of sales tax remitted in respect of said importations from the United States?
4.	What was the value of the said material purchased in Canada?
5.	What was the amount of sales tax remitted in respect of said purchases in Canada?
6.	What were the names of the firms supplying the said material imported from the United States?
7.	What were the names of the firms supplying the said material purchased in Canada?
8.	In whose name was the application for refund made?
9.	Why was refund granted?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	All materials used in the construction of a bridge.
2.	No importations of material have as yet been reported to the department.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No sales of material have as yet been reported to the department.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 2.
7.	Answered by No. 4.
8.	The Canadian Bridge Company, Walker-ville, Ont.
9.	To remove disadvantages of Canadian contractors.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOTELS
Mr. SPENCE:: 1.	Who is the present manager or superintendent of hotels of the Canadian National Railways, and when was he appointed?
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	What experience has he. had in such or similar work, and in charge of what hotels?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	D. B. Mulligan, appointment dated February 28, effective March 1, 1923.
2.	Rate for new position not yet established.
3.	Since 1893: Palmer House, Chicago; Holland House, Waldorf Astoria, New York; Russell House, Ottawa; Breslin, New York; Fort Garry, and other Grand Trunk hotels.


PUBLIC WORKS PAYMASTER
Mr. GENDRON:: 1.	Has the vacancy for the position of paymaster in the department of Public Works, created by the death of Mr. McKay, been filled?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the minister to see that the person appointed to this position is familiar with both English and French languages, in view of the fact that a considerable portion of the work is performed in the province of Quebec, where ninety per cent of the population is French-Canadian?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No, but application to have the position filled has been made to the Civil Service Commission.
2.	The ability to speak both languages will receive due consideration in making an appointment.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What was the purchase price paid by the government of Canada for the Grand Trunk Railway?
2.	What are the names of the arbitrators who were employed by the government in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration?
3.	What fees were paid to each such arbitrator?
4.	Since becoming part of the Canadian National Railways, has the Grand Trunk section of said railways, in the last annual financial statement shown a profit or loss ?
5.	What is the amount of such profit or loss?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The government acquired control of the Grand Trunk under the terms of the agreement embodied in Chap. 17, of 1919, and Chap. 13, of 1920, by which the government guaranteed the interest upon the debentures and guaranteed stocks and undertook to
Questions

acquire, at a valuation to be established by arbitration, the preference and common stocks. The annual interest charges upon the debentures and guaranteed stocks amount to 88,984,634.58. The board of arbitration held that, at the time of taking over, the preference and common stock were valueless in view of the unsound financial condition of the company. Under the agreement the government became responsible for Grand Trunk financing as of May 21, 1920, and has, through the receiver, been responsible for Grand Trunk Pacific financing since the default of that subsidiary of the Grand Trunk on March 9th, 1919. What these responsibilities have cost the government to December 31, 1922, will be disclosed by the Acting Minister of Railways in his forthcoming annual statement to parliament.
2	& 3. The late Sir Walter Cassels, Chairman, S50,000; by the government, $25,000; by Grand Trunk Shareholders, $25,000; Sir Thomas White, $29,000.
4 & 5. The results for 1921, including the Central Vermont, were a net deficit, after fixed charges, of $15,672,299.34. The 1922 results will be disclosed by the Acting Minister of Railways in his forthcoming annual statement to parliament.


SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has the Burrard Tunnel and Bridge Company made application for approval of plans for a bridge spanning Second Narrows in Vancouver harbour?
2.	If so, has approval been given to said plans?
3.	Have representations been made to the government to reject approval of these plans?
4.	If so, by whom?
5.	Is it the intention of the Dominion government to grant subsidy to assist in the construction of said bridge?
6.	Have any steps been taken to change the plans submitted by said company?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Matter still under consideration.
3	& 4. Not to the Department of Public Works.
5.	Matter under consideration.
6.	Plans originally submitted are still under consideration.


CARAQUET RAILWAY
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What price was paid for the Caraquet Railway?
2.	Who were the shareholders of the company at the time of the purchase and what were their respective interests?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$200,000 and the cancellation of indebtedness of the Caraquet & Gulf Shore Railway tj
TMr. Graham.)
the Canadian Government Railways, amounting to $96,399.60.
2.	The government bought the physical property, not the stock, though 24,444 shares of the par value of $50 each, in the names of Messrs. E. B. Stockdale and C. S. Hamilton, in trust, and by them endorsed in blank, were, together with certain debentures, turned over to the government, January 13, 1921, by the Trusts and Guarantee Company, Limited, Toronto, trustees for the bondholders, as security for an advance of $175,000 on purchase price, pending settlement of differences regarding title.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DIRECTORS
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Is it the view of the government that the position of director of the Canadian National Railways is of so little importance as to be properly filled by a civil servant whose business ability is represented by a yearly salary of $2,500 since November, 1911, with no increases ?
2.	In view of the fact that Mr. Talbot is continuing his services with the government of the province of Quebec, is the government nevertheless of the opinion that should occasion arise the said Talbot would not follow the instructions or representations of his provincial employers ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The remuneration of a Canadian National director, $2,000 a year, is not necessarily indicative of the business ability of the directors, nor is the fact that the directors have had no increase since the board was appointed a reflection on the manner in which the directors have discharged their duties.
2.	In the view of the government, Mr. Talbot's experience and acquaintance with conditions pertaining to the district of Quebec will be of distinct advantage in the consideration, by the Canadian National Board, of railway, questions affecting that province, in the welfare of which the Dominion government, the Canadian National Board and the provincial government are, in their respective spheres, equally concerned.


TOBACCO IMPORTS
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	In the years	1920, 1921	and	1922 (any twelvemonths period given separately) what quantity and what value of tobacco and	manufacturers	thereof,
items 143, 143-A, 144 and 145 of. the customs tariff, was imported into Canada?
2.	What amount	of duty	was	collected	in each
year on each particular item ?
3.	What amount	of excise	was	collected	ip each
year on each particular item?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 
REBATES AND DRAWBACKS
Mr. FANSHER:: 1.	What was the value of the raw materials imported into Canada during the past fiscal year for the manufacture of goods for export?
2.	What was the amount of duty paid on these raw materials ?
3.	What was the amount of money returned to the importers in the way of rebates or drawbacks?
4.	What was the value of the raw materials imported into Canada during the past fiscal year for the manufacture of goods for home consumption?
5.	What was the amount of duty paid on these raw materials ?
6.	What was the amount of money returned to the importers in the way of rebates or drawbacks?


Jacques Bureau: It is impossible to answer the question as put. When goods go through customs there is no indication of the purposes for which they are imported. The only check we have in that respect is in connection with the drawback paid when the raw material imported enters into the manufacture of goods that are then exported. If my hon. friend will change his question I can bring down a statement showing the amount of duty
paid upon materials imported which entered into the manufacture of goods finally exported from Canada.
Question stands.


INCOME TAX
Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	How much revenue was derived from federal income tax for the years 1920 and 1921?
2.	How much was contributed by farmers from strictly farm operations ?
3.	How many farmers in Ontario paid income tax for the years 1920 and 1921?
4.	What is the cost in salaries and other expenses of administering said act?
5.	How many civil servants are employed to handle this work?
6.	How do the inspectors of taxation discriminate in asking farmers for their returns?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	1920-21, $46,381,806.64; 1921-22, $78,684,354.80.
2.	No statistics available covering strictly farm operations, but the following were the collections from farmers during fiscal years 1921 and 1922: 1920-21, $611,736.64; 1921-22, $1,324,693.68.
3.	1920-21, $1,870; 1921-22, $6,138.
4.	(Including bonus) 1920-21, $1,953,988.54; 1921-22, $2,214,638.28.
5.	1920-21, $1,330; 1921-22, $1,453.
The answers to (4) and (5) also include the administration of The Business Profits War Tax Act under which the following collections were made: 1920-21, $40,841,401.25; 1921-22, $22,815,666.58. Total collections under both acts, 1920-21, $87,223,207.89; 1921-22, $101,500,021.38.
6.	Returns are required from all persons who are deemed to be liable to taxation under The Income War Tax Act.


ONTARIO RURAL MAIL CARRIERS
Mr. ELLIOTT (Waterloo):: 1.	What is the average remuneration per annum to rural mail carriers in Ontario?
2.	How many carriers are thus employed?
3.	What is the average remuneration per annum to city mail carriers in Ontario?
4.	How many carriers are thus employed?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	$814.49 for service which varies as to time occupied daily, semi-weekly, etc., and according to length of route served, etc.
2.	1958.
3.	$1,335 (including bonus) for full-time service.
4.	1174.
Questions


RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Wliat are the names of the present members of the Railway Commission?
2.	What was the date of their respective appointments ?
3.	For how long are they appointed and what are their respective salaries?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Name	Date of appointment	Length of appointment	SalaryChief Commissioner, Hon. F. B. Carvel 1, K.C	Aug. 3, 1919	10 years	$ 12,500Asst. Chief Commissioner, S. J. McLean, M.A., LL.D., Ph.D	Aug. 6, 1919	10 "	9,000Deputy Chief Commissioner, Hon. W. B. Nan-tel, K.C., LL.D	Oct. 20, 1914	10 "	8,000Commissioner, A. C. Boyce, K.C	Oct. 4, 1917	10 "	8,000Commissioner, J. G. Rutherford, C.M.G	Sept. 17, 1918	10 "	8,000Commissioner, C. Lawrence	Nov. 9, 1921	10 "	8,000


B. C. BONDED WAREHOUSES
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	How many licenses authorizing the licensees to carry on in the province of British Columbia, the business of exporting intoxicating liquor from that province, or the keeping of such liquor in a licensed warehouse, have been issued since the commencement of the year 1920?
2.	Who are the licensees and what are the dates of issue of such licenses?
3.	In what cities or towns, respectively, were the warehouses situated in respect of which such licenses were issued?
4.	Is it the policy of the government in dealing with applications for such licenses to require the approval of the Attorney General of the province, or the provincial government, or a member thereof, before issuing such licenses?
5.	Was such approval given in the case of the licenses so issued? If so, by whom?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. Licenses are not granted to carry on the business of exporting intoxicating liquors. Bonded warehouses have been authorized in British Columbia since commencement of the year 1920, with the consent of the provincial authorities, for storage of intoxicating liquors in bond, subject to provisions of Customs Act government warehousing and ex-warehousing of imported goods, as follows:-
Location	Proprietor	Date of authorization	Name of Provincial authority giving consent	RemarksFernie	Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited.	Jan. 22, 1923	Attorney General.	Formerly Fernie Liquor Exporters, Ltd., authorized 11th July, 1921, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.Femie	B.C. Export Co. of Fernie.	June 26, 1922	Attorney General.	Cranbrook	Strath cona Export Co., Ltd.	May 11, 1922	Attorney General.	Only granted to take care of one car of liquor. This has since been ex-warehoused and bond closed.Grand Forks	Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited.	Feb. 7, 1923	Attorney General.	Formerly Globe Liquor Export Co., Ltd., authorized 6th May, 1922, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.Prince Rupert	Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited.	Feb. 21, 1923	Attorney General.	Formerly Northern Liquor Co., Ltd., authorized 6th February, 1922, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.It	Pacific Cartage Co.	Sept. 17, 1921	Attorney General.	This bond though granted has never been used.it	Prince Rupert Warehousing Co.	June 22, 1921	Attorney General.	This bond has never been used for storage of liquors.Vancouver	Provincial Govt. Liquor Control Board.	Aug. 17, 1921	Attorney General.	ft	Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited.	Oot. 20, 1922	Attorney General.	Formerly Davis Liquor Co., authorized 6th Aug., 1921, on consent of Attorney General and now transferred.it	Canadian Pacific S.S., Ltd.	Aug. 10, 1922	Prohibition Commissioner.	Limited to goods for ex-warehouse as ship's stores for this Company's vessels clearing transpacific. Formerly in name of Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Ltd. Applicant produced permission of Prohibition Commissioner.
(Mr. Graham).

Questions
Location	Proprietor	Date of authorization	Vancouver	Pacific Coast Storage Co.	Mar.	22,	1921"	Great West Wine Co.	July	15,	1921Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited.	Jan.	10,	1923n	A. L. McLennan. ...	April	9,	1921a	Glasgow Liquor Exporters, Ltd.	Jan.	25,	1922tt	Calgary Export Co.	June	22,	1921tt	J. G. Brooks, Ltd...	Feb.	23,	1921tt	Dominion Trading Co.	Mar.	8,	1921tt	Lloyd & Sons, Ltd..	Mar.	17,	1921it	National Exporters, Ltd.	May	19,	1921tt	Anderson & Morgan.	June	14,	1921it	Metropole Exp. Liquor Co.	Dec.	27,	1921California Wine Co..	May	6,	1922Western Can. Liquor Co.	June	13,	1921Victoria	Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited (Dallas Road).	Jan.	22,	1923Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited (Wharf Street).	Jan.	22,	1923
2. Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1. ,
4.	Unqualified consent of proper provincial authority is required before privilege is granted of storing intoxicating liquors in bond, in all provinces and districts where the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited under provincial law.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Does the government own a dry dock at Levis?
2.	If so, when was it purchased?
3.	From whom was the said dry dock purchased?
4.	What price did the government pay for same?
5.	On what date was the purchase made?
6.	How many boats were repaired, each year, in said dry dock?
7.	What was the tonnage of each boat repaired?
8.	Of what extent were the repairs?
9.	Where is said dry dock located?
10.	To whom do the adjoining properties belong?


ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminister) moved for a return showing:
1. All statutes, orders in council, regulations and other enactments and provisions of the province of British
Name of Provincial authority giving consent
Remarks
Attorney General.
Attorney General. Attorney General.
Attorney General. Attorney General.
Formerly Nat. Bell Wine Co., authorized 25th August, 1921, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.
Attorney General. Attorney General. Attorney General.
Premises vacated and bond closed. Not active-bond empty.
Not active-bond empty.
Attorney General. Not active-no liquors in bond. Attorney General. Not active-bond empty.
Attorney General. Not active-bond empty. Attorney General. Not active-bond empty.
Attorney General. Not active-bond empty.
Attorney Genera). Premises vacated and bond closed.
Attorney General. Formerly Rithet Consolidated
Ltd., authorized 22nd February, 1921, on consent of Attorney General and now transferred.
Attorney General. Formerly Messrs. Pither & Leiser, authorized 22nd June, 1921, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.
Columbia since the entry of that province into confederation, dealing with or affecting oriental immigration, or the rights or privileges of orientals, which have been disallowed; giving dates of disallowance and the reasons therefor in every case respectively.
2.	A copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, telegrams and other writings which have passed between the present government or any minister or official thereof, and the government of the province of British Columbia, or any minister or official thereof, relative to the disallowance of any provincial enactment affecting orientals.
3.	A copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, telegrams or other writings which have passed between the Secretary of State, or any of his officials and any of the county court judges in Vancouver on the subject of naturalization of oriental aliens.
4.	A copy of all orders in council or other regulations passed during, or since, the last session of parliament, affecting oriental immigration.
5.	Details as to oriental immigration since the present government assumed office, classified as to age, sex, nationality and occupation.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend is asking
for a good deal of information in this motion. Perhaps he would enlarge it to include a little more. Subsection 4 asks for "A copy of all orders in council or other regulations passed during, or since, the last session of parliament, affecting oriental immigration." I would suggest that he change that to read "since January 1, 1917," and also that he change sub-

Canada's Coal Supply
section 5 to read "since January 1, 1917." If he has no objection to enlarging the order to that extent, it might pass.


Arthur Meighen: (Leader of the Opposition): The understanding would be that the information would come down by years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for Canada to have a National Policy in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on a United States coal supply. That further in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately consider the initiation of an all-British and Canadian coal supply and that such a policy is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the future of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity of presenting this resolution. I am bringing it forward, not in criticism of the government or of anybody, for I believe that everybody has done what he could in the present fuel emergency in Canada. The object of bringing forward this resolution is rather to throw out some constructive suggestions so that another fuel famine such as we have had this year may be avoided.
Canada needs a coal supply from some other source than the United States. Canada's dependence on the coal supply of the United States is not only a national danger but a national humiliation also, and it is the duty of this parliament to try and work out some other arrangement. We have a national policy with respect to food, and a national policy with respect to clothing, and I can see no reason why we should not have a national policy with respect to our fuel supply. This is a question affecting the health, peace and comfort and prosperity of every man, woman and child in the community. Our very industrial life is at stake if conditions are to continue as they have been in the past. It is only of comparatively recent years-about forty years ago-that Canada abandoned her national fuel policy. In those days people used wood very largely for fuel, but the development of the Pennsylvania mines and the advertising which the Pennsylvania coal barons gave to that coal at the fall fairs in Canada brought about a new era. Anthracte

coal was burned in stoves at these fairs and at exhibitions from coast to coast as a demonstration and finally the habit of using anthracite coal for fuel became fixed on the people of Canada. We have seen the results of such a policy. We do not want to have another winter like the last one in our large centres of population with plumbing frozen and sanitary conveniences destroyed, where we had many families suffering hardship, people taken sick with grippe and pneumonia and many dying from it, and with such a shortage of fuel that people were lined up for hours before the coal offices hoping to place an order, and when they did get an order placed they would come back the next day and find the office dosed.
We do not want to face again such a condition as that if it can possibly be avoided. The shortage of American anthracite in this country was largely due to the two great coal strikes in the United States. The first occurred in 1902-3 when the price of coal in Canada went up to $30 and $35 a ton. The second strike took place about a year ago, in April, 1922, and it was the greatest coal strike in the history of the civilized world. That strike lasted for five months during which time not a ton of anthracite coal was mined as compared with a production of
40,000,000 tons for the corresponding five months of 1921. Of soft coal only 90,000,000 tons were mined during those five months of last year, as against 150,000,000 for the same period of 1921. The first to be affected by the coal shortage in the United States were the manufacturers, but when November arrived the demand for coal became pretty general, and a cry went up that the government should take over and operate the coal mines. Congress was called to consider the situation, but fortunately did not adopt the foolish policy growing out of the popular clamour, which was asked for. The people of this country must never be caught napping again as they were in 1902-3 and in 1922-3. I suppose it is fair to say that the average consumption of a family in Canada is about six tons of coal per annum. In addition to the visible supply of coal for heating purposes there is also an invisible supply that must be taken into consideration. It has been estimated by the Scientific American that a family which consumes 14 tons of coal per annum for heating purposes also consumes 14 tons of what you might call "invisible" coal. The latter represents the coal consumed by electric heating and power plants, gas plants and various industrial establishments in supplying one's household with these public utilities. There is scarcely an article of food appearing on the

Canada's Coal Supply
table of the average family in the production of which there has not been a substantial consumption of this "invisible coal."
The question has an international as well as a national importance. It is well to bear this fact in mind. In that respect the coal question is like the financial question; it has its international as well as its national aspect. Owing to the shortage of coal in Europe the United States is becoming an exporter of coal. Just as Canada and the rest of the civilized world were affected by financial conditions growing out of the Great War, so this country and the other countries are affected and influenced by the shortage of coal. The production of a coal supply for the world and its distribution on an equitable basis is one of the pressing questions of to-day, and one which must be carefully considered and dealt with in an efficient manner. The importance of this problem has been increasing with the passage of the years; but undoubtedly the present situation has developed very rapidly on account of the conditions growing out of the war. Future industrial development, and the wellbeing of the peoples of the various countries of the world, are jeopardized by this fuel shortage. Although Canada has been, in the main, seriously affected by only the two coal strikes to which I have alluded, the conditions to-day are such that this country stand? at the parting of the ways. Unless we take up this problem and deal with it in an adequate manner we shall soon be face to face with a national discomfort on a huge scale, and with industrial disaster. If we do not deal with this problem in a big, broad, statesmanlike manner it threatens the economic future and industrial development of the whole of this country. It is perhaps not too much to say that the future of the civilization of the world depends to as great, if not a greater, degree upon a sufficient production of coal as upon a production of food. Upon this point let me quote the opinion of Mr. Herbert Hoover:
The fate of European civilization now rests in the hands of the coal and coal mine owners of Europe to an equal if not a greater degree than in the hands of the producers of foods and supplies during the next year.
Mr. Hoover contends that only an adequate production and efficient distribution of coal will save Europe from disaster. Outside of the strikes referred to we have not had in Canada the dire distress from which other countries have suffered in a fuel way. In Europe, for example, the conditions owing to the lack of sufficient coal have been and are to-day lamentable in the extreme. As I said, the United States is now exporting coal to
Europe which is also deriving a large supply from Great Britain. The countries of western and southern Europe have been almost entirely supplied with fuel by Great Britain. These countries are France, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Portugal, Norway and Sweden; all of them are largely dependent on Great Britain for their fuel supply. In 1913, the fairest year of record and the last year before the war, Great Britain exported over
50.000.	000 tons of coal to various countries in Europe. France took 20,000,000 tons; Italy,
9,650,000	tons; Sweden, 4,500,000 tons; Norway 2,300,000 tons; Spain, 3,650,000 tons; Denmark, 3,030,000 tons; Holland, 2,010,000 tons; Portugal, 1,360,000 tons; other Mediterranean countries 3,500,000 tons. In addition, Great Britain sent about 9,000,000 tons to South America, 5,000,000 tons to South Africa,
5.000.	000 tons to other parts of the world; and to Canada little or none. Great Britain's export of coal, before the war, amounted in value to 84 per cent of her export trade, and in point of weight to 75 per cent of that trade. A great deal of the coal which the Mother Country exports serves as ballast; the return cargoes consist of food stuffs and other commodities. But the conditions in Great Britain to-day are not reassuring. Owing to the conditions in Europe to-day there is not only a large demand for coal from Europe but requests for fuel are also coming from South America and other countries which in earlier years did not to so great a degree depend upon the British mines. The demands of France for coal from Great Britain, owing to the situation in which it finds itself at present are not confined to Great Britain; she is knocking at the doors of America and preparations are under way to meet that demand from this continent. During the war the mines in France were dismantled by the Germans, wantonly and for reasons of military necessity, and it will be years before they will be rehabilitated. That country produces
20.000.	000 tons a year for domestic purposes, but French engineers state that it will take from two to five years to rebuild the operating equipment and ten years to completely restore the production rate of these mines. France, however, will be able to increase her fuel supplies owing to the occupation of the Sarre district. But she has to replace her former importation where deprived of the same. France still faces a serious coal shortage.
Italy's condition with respect to fuel throughout the war period has been desperate. In 1913 she was producing less than 750,000 tons of coal per annum, and was importing from Great Britain some 10,000,000 tons.
Canada's Coal Supply

During the war, at great expense, she was able to increase her home production of an inferior grade of fuel by about 1,000,000 tons. I shall not dwell at length on the conditions in Germany, because everybody is familiar with them.	Owing to the invasion of the
Ruhr, Germany has had to import a great deal of coal from Great Britain. To-day she is in need of further importations and is trying to get them from America. During the war some countries were coerced into supplying coal. Referring to Sweden, Switzerland and similar countries, during the war, these neutral countries found themselves dependent upon the warring nations for their coal, but Great Britain and Germany released coal to these countries in exchange for food. The United States export coal is a phase in which Canada is vitally interested, because if the United States exports coal in large quantities to Europe, as she has been doing for the last twelve months, they will have to curtail the supply sent to Canada. The coal commissioner on the other side of the border has told our coal commissioner here that he must curtail his demand.
That is the problem as far as Canada is concerned, because Canada has received some
12,000,000 tons of anthracite coal per annum from the United States. All the countries in the world to-day are forced and urged by scientists and geologists to do something to place an embargo on wanton waste of this coal throughout the world. This matter is not confined solely to America, but it has been considered in other countries. We must take cognizance of the fact that the United States is being pressed by the demands of its own people for local exigencies last year, so that its own people should not suffer on account of what others are receiving. It is a fact that charity begins at home, and I think the people of the United States will adopt that rule, as far as the coal situation in Canada is concerned, because no country should be expected to send outside its borders the commodity upon which the existence and life of the people depends. I do not believe that the United States will place an embargo against coal being shipped to Canada, but economics may drive them to do so. The geologists and the Conservation Commission of the United States for six years have been urging the adoption of such a policy. I think that Canada will have to take some action during the next two years. I do not say we can establish a national policy in a few months, or m the twinkling of an eye, but the policy enunciated by this resolution is the open door policy and the logical one. The people 
of Canada should work for a national coal policy the same as they have done in the past in regard to a national policy for their food and clothing. I may say that this policy is the only correct one. It is evident to everybody that if the United States, either in the interests of her own people, or in the interests of people whom she may consider more needy than Canada, should decide that it is necessary to supply nations with coal, with the result that Canada's normal supply should be substantially reduced, who may reasonably find fault with such a course? It is evident to every intelligent gentleman that the outlook is far from reassuring, and it calls for drastic action, immediate or prospective.
This coal situation will be far reaching. Canada is richly endowed with water-powers, but she cannot depend upon them as a sole source of heat. Then the question arises what is to be done by Canada? Let us have a survey of our own conditions. Let us adopt a national policy. We must develop our own coal resources. Considering the coal situation, in respect to the quantity and quality of coal, Canada is the most fortunate country in the world. She has 1,000,000,000 tons of semi-anthracite, and 315,000,000,000 tons of bituminous coal and 10,000,000,000,000 tons of sub-bituminous coal and lignite. It seems out of place to emphasize how much we have latent when alongside of it we are not able to show how beneficially these assets are being used both for our- own support and for the assistance of other needy nations.
This is not a new question, because I find many authorities in favour of it. Sir Henry Thornton, the head of the Canadian National Railway System, spoke the other day at Edmonton, and gave the people of Alberta-and the people of the West are vitally interested in this problem-his views on this question. Those views are covered in the following newspaper report:
Referring to his recent trip to the West, Sir Henry said: "We often think of the prairie provinces in the West as agricultural, but believe me there exists in the west of Canada a mineral development which in importance will, in time, fully equal if not excel the possibilities of agricultural development. It is essential that the railway companies, by proper rates, by proper service and by such assistance as lies within their power, should do all that they can to assist in that mineral development and extend the selling radius of the coal and other minerals which lie in the West."
Enlarging on the coal question Sir Henry said: "Certainly it is better and wiser for the people of Canada and the people of Ontario to buy their coal from their own people than to purchase that coal from their neighbour to the south. Because, apart from the sending out of the country each year a large amount of money, there are always embarrassing questions arising with reference to the export of coal from the United

Canada's Coal Supply
States whenever there happens to be a coal shortage in this country. One of those embarrassing questions is being discussed at the present time. I hope the day will come and the Canadian National Railways will leave nothing undone to hasten that day when the people of Canada will not be dependent on the United States for their coal supply, except to a very limited extent.'*	-
Mr. J. B. Shaw, the president of the Manufacturers' Association, speaking at a dinner of the live-stock interest at the Canadian National Exhibition, said that he approves of a national policy, and that every day the policy is postponed the country will be placed in a worse position, and that Canada should face the situation, and do it now.
Sir Clifford Sifton said at a dinner in Ottawa of the Conservation Commission:
We will live to see every pound of American anthracite driven out of Canada. It will mean $100,000,000 a year to Canada.
Sir Clifford Sifton said that a contract of $2,500,000 had been let the other day in Hamilton for the construction of a by-product coke oven, and that so surely as the sun rises the same industry will be started in Toronto and Montreal, and would succeed. Another high authority is quoted in the following news report:
"Canada is at the mercy of the United States in regard to the coal situation," Dr. Frank D. Adams, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science, McGill University, told the Young Men's Canadian Club in an after dinner address on "The Coal Situation" at the Windsor Hotel last evening.
"They have got us by the throat," he declared. "If they choose they could freeze us to death in one winter." All of Ontario and most of Quebec now depended for its supplies on the United States, because Canada's coal was located in the Maritime provinces and the Western provinces. In addition they had the assurance of American geologists that the coal supply of the United States would not last 100 years. ... It was "definitely certain" that in 80 years there would be no more anthracite in the United States and that in 25 years Canada would not be able to get any more anthracite from over the border. Canada had therefore to prepare for the time when she would have to provide her own coal. Western coal must be brought as far East as possible and Eastern coal must be taken as far West as possible. The matter was one of transportation and cost since Ontario and Quebec had no coal mines and never would have any.
The coal situation now was grave and the future held no prospect of things getting any better. It was one of the very greatest problems which Canada had to face at the present time, Dr. Adams concluded.
The following shows how this matter is regarded by certain United States authorities:
George Otis Smith, director of the Geological department of the United States, saying that it is a menace to the country to export every year forty per cent of their coal, that this raw material should be preserved to the United States for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying all the nations of the world with the goods they are in need of, we may expect before a very long time-and there is a persistent rumour to this effect-that they will impose a partial if not a total restriction on the export of American coal.
Then the last authority in regard to a national policy is Dr. Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines, who was appointed to investigate the coal supply of this country and who is head of the Federal Coal Commission. He is quoted thus:
The most feasible scheme appeared to be reducing bituminous coal to coke. He believed that the agitation in the United States against exporting anthracite would ultimately result in an embargo, so that Canada would be forced to burn something else.
Dr. Camsell said a coking plant, to be operated economically must be in conjunction with a gas company. The by-products could not be disposed of profitably by a plant whose sole object was reducing bituminous coal to coke.
Further, Dr. Camsell says:
The transportation problem is the principal one respecting the supply of fuel to the two coal-less provinces, Ontario and Quebec. Peat and wood were the only fuels native to these two provinces. He thought the peat industry could be developed to a point where it would replace to a considerable extent the use of anthracite in the homes. About 7,000,000 tons of peat a year were used in Ireland.
The people of Manitoba have, of necessity, had to adopt a national policy in regard to coal failing to get Pennsylvania anthracite this winter, and they have to thank the people of Alberta for the coal they gave them this winter. It is very fortunate that a large number of people in Manitoba to-day are buying Alberta coal, as this has done a great deal towards helping out Manitoba during the coal scarcity. The national policy adopted by Manitoba of using Alberta coal was a success, and to-morrow, Alberta coal should supply Ontario as well. I cited the quantity of coal which the great province of Alberta possesses. The question is purely one of transportation and, indeed, the coal situation on the North American continent is ninety-five per cent a transportation problem. We have a national railway and a government merchant marine, and the people of Canada have spent some $900,000,000 in direct and indirect aid to the railways of this country. During several months in the year, our national railway is sending to the West empty cars waiting for the grain trade. If a business man has a bargain day, -and the American people and departmental stores have shown the success of bargain days-why should our national railways not have a bargain day? Why should these empty cars be sent out West and left on sidings there for days and weeks when they could be utilized during the slack time to bring coal east to Ontario at a bargain-day or cut rate? I purpose showing in detail how this national policy can be carried out, and this is a constructive policy which I would urge on the government of Canada.
Canada's Coal Supply

The war has not changed Canada's national status. Canada still remains where she did in the days of Upper and Lower Canada. In time of emergency we can say: "We will go to war," or "we will not go to war," or "we will ask for further information," as .we did recently in the case of the Dardanelles. I am not afraid of danger to Canadian autonomy from Downing street. But I am alarmed about the possibility of danger to Canadian autonomy from the hard and soft coal fields of the United States. The account between the people of Canada and the people of the United States is not one-sided by any means. The Americans are our own kith and kin; blood is thicker than water; and they stand for the same high principles of civilization just as much as we do. But in America, to-day, the coal supply is purely a business arrangement and the United States will soon adopt a national policy and place on us a coal embargo. The other day the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) brought down an answer in the House which shows the situation very clearly. Canada's national autonomy is a myth as long as a great part of our country depends for its coal supply on the United States. This account which I have made up from the return shows that in 1921-22, the last year of which we have record, the imports of bituminous coal from the United States to Canada amounted to 9,734,041 tons, the cash value being $34,305,964. Imports of anthracite coal from the United States to Canada in the same year amounted to 12,515,014 tons, valued at $22,042,584. If you add together the values of the bituminous and anthracite imports into Canada for 1922, the total value of that tonnage of 12,249,055 tons is $56,348,548.
Every dollar of that amount of money which Canada sends to the United States should go for the payment of wages of Canadian or British workmen in the Maritime provinces, Alberta and Wales, and every pound of coal required in Canada should be mined and coked and under the British flag by British miners, not only in Wales, but in the Maritime provinces and Alberta. The people of Toronto have shown that they can bring coal from Wales at a cost of $15.50 per
4	p.m. ton, even when freight rates were high; and the people of that city will not wait for any government to act. because they are to-day considering measures to get coal themselves from Wales, the Maritime provinces and Alberta. I should like to see the government carry out a similar national policy. I do not say that this can be accomplished in a day, but the government can work up to it in the years that are to come.

In addition to this tremendous amount of money going to the United States in payment of coal imported from that country, the people of Canada have been charged on this coal by American railways the highest rates known in the history of railways in this country. We are to.d by some people that American coal is a necessity for the industrial life of this country. Industrially, American coal is not more necessary to the industrial life and domestic comfort of this country than the Canadian electricity from our water-powers is necessary to the industrial life and domestic comfort of the people of the United States. It is the duty of the government and of parliament to assist in removing our dependence upon United States coal by substituting for these 12,249,055 tons of anthracite and bituminous coal imported every year from the United States into Canada, coal coked or mined under the British flag; and the day when that is accomplished cannot come too soon.
There are in the United States great areas that are dependent for their electric power on the 158,000 h.p. of energy generated from Canadian water-powers and exported to the United States every year. Exports of Canadian electricity supply power equivalent to the power that could be generated by the consumption of 1,400,000 tons of American coal every year. The cash value of American coal that would be required to produce the energy from Canadian water-powers is not less than $8,000,000. Canada gets no credit for these imports of electricity from the United States, and they are not recognized as an offset to exports of United States coal to Canada. The mayor of Buffalo and the mayor of Boston, have their officers counting the cars of coal crossing to Canada. Why does the mayor of Buffalo not order his officers to count the units of Canadian electricity that go into Buffalo to keep the factories of that city from dependence on United States coal? Sitting near me is the hon member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), one of the Niagara Falls Park Commissioners. What do you see on the Canadian side of the Niagara river to-day except around Niagara Falls, Welland, Thorold, and Inland? You see a boulevard and very few factories except those which are coming into being on account of the cheap power supplied by the HydroElectric Commission. But across the river from Lewiston as far as Buffalo, you see a regular chain of factories, every few hundred yards. Why are those factories there? They are there because of the magnanimous and generous policy of the people of this country in exporting electricial energy to the extent

Canada's Coal Supply
they do, thus enabling these large American concerns to locate on the borders of the river. The mayor of Buffalo does not give us any credit for that, nor for the $56,000,000 in wages which the people of Canada are sending over annually to the United States for coal, wages which might go into the pockets of the miners of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Wales. As I said, in addition Canada has to pay the American railways the highest rates that can be charged for the transportation of American coal. But we get no credit for all this; the chorus of protest suggests that Canada is a Lazarus, prone in the dust, the coal dust, and prostrate beside the tracks of American coal	roads, waiting to pick	up
lumps of anthracite or bituminous fuel from United States coal cars. The United States coal barons pick pretty easy money out of the pockets of the people of Canada- they pick it a good deal faster than Canada picks free coal off the United States freight cars."
Canada does not need to throw American coal overboard as the tea was thrown overboard in Boston harbour on a certain historic occasion. Canada does need a government that will work out a declaration of independence that would free the homes of four millions of this country's population from their present dependence on United States coal. It is true the United States has been worse in word than in action. It is true also that these repeated threats to cut off our coal supply are also humiliating. In a word, we should adopt a truly national policy in the matter of coal. It is true that the American people are friendly to us, but their papers are not at all sympathetic in dealing with the export of coal to this country. For instance, the New York Times says editorially:
As Canada, though she won't admit it, is "Our Lady of the Snows," to deprive her of the American coal to which she has been accustomed would be cruel. But it is reasonable to ask the Canadians why they do not use their own coal, .of which they have in Cape Breton as much as they choose to dig.
It is soft coal, to be sure, and not the best of soft coal at that, but it is quite good enough to use at a pinch, even for the purposes called "domestic," and as most of us down here have been driven to the supplementing of our scanty anthracite by means of such sorry stuff, there is no reason why our neighbours should look across the border for help they can get at home.
That they like hard coal better than soft is no reason for pretending that they will freeze if they do not share our inadequate supply. Besides, there still is wood in Canada, and good hardwood at that, and it is not so many years since no Canadian ever thought of warming himself and his family with anything else.
I submit that no part of this Dominion should be left dependent on the United States for its coal supply, and the only way in which we can become absolutely independent in this
matter is to adopt the good old Conservative way, the national policy, the policy of protection put into force by Sir James Whitney and other leading Conservative statesmen in their hydro-electric development. It was this policy which gave us our hydro-electric system in Ontario, which to-day is supplying over
1,000,000 horse-power to the towns and cities and country districts of that province. The demand for power from the Chippewa development is growing at such a rapid rate that by next September the cities of Toronto, London and Hamilton will be able to get no more and will go begging for more power. Now, had it not been for the national policy we would have no hydro-electric power. I think we should extend the principle of that fine old national policy so as to encourage the coking of Nova Scotia coal and the importation of Welsh coal.
The question may be asked, where would we find the money for the adoption of such a policy, money to pay bounties on the production of coke from Nova Scotia coal and to adapt our systems of land and water transportation to the delivery of Welsh anthracite? I reply that we should extend the principles of protection, apply the good old national policy, and so secure a supply of fuel coked and mined under the British flag as a substitute for the 12,249,055 tons or $56,348,548 worth of anthracite and bituminous coal now purchased in the United States and burned in Canada every year. I would take the money not out of the pockets of Canadian coal consumers, but out of the pockets of the American CQnsumers of newsprint. Canada's pulp resources are almost entirely in the hands of Americans. The last pulpwood lands of Canada have become the happy hunting-ground of United States operators. All Canada gets out of her enormous pulp resources is the price of the comparatively ill-paid labour employed in converting the pulpwood into paper. These wages are almost as low as the conditions of the labour market will permit.
I would supply the bounty for the production of coke and the importation of Welsh anthracite by putting an embargo of ten per cent on the newsprint exported to the United States. According to a return laid on the Table of the House the other day our newsprint exports in 1921 reached a total of $62,860,142. A duty of ten per cent ad valorem on this value would yield $6,286,014 per annum Therefore the proceeds of that export duty would supply a yearly bounty fund of over $6,000,000, from which could be drawn bounties to encourage the production of coke from Nova Scotia coal, and to aid in the freighting

Canada's Coal Supply

of Welsh coal, or of our eastern and western coal to Canadian markets.
Canadians would not consider that the state of Pennsylvania was guilty of an unfriendly act if it exercised the powers that state has, and confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and placed an export duty on every ton of coal mined in Pennsylvania. Nor would we be guilty of an unfriendly act towards the United States if we imposed an export duty on our newsprint.
Canada must face this issue of an all-British coal supply. We cannot go on shirking the obligation to deal with the condition that confronts us-a condition that must become more and more a menace to our national life. The question of Canada's coal supply becomes simply a question of whether Canada shall live in the strength of an all-British coal supply or die in the weakness of dependence on an American coal supply. The miners of Nova Scotia are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, so are the miners of Wales. I am told that Nova Scotia coke makes an almost ideal fuel-better than American coal, anthracite or bituminous. Canada's coal supply must be put on a permanent and national basis. The government should encourage the production and organize for a supply of Nova Scotia and Welsh or western coal. Such a supply would displace our present annual importation of over 12,000,000 tons of anthracite or bituminous coal from the United States, and would divert the $56,000,000, now paid into wages or profits taken by men under the Stars and Stripes, into the pockets of workers under the British flag.
The Geological and Mines department of the government can tell you that there are millions of tons of good steam and coking and other kinds of coal east of the Rockies and in Alberta-enough to supply Canada for more than a century. The only reason why none of it comes to Ontario and the East is found in the high transportation charges, because the coal is immediately accessible to or within fifty miles of the railroads in the districts of Lethbridge, Jasper, Brazeau, Edson, Nordegg and Edmonton. Now that the National railways are owned by the government, for patriotic reasons a government commission or committee should investigate the tonnage of coal that exists, the cost of mining and transporting it, and report upon the Canadian fuel situation generally. It should be shown how much Canada spends annually outside of her own country for fuel, and ways and means should be devised of making us independent of the rest of the world for our fuel supplies.

It is only proper that the expenditure made by Canada on fuel should be distributed in our own land, and provision should be made to ensure an adequate supply of coal for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian citizens generally; the matter should not be left to the cupidity of foreign coal miners and railroad owners. The matter of the supply of coal is a national question, and the freight charges should be so adjusted as to ensure the movement of Canadian coal from one point to another in our own country so that all our communities can get it. If steps can be taken to loosen the shackles which at present encumber us in this connection; in other words, if the necessary arrangements can be made whereby we in this part of the country can secure an ample supply of Alberta coal, the benefit conferred on the people will be second to none. There are possibilities in the use of peat, oil, Welsh coal, Nova Scotia coal; there are many ways in which we should be able to make ourselves independent of the United States for our ordinary fuel supply. There is no doubt about the fact that the day of anthracite coal is practically gone; it will never be cheap again. The coal measures are running out; as time goes on the cost of operation will increase, strikes will be frequent, and transportation difficulties will make themselves more felt. Let us therefore bring this coal down from Alberta to the head of the lakes; let the shipping men tell us what it will cost to distribute this coal in car lots to the ports of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
Now, I sympathize with the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart); he has this matter of the coal supply to deal with as well as his other extensive duties, and I think he is doing very well. But speaking on the subject the other day he quoted a freight rate of $16 a ton on Alberta coal. The figures I have show that it can be brought down here for $6 a ton if coal got the same rate per ton as grain. I have a letter here from a gentleman who is an officer of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy at Edmonton. I will quote only a few words:
I submitted a memorandum to Sir Henry Thornton with a view to the inauguration of a through fast coal freight train service from the coal fields of Alberta to Ontario.
With the letter he sent me copies of educational material being used in the Alberta fuel campaign at Winnipeg during the past winter. I may say that Alberta is entitled to a great deal of credit for the propaganda it has carried on in this respect in Manitoba, and we ask the people of Alberta to come down to Ontario and make a success of that same

Canada's Coal Supply
policy here. Alberta is very anxious to make Canada entirely independent of any other country in the matter of fuel supply. This communication states, in support of that position :
One reason being that we are good citizens of Canada in the West, and the other that the elimination of $11,000,000 for United States coal would reflect itself enormously in all industries of Canada, as well as establish the coal of Alberta.
This gentleman goes on to point out that in connection with getting coal from Alberta, ninety per cent of the difficulty is in the transportation end of it. He says:
The Hon. Mr. Stewart stated in the House that "Canada must depend largely on the United States for its fuel supply," and suggested that plants for coking American bituminous coals be set up in various points in Ontario. The matter has been taken up here by many public bodies, and particularly the Alberta branch of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, which sent on Saturday a telegram to Hon. Mr. Stewart, copy of which is enclosed. This telegram was also sent to the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy which is now meeting in convention in Montreal	
It is felt here that a very determined effort on the part of the Dominion government should be made to make Canada independent in the matter of her fuel supply, and by so doing add materially to the prosperity of the country as a whole, assist in stabilizing the coal industry of Alberta and largely increase the earnings of the Canadian National Railway. It might be pointed out that there is at present in effect a freight rate from Coal Spur, a branch of the C.N.R. west of Edmonton, to Prince Rupert on the Pacific coast of $3.40 per ton. If this rate were put into effect from Edmonton to Toronto we would then enjoy a rate of $8.02 per ton instead of $12.50 as at present.


Charles A. Stewart: May I be permitted to correct the hon. gentleman? I did not say that $16.40 would be the freight rate on coal from Alberta. I said that Alberta coal should be sold in Ontario at about $16.40. I may say that is a mistake the people made out West with respect to my statement.
Mr. CHURCH; I do not wish to misquote the minister, because I think he has been very fair. I realize he has done a great deal to assist this matter. However, this is the statement made in this letter; I shall be glad to give the minister a copy of it. The letter continues:
It might further be pointed out that this Prince Rupert rate is on a mountain haul and on car lots. The suggestion made to Sir Henry Thornton was that coal should be transported from the various fields of Alberta to Ontario in train lots and if this mountain rate is profitable, which it presumably is, it seems reasonable to suppose that it should be possible to transport on prairie haul in train lots on a fast schedule at considerably less.
The minister said the other day that it would cost $4,000,000 to build a connecting line from the existing right of way of the railway to the coal mines. But I would say
81 i
that even that expenditure would be relatively small. The fixed charges would be $250,000 a year, and when you consider that Canada burns over 12,000,000 tons of United States hard coal annually, the fixed charges on this railway extension would be saved a thousand times over. I believe it would be good business for Canada generally if a low freight rate on this coal from Alberta to Ontario and the East generally could be obtained. A gentleman in Alberta, one of the largest rate-payers in Edmonton, writes me as follows:
It is certainly a move in the right direction for Ontario to secure a supply of coal independent of the United States. It struck me, however, that possibly you were not familiar with Alberta coal and that Alberta contains about 17 per cent of all the known coal of the world. We have the Canadian National railway tapping the greatest portion of the coal area and reaching a large part of Ontario. The C.N.R. has a number of idle cars from say March first to September first of each year. Hundreds of train men are laid off during this period owing to lack of freight to haul. The cost of upkeep of the 2,200 miles of road-bed will be* about the same whether coal is hauled or not, as if idle the rails and ties will rust and rot out instead of wearing out. Would it not be good business for Canada generally to secure a low freight rate on this coal to Ontario on train loads if necessary, during the period mentioned, and give the residents of Ontario a chance to use the best coal in the world for domestic purposes.
I believe for the Ontario climate, the best grades of Alberta coal will prove superior to even anthracite, as it can be controlled more readily, will hold fire for a longer period without going out, and quickly respond when heat is required. A freight rate of not more than $6 to $7 per ton from the mines in Alberta to any point touched by the C.N.R. is feasible and should be secured. I do not claim to be a railway expert but am informed by experienced railway men that coal in train lots can be hauled profitably at $2.65 per train mile with half of this for the returned empty cars. On a 2,000-ton train of coal from an average point in Alberta to the average point in Ontario, mileage 2,200 would leave a profit of almost 25 per cent at $6 per ton. This matter is, I believe, being taken up by the various boards of trade, the Rotary Club, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and by many others.
I 6hall not go into the history of Nova Scotia coal, as that was referred to in the House the other day. I am glad to see the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) present. I appreciate what he is doing to educate the public as to the vast importance of Nova Scotia coal and coke. It is true that there is not a market at the present time for any more Nova Scotia coal than can be disposed of in Quebec and other places, but as an Ontario man I want to say that we can take millions of tons of Nova Scotia coal. I believe Nova Scotia coke is superior to any other coal in the world, and if the government would give part of the bounty of $6,000,000 or $7,000,000, such as I mentioned a few moments ago, and, coking furnaces were established, I believe that Nova Scotia coal would go a

Canada's Coal Supply
long way towards solving our fuel problem, and Ontario would certainly welcome such a step and would take all the Nova Scotia coke it could get-it would keep our merchant marine busy.
I shall touch on just one other matter and then I am through, and that is the development of a national policy as to water-power. I have referred to the Hydro Electric System, and a return has been brought down to the House by the Minister of Interior which shows the development along that line. It is only within the last two hundred years that scientific discoveries have given to the world the power inherent in fuels, namely, coal, gas, oil and falling water, distributed in the various forms of heat, light and electricity. It has been estimated that the total water-powers of the world amount to about 100,000,000 horse-power, of which only about 17,000,000 have so far been developed. The Dominion of Canada possesses about 20 per cent of the world's total water-power, and also approximately the same percentage of the world's water-power already developed. The people ' of Ontario and Quebec are especially interested in this power situation. In Ontario we have no coal. We have to depend for our coal suppy on the Maritime provinces, and the far West and the United States. The United States will run out of coal in about forty years, as has been shown by the report of the Conservation Commission of that country. The first of these stores of energy to be utilized by man was coal, as we all know. This fuel is very widely distributed and exists in immense quantities in various parts of the world, but there is no denying the fact that the supply is limited and that the world is not any too economical in its expenditure of coal. The supplies of oil and gas are also limited, and prices very high. Our remaining source of energy, then, is water-power. Sir Adam Beck, speaking at Belleville the other day, said that eastern Ontario next year could have no power, and he is urging the immediate development of the Morrisburg dam-by the municipalities east of Belleville. It cannot be constructed any too soon. As was said the other day by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre), and by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers), American capitalists to-day not satisfied with grabbing the timber wealth of this country, are now trying to get control of our water-powers not only in the St. Lawrence river but in other parts of Canada. They know that their own country will run out of coal in a few years, and that is why they wish to get control of the main water-powers in this country. I think it is the duty of the government to lay

down a national policy with regard to the export of our power.
In conclusion, I believe that an educational campaign should be conducted to educate the people as to the necessity for a national fuel policy along the lines I have suggested. The people have accepted a national policy as to food and clothing, and I say that the time has come for us to lay down as a national policy the using of our own coal from coast to coast-close our ranks, declare a closed-door policy, develop the mines of Alberta and the mines of the Maritime provinces, and use our merchant marine to bring out coal from Wales and Nova Scotia. If the Mother Country can send about fifteen millions of coal to South America and South Africa and parts of the world not under the British flag, it can afford to give Canada five or six million tons of Welsh anthracite to help replace the
12,000,000 tons we get from the United States. [DOT] We have a merchant marine in this country with deficits. What is it doing? It could not be put to any better service on behalf of the people than to bring out coal from Wales, and to transport Nova Scotia coal up the St. Lawrence through the Welland Canal to the head of the lakes. Alberta as well can do its part, as it is doing now, to supply Manitoba, and then they can come over and help us in Ontario. If Alberta will do that, she will find us good customers. I send to the Solicitor General also the Macedonian cry- to come over and help us in Ontario with Nova Scotia coal. Let us lay down here and now a national policy with regard to fuel, so that every ton of coal used in Canada shall be mined and coked under the British flag. Not because we do not want to trade with the Americans; they are good neighbours, and we want to keep on friendly terms with them; but we should not sponge on them any more for our coal. If we have a merchant marine, let us use it, and let us use the national system of railways and develop a national coal policy. The National Railways and merchant marine will prove a great asset to the people of the country if they will engage in this work, instead of being unsuccessful as at present and going behind millions of dollars. Let us not wait for commissions to report but let the government now give notice to the mine owners of Alberta and the mine owners of Nova Scotia to get ready now, to wait no longer, but put on extra men and get the coal out. The time to get ready for next winter is right here and now. Let us notify them to put on their extra men and work night shifts, if necessary, in order to get out

Canada's Coal Supply
the coal required. Let us utilize the National Railways and the merchant marine. I hope the minister-and we have a good one-will lay down a policy in this House when his railway estimates are before us of utilizing these national transportation means along the lines I have suggested. The government should first ensure a supply of all-British coal, and then invite this parliament to enforce and extend the glories of the good old national policy and put on a duty that would keep every pound of American bituminous and anthracite coal from being sold in Canada.
I want to thank the House for the kindness and courtesy with which they have so patiently listened to me, and on my own behalf I want to thank them for their patience.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I wish to remind the House that though the motion is quite in order and the principle involved in it quite an important one deserving to be debated, yet one phase of this same principle, namely the shortage of coal, has already been debated in this House the other day in Committee of Supply, under item 368 of the Main Estimates, and quite properly, I think, because the question then was a vote for the Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research. What I wish to remind the House is that there is a rule in our parliamentary procedure that debates must not be anticipated, and there is another rule that debates must not be repeated. That is one of our unwritten rules. While I do not wish to prevent anybody from speaking on this question of the shortage of fuel, I would remind hon. gentlemen that their remarks should be limited to the essentials, as the question has already been largely debated by this House.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: I think the thanks of the House and the country are due to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church) for his very interesting and instructive speech. I did not intend to make any remarks upon this question. When the debate on the Address was before the House, I made a few remarks with reference to our coal supply and pointed out at that time that although wo had in this House a standing committee on Mines and Minerals it had never functioned in the last twelve years, and I suggested that perhaps it would be the proper thing for this whole question of our fuel	supply to	be referred to that
committee during this session of parliament. Had I known, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) would reach his resolution so early in the day I
would have consulted him regarding a possible amendment, or an addition, which I would like to make to his resolution. There is no doubt in the world that the question of a fuel supply for Canada is, perhaps, the most important domestic and national proposition that this country will have to deal with from now on. I am sorry to say that the people of the large cities of central Canada-Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and other great centres-are, for some reason or other, prejudiced against the use of soft coal as a domestic fuel. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the minister entrusted with the administration of the Mines branch would be doing a thing of national importance if, next summer or during the course of next year, he would get his coal experts at work in the large centres referred to and have the public instructed in the use of bituminous coal as a domestic fuel.
Now, the resolution in its present form may not get us anywhere, and I would like to suggest that the following words be added to it:
And that the whole question of fuel supply for Canada, together with the question of costs, transportation, desirable interprovincial action, and other means whereby Canada may be made self-sustaining and self-supplying as regards fuel, and to inquire into the necessity and possibility of supplying substitutes for coal, be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals, and that said committee report to the House.	[DOT]


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It had not been my intention to speak on this resolution, but I cannot allow the offering of the amendment to pass without making some reference to it. I am very strongly of the opinion that this whole question should be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals, and that they be empowered to investigate the matter and make a report to the House during the present session. We have in Canada supplies of coal that are very valuable in my judgment and I have given some study to the question. Making these supplies available to our people is, however, very largely a question of transportation, coupled with the ability of our mining and fuel experts in this country to disabuse the public mind in Canada of the prejudice which it entertains against the use of bituminous coal. I think that the question is of sufficient importance to warrant a considerable amount of time being given to it by this committee.
We are facing in Canada a condition which will become more and more acute from year to year, inasmuch as the supply of anthracite coal from the neighbouring states in the country to the south is becoming scarcer each
Canada's Coal Supply

year. Therefore it behooves this House to take some steps that will ensure a supply of fuel to our people, especially to those of the central provinces of the Dominion. One of the members of the government speaking on this question the other day stated that the matter was one for commercial houses to handle. I think the situation has now gone beyond that stage and, in view of the fact that it has become of national importance, requires different treatment. In my own community, in New Brunswick even within a few miles of bituminous coal mines there has been, at times, a great scarcity of coal, especially of anthracite coal, and the people, of necessity, have had to turn their attention to the use of bituminous coal for domestic purposes. The possibility of using this coal resolves itself into a question of transportation. But even with the present rates in force on the railways and although coal be made a low grade commodity in the rate classification of railways, it is not feasible commercially to ship Maritime province coal by rail beyond Montreal. Unless that condition is remedied, and the railways are willing to accept a smaller return than they do at present, I do not see much prospect of coal from either the Maritime provinces or Alberta ever reaching central Canada. It is true that shipments of coal are made by water from Cape Breton collieries. That, of course, is a benefit, and reduces the price but not very materially, especially in view of the fact that there is no control over the rates of the shipping companies. Aside from any small benefit derived in that way the people of the central provinces of Canada have not reaped the benefit they should have reaped from the presence of large deposits of fine grade bituminous coal in the Maritime provinces. For this reason, and for others with which I will not weary the House by reciting, I very cordially support the principle of the 'motion, and the concrete principle contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll).


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I want to say a few words on this subject which is very important to the people of Ontario, and to the people of other provinces as well. One suggestion of a practical character I would make is, that there should be created in Canada, in connection with the government, a department of fuel and power which would give its main attention to the study of the production of power from our waterways and the procurement of fuel for our domestic and industrial needs. No outsider can imagine the hardship which the people of
[Mr. Hanson.1
Toronto suffered owing to the lack of fuel last winter. I know something about it. I have seen the lines of people in front of the coal offices endeavouring to get coal, when many individuals offered as high as $20 a ton for coal but in vain. And yet we have immense beds of coal in our own country to supply all our needs, and there are new fields to be opened up. I hope that in the province of Ontario, northward in the direction of Hudson bay, some new fields will be opened up in the coming year; and there are other fields in the different parts of Canada where coal can be got. As a matter of fact, however, we have great fields of coal in Nova Scotia and Alberta where supplies can be obtained. The hon. member who preceded me went to the very heart of things when he explained the reason why this coal is not at present available for use. In connection with our transportation problem we must insist on a new freight classification on essential commodities like coal and grain, and some others. It is not feasible to carry fuel for long distances at present freights; and in the matter of wheat perhaps one of the main prospects of relief to the farmers in the West would be found in placing that commodity under a lower freight rate. And it is in measures of this kind that relief will come, but the relief will have to come from Parliament. The responsibility to take care of this question will be on the government. It will not do to trust the profiteers of the United States. We know that they will sell coal at a high price and make enormous profits. I am sure that as much as $6 a ton absolute profit has been made out of the anthracite supplied to the people of Ontario and of Montreal in connection with this coal famine. They will take any price they can get, and they are only like other business people in that respect. The government must intervene and must have a policy in regard to coal, and that policy must go so far as to request for instance the directors and the management of our National railway to consider the question of a new classification of freight rates, on the lines of a lower freight rate for basic commodities, like coal, ores, and articles of that kind. If we adopt that course we will get some relief. Canada should be independent of every country in the world in regard to fuel.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) referred to water-powers. We should prohibit the export of water-powers when it comes to be a menace. The suggestion the hon. member made in reference to bounties is well worthy of consideration. If there is that immense export of our pulpwood which is

Canada's Coal Supply
absolutely necessary to the people of the United States they should perhaps pay an export duty on that. In that way we could get sufficient money to pay a bounty on the shipment of coal, or we might lower the freight rates and reclassify all these articles such as I have mentioned, especially coal and wheat. If we adopt that course and the government and parliament realize their responsibility, we will get relief in a short time, in regard to a matter which promises to be a menace and to cripple the interests of the country. If it had not been for Sir Adam Beck's hydro-electric policy in Ontario, I do' not know where we would have been. There are four millions of horse power on the northern slope of the Hudson bay which could be utilized to electrify the National railway and other railways from Winnipeg to Quebec, and give enough power to work all the mines and probably save fuel in other ways.
I heard some of the details of the proposal to establish coke ovens using bituminous or soft coal. The cities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg could very well afford to start immense coking plants there for the conversion of soft coal into coke, and the production of many other by-products, mainly gas, which may or will be used in five years in those cities for the production of heat. You can convert coal into coke and get an immense amount of gas, which can be distributed by pipes through a city. They have now a much better and simpler system for hot-water heating of houses by gas than by coal. All	it requires is capital and
science, and some kind of encouragement by the government, and our fuel problem will be solved. I hope some one on behalf of the government will tell the House that this question is to be considered, and that an effort will be made to remove a great public grievance at the present time.


Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) :: This matter has been very ably discussed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). The question is not at all new to this House. It has been said to-day that it is of a national character, and it certainly is. While speaking for myself, I cannot say that I have not a more or less selfish interest in the matter, as I come from a province where they sell coal. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker I assure you that I am sufficiently broad and sufficient of a Canadian to have the widest possible national interest in this question, and without boasting in any way, I am sure my record in this
House will show that for the last fifteen, or twenty years I have always endeavoured to bring home to the Canadian people the necessity of being independent in regard to their fuel supply. It is impossible to accomplish that independence without using the fuel supply we have within our borders. It is only a question of bringing the fuel to the place where it is now most needed. It is a great satisfaction to be able to say that the quantity of coal which we possess both east and west is not a matter of speculation or doubt. There is in Nova Scotia to-day-and this is not mere miners' talk about prospective minerals-to be seen and handled enough coal to last for many generations yet to come and supply the whole country. Can you imagine a territory along the northern coast of the county of Inverness, from twenty-five to sixty miles along the coast, of a virgin solid block of coal not yet touched? This stretch of coal area for sixty miles has an average width of four miles, with seams 13 to 16 feet, one underlying the other. Those who are familiar with coal mining know that it is not only one seam of coal that is usually found in these places, but one underlying the other, and it is only a question of cutting through the upper one to get to the lower, or to all the seams that you may require. This coal area in Inverness is not regarded as the largest coal area. In Cape Breton there is the virgin territory of which I have spoken. There is an equally large coal area in the county of Cape Breton and other counties. So that we can speak with assurance of the quantity of coal we have in Nova Scotia. Our coal fields in Nova Scotia are not confined at all to Cape Breton. Coal fields exist in Pictou county and in Cumberland county as large as in Cape Breton. I am making these observations to encourage our friends in Ontario and Quebec, and to show them that we have the coal and'that we have the proper facilities for the bringing of that coal to the place where it is required. Let me say that from a national standpoint we have not been treated quite properly by the people of Ontario, the people of Quebec, and of other parts of Canada, in relation to our exports during and after the war. Our miners in the county of Cape Breton and in the whole of the province of Nova Scotia, but particularly the county of Cape Breton, are sturdy, loyal, fighting men. As soon as war broke out, they were immediately ready or got ready, left their work, threw down their tools, and as quickly as possible they were found in the trenches in France and Flanders. We were all glad to see them go, but nevertheless the result was

Canadas Coal Supply
that we could not produce the coal. In our province, every man is not permitted to take up the pick and go and cut coal. He must pass an examination, like any other professional man; he must be permitted by license to cut coal, and for that reason, when our miners went to the front, we were crippled as regards producing the quantity of coal required. Moreover, the ships which we had for the conveyance of coal from ports of the island of Cape Breton to Montreal and other ports, were commandeered. In that way, our miners and our means of conveyance were taken away, and we could not meet the contracts which we undertook to fill. The result was that the Americans got our markets at Montreal, Toronto and every other place in which we had a market, and people when they start dealing in a certain direction, are not very ready to break off dealing in that direction when the old source of supply again becomes open to them. The difficulty was that after the war was over, we lost connection with the ports and places which I mentioned. It also took some time to get our ships back, and in that way we were largely crippled in our coal industry. I am glad that our capitalists, our miners and the men generally engaged in that business have fought with that difficulty and are back again pretty much to the condition in which they found themselves before the war. The reason why I mentioned that we were not treated fairly in that regard was that because our miners left their vocations and went overseas for the protection of Canada and the Canadian people, and the reason for which our ships were taken from us was also of a national character. Therefore, stock should have been taken of this situation by our friends, and as rapidly as possible we should have been restored to normal conditions as they existed before the war.
We have the coal east and west; the market for it is in the great centre of this country, and we must provide the means of utilizing the resources which we have for the benefit of our own people. As regards the places where this coal is produced, supposing, for instance, Nova Scotia could provide the major part of this coal which now comes from the United States. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) informed us that over $56,000,000 goes out of this country every year for the purchase of coal. Let us suppose that at least 75 per cent of that money could be expended in Nova Scotia. It is only a matter of calculation to show the number of men that could be employed, and the advantage that would come to our people through keeping this money in Canada and utilizing the resources fMr. McKenzie. J
of our province. This would be good, not only for the workingmen, but for Nova Scotia which derives a revenue from the sale and production of coal.
I am glad that this question is once more going to a committee. If I were not as well acquainted as I am with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and the mover of the motion, the hon. member for North Toronto, I would be disposed to think that they are sidestepping this question and shelving it for a while. But I am sure that such is not the case, and I trust that no time will be lost in the committee submitting to this House and to the government whatever practical decisions they may reach upon this subject.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there a committee on this subject now in existence?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a standing committee, appointed not especially for this purpose, but for the purpose of dealing with mines and minerals, to which committee I understand it is the intention to submit this matter. I was just going to say, in conclusion, that two years ago we had what was known as the Fuel committee, or a committee for . the investigation of the fuel resources 5 p.m. of Canada. There was a very exhaustive and full investigation lasting over quite a number of weeks. A late member of this House, Dr. Steele, an excellent gentleman, who was very much in earnest about this question, was chairman of that committee. They made a report, and gave very useful information as to the quality of our coal; the means of transportation and so forth, received exhaustive attention before that committee. Let me inform the hon. member for North Toronto and the members of that committee that this report is in the form of a blue book, and that they will find in that book very useful information. I trust they will take advantage of it. I see that the Senate is at present taking an interest in this matter, and that it has a committee at work gathering information in connection with this very question. Let me suggest that there should be no overlapping in connection with this matter; that there should be no estrangement of any kind between the committee of the Senate and the proposed committee of the House of Commons. If possible at all, they should work and co-operate together, and let parliament and the country have the full fruition and benefit of what conclusions they may reach.
We used to hear the expression that "somebody could not wait." It is an old expression in this House that "somebody could not

Canada's Coal Supply
wait," for the emergency was too strong for time to be lost; but I need not assert in my own way that the people of this country, both those who are producing and those who are in need of coal, cannot wait very much longer, for the time is at hand and fully mature for practical and active co-operation and the producing of satisfactory results in this country.
The hon. member for North Toronto hoped that some member of the government would speak on this question. I am speaking, not as a member of the government, but simply as the representative in this House of Cape Breton North and Victoria, one who has the good fortune of representing many sturdy, hale and hearty good miners and producers of coal. I have been representing them in this House for many years, and I am glad as such, not is a member of the government, to have this word to say on a question which, I think, is of vital importance to them as well as to the country generally.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of this resolution (Mr. Church) for having brought before this House a question of such vital importance to the Dominion, I was inspired by the attitude of mind he expressed in approaching this subject. I was inspired by his great Canadianism and the fact that he hoped we would develop a Canadian policy, all-British, all-Canadian. With everything that he has said in that respect, I wish to associate myself. Also with what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). The resolution as introduced appeared to generalise to a great extent, the nature of the subject would, of course, render that necessary. It was therefore with pleasure that I heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) introduce a concrete proposal that a committee go into this whole question. I think it is vital that this should be done. A mere platitudinous expression of opinion with regard to policy, will hardly get us very far; but I think if such a committee is appointed to consider all the various factors to be taken into consideration and report to this House we shall make decided progress.
I may be permitted, without, I hope, the stigma of sectionalism applying to my remarks, to present to this House, the point of view of the province of Alberta, just as the last speaker did that of his own province. In Alberta we have every known variety of coal from the anthracite of the Hoppe fields
-fields that I hope will be preserved to Canada-to the lignite deposits in other parts of the province. In the Cadman field we have a variety of steam coal unequalled anywhere in the world. It has passed every test of the British navy, and we have a sufficient supply to coal every vessel on the Pacific ocean continuously.
Whether it is a westward or an eastward development of our coal resources, the question boils down after all to one of freight rates and storage facilities, and to a lesser extent to hampering impediments to the industry. To one of these impediments in particular I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Under the Fordney tariff a duty was placed on any class of coal from Canada that bears a duty if imported by us from the United States. Anthracite coal is admitted into Canada free of duty. There is therefore no retaliatory duty in this instance. Unfortunately the greater part of the coal mined in Alberta at the present time is a sub-bituminous variety and this, being on the N.O.P. list at the present time, is being charged a duty of 53 cents a ton going into the States. Now, our operators being enthusiastic and energetic business men have developed quite a coal market in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Idaho and Washington, and they could still further develop this market if this impediment were removed. I would therefore appeal to the Minister of Finance to take into consideration the requirements of the coal industry in my province when he brings in his budget. I have here a resolution from the Red Deer Valley Coal Operators Association which I will read to the House. It is as follows:
Whereas the United States government has recently enacted tariff laws of such a nature as to impose a customs duty of fifty-three cents per ton on domestic coal from the Drumheller field, being exported to the United States.
I may say it applies to the whole province, not merely to Drumheller.
And whereas the said United States tariff on coal is only made applicable to coal from countries imposing duty on coal from the United States such as Canada and
Whereas the schedule of customs duties of the Canadian tariff, admits anthracite and coke when imported into Canada, free of duty, but imposes a duty of fifty three cents per ton on "Bituminous round and run of mine and coal not otherwise provided" and
Whereas the coal from the Drumheller field is not anthracite or bituminous and cannot be classified under either head, but is classed by all governments and competent mining authority as "sub-bituminous" or lignite and therefore does not come under either of the specific classifications mentioned in the Canadian schedules, but is covered by the general clause "Coal not otherwise provided for" of item 588 and
Whereas all coal imported into Canada from the United States is either anthracite or bituminous and
Canada's Coal Supply

little or none of such imported coal could be put in the sub-bituminous or lignite class with Drumheller, Edmonton or Lethbridge domestic coal, it follows that the duty levied by our government on this grade of coal under the general clause "Coal N.O.P." of item 588 in not productive of any revenue to our government and the placing of this grade of coal on the free list in Canada would not cost the government any loss of revenue, but would automatically operate to place our coal on the free list in the United States and admit coal exported by us to the United States markets without payment of duty and
Whereas the general market conditions in the states of North Dakota, Minnesota, Idaho and Washington, have recently developed opportunity to secure outlet for our excess production and the production from Lethbridge and Edmonton which is now being marketed in the above named territory in growing quantity and
Whereas the railways serving the coal fields named are now ready, willing and able to furnish cars for transportation to this territory in greater quantity than they have ever been able to do in the past and are now soliciting this export business as a means of augmenting their own earnings.
Therefore be it resolved by the Red Deer Valley Coal Operators Association, of Drumheller, Rosedale and Wayne, Alberta, in session this 9th day of January 1923-
And, I may add, by the Edmonton Board of Trade and other influential bodies.
-that we petition the government of Canada, to amend the schedule of the customs tariff of Canada, items 586 and 588 of schedule "A" group "2", by striking from item 588 the words "and coal N.O.P." and by inserting the same in item 586 along with anthracite coal and coke, so as to put coal of the class of Alberta domestic coal on the free list in Canada.
I trust the Minister of Finance will take that question into consideration, for it is of vital importance to us out there now, and it will continue to be of vital importance even after we have developed the entire Ontario market for coal.
I was surprised a little while ago to observe that apparently some hon. members are under the impression that Alberta coal cannot be economically placed on the Ontario market. It is my opinion that with a very slight reduction in the freight rates on coal we could supply the entire demands of Ontario with Alberta coal. And not only would the lower freight rate not reduce the revenue of the railroads in my opinion, it would probably increase them. During the months of April, May, June and July, traffic from the West is practically at a standstill, but of course there is a continuous westbound movement of supplies. During those months why could we not have a reduced rate, say 32-| cents per hundred pounds, that would enable our Alberta coal to be laid down in Ontario in unlimited quantities? At the present time the mines there are operating only at half time. Such a reduction of the freight rate would enable our coal to be laid down in Ontario at about $11 per ton. This is a sub-bituminous coal of excellent quality

that would compete with the anthracite coal of the States and be very satisfactory to the people of Ontario.
I do not need to go into this question very much further now because I hope the proposed committee will be instructed to consider the matter in detail. But touching the question of transportation again, I would call the attention of the House to a resolution passed by the Red Deer Valley Coal Operators Association in reference to the fixing of the freight rate to enable Alberta coal to be sold in Ontario at competitive prices. The resolution reads:
Whereas there is a great shortage of coal in Ontario and Canada is paying millions of dollars for American coal, and
Whereas the province of Alberta is in a position to supply any quantity of coal suitable for both domestic and power purposes as shown by its success in supplying the market as far east as the Great Lakes, and
Whereas the mines in Alberta are only running part time on account of insufficient trade;
Be it resolved that this association make representations immediately to the Dominion government to secure a freight rate that will enable Alberta coal to be sold in Ontario at competitive prices.
When the proposed committee is appointed I hope it will be empowered to consider the feasibility of the appointment of a permanent fuel commission-a commission to sit continuously and be ever watchful of the fuel interests of Canada. We require such a commission I believe to deal effectively with our fuel needs. The question has too many ramifications; it lends itself too easily to the influence of monopolies, combines, and so on; and to protect the people I think it would be essential to have a federal commission. If the powers of the committee are to be broadened to that extent I suggest that it should consist, we will say, of a mining engineer, one of the best you can get in the whole Dominion- indeed, if you cannot get a good one there, go where you can get the best; a freight expert, a business executive, a representative of the miners, and a representative of the operators. That commission would not be a very large body; it could sit continuously and guide the destinies of Canada so far as coal matters are concerned-and that, surely, is an important consideration.
One more word on the freight rates question: I took the matter up some time ago with the province of Alberta. Mr. A. Chard, supervisor of freight and traffic for the provincial government, states:
If a $6 a ton rate on train load lots could be provided from mining centres in Alberta to Toronto, this coal could enter competition successfully with the American product. The present rate is $12.70 a ton. which makes the price of the product in Ontario

Canada's Coal Supply
prohibitive. American bituminous, a coal very inferior in quality to Alberta coal, is selling in Toronto at $7 a ton. Anthracite is selling at $18 a ton. If Alberta coal could be put on the market at Toronto at $13 a ton, it could compete successfully.
I believe that could be done by putting into effect a rate of 32J cents per 100 pounds.
I do not wish to delay the House any further in this matter, especially as I hope that the amendment offered by the member for Cape Breton South will be adopted. I hope we shall have an opportunity of going into this whole question in great detail and that as a result of the investigation carried on by the standing committee, a satisfactory solution of this national problem will be arrived at.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency which for over fifty years has produced large quantities of coal. By a strange dispensation of Providence the coal supplies of Canada are situated at the extreme east, at the base of the Rocky Mountains, and in British Columbia. When in the past it had been urged that a duty should be imposed to enable coal from the feast to come to central Canada, the two great central provinces took the ground that that should not be done, and seemed to be anxious to trade with our friends in the United States. I am very glad indeed that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), in his resolution, indicates that he is in favour of a new national policy, one which will mean that the people of central Canada will purchase the coal they require from Canadians.
The [DOT] figures show that in the year 1920-21 there were imported into Canada 15,902,632 tons of bituminous coal and 4,912,964 tons of anthracite. These importations were almost entirely into the two central provinces, central Ontario importing approximately 10,000,000 tons and Quebec nearly 4,000,000 tons, the balance largely going to the head of the lakes. This means that the Canadian people have annually sent to the United States about $100,000,000 of good Canadian money that ought to have remained within our own borders and would remain if the fuel supply of the central part of the country could be obtained from our own eastern and western districts. Last year, for the first time in years, nearly 850,000 ton3 of coal were purchased by Canada in Great Britain. It was possible to get this coal owing to the fact that shipping rates were lower than they had been for years and return grain cargoes were available from Montreal. But the rates laid down by those in charge of the Canadian National Railways have been prohibitive so far as internal trade in Canada is concerned. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has stated the rates that have been charged from the west, and the same conditions apply in respect to our eastern coal. In the summer months we are able to ship by water from our mines which are on the seaboard to Montreal; last year we shipped in this way over 2,000,000 tons of coal, a portion of which, for the first time in years, went to Toronto. But during the other portions of the year we are entirely dependent upon the railway for the shipment of our coal to other parts of Canada. The management of the Canadian National Railways have in the last four years increased the rates upon coal by practically 300 per cent, and it does seem to me that this is a matter that will require the closest examination by the committee which I trust will act as a result of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll). These enormous increases-and I assume the same condition prevails in the west-have made it impossible for us to promote interprovincial trade. It cannot by any process of reasoning be urged that such action will make for the prosperity of the railway, or will achieve what the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) used to tell us was the aim and object of the Canadian National Railway system. I find, for instance, that in 1921-22 the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways purchased, for the purpose of the operations of the railways, over $12,000,000 worth of coal, of which $9,000,000 was bought in the United States. In other words, at the 'time the road was under the direction of Mr. Hanna, $9,000,000 went to the United States for coal, while in my province the miners were walking the streets, unable to get employment of any kind. Now the situation has changed; our friends in central Canada are animated by the proper idea. They ought to be able to get coal either from the east or from the west to take the place of this tremendous importation of 20,000,000 tons that was made last year and that is made practically every year. Public sentiment, I say, is changing in respect to this matter. I notice a very marked change in the attitude of hon. members of this House. I am quite sure that the committee on Mines and Minerals, to which the matter will go, ought to be able to inquire into all the facts, to point out where the difficulties are and where a remedy ought to be applied, so that we may have, as suggested by the hon. member for North Toronto, a national policy under which the coal producers of Canada may sup-
Canada's Coal Supply

ply this material to those of our own citizens who desire it.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the argument adduced by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) as regards the duty on lignite coal in Alberta also obtains in respect to British Columbia as regards bituminous coal. So far as I know, practically no bituminous coal is imported into British Columbia from the United States. But the fact that" there is a duty of 53 cents a ton on bituminous coal allows the United States, under the terms of its fiscal policy-indeed, compels them-to impose a duty of 53 cents a ton on our bituminous coal mined on Vancouver Island, which would otherwise find a market in the western states through Seattle and San Francisco. The result is that without any apparent advantage in the way of revenue to Canada we are seriously handicapping the operations of our mines on Vancouver Island, which are already seriously handicapped by the competition of fuel oil. I am sure that the member for the Nanaimo district (Mr. Dickie) would, if he were here, endorse my attitude on this very important question.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I did intend to go into the question of fuel supply at a little length, but now that it seems to be the unanimous wish of the House that the matter be referred to a committee, I am quite satisfied to let the committee go into the details.
I want to direct the attention of the hon. nember for Bow River (Mr. Garland) to this point: He asks the government to assist in developing a market in the United States for Alberta coal. But that cannot very consistently be done without our saying on the other hand that we do not care to trade with the United States in other parts of Canada in the matter of coal. We have to be consistent, or we shall not get very far in the matter of our fuel supply.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister mean that anthracite is not admitted to this country, as it is into the United States, free?


George Perry Graham: That is not what I was saying. We want to be consistent. We will do everything in our power to make the country self-sustaining in the matter of fuel, but we must be careful about passing resolutions under which we shall direct our efforts against the sale of coal to us by the United States, and at the same time endeavour to sell coal IMr. E. M. Macdonald.]	[DOT]
to them. It may not amount to much, but we have to be consistent as a parliament in working out these problems.
As to the question of rates, there are two ways by which railway rates can be brought down. One is by lessening the cost of operation, and I see no great prospect of any considerable reduction of the cost of operation for some years. The cost of operating railways will never be what it was before the war. The men who are engaged in this operation will never again accept the rate of wages that they accepted in pre-war times, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. The other way to bring about a reduction of rates is to have more produce for the railways to carry-in other words, to increase traffic. And how are we to increase traffic? By having more people in Canada. We cannot one day say, "Do not bring immigrants into this country," and the next day say, "We want the freight rates or the passenger rates reduced. In the United States with the same territory they have 110,000,000 people; we have 9,000,000 people. Their density of population to railway mileage is very much greater than ours. The only possible way, to my mind, by which freight rates can be reduced is by having greater traffic for the railways, and that greater traffic can only be secured by having more people to carry on production in this country. If Canada cannot support more than 9,000.000 of people, then the Creator made a mistake in flinging it across so vast a territory-and I believe in the Creator. This country can support at least
50,000,000 people and our object-this is only by the way should be to go about this settlement of many of our difficulties, including the railway problem, in the fundamental way, and that is by producing more traffic for the railways, and to do that you must have more people in this country to produce it.
What I rose particularly to do was to call the attention of the House to the work that has been done during the past season by our own Fuel Committee. In July last the United States government appointed such a committee, and a little later they appointed what they called a Fuel Distributor. In July last the government of Canada appointed an Advisory Fuel Committee, composed of Mr. Magrath, the late Mr. Kennedy, Mr. McCourt, and Major Bell. These gentlemen have not used many billboards in advertising, but they have done a great deal of work just the same for the benefit of the people of Canada. Each day during several weeks this committee was in touch with dealers in Welsh coal, finding out the quantities on hand, the quantities

Canada's Coal Supply
that could be shipped, and the prices that might be expected to be paid. Some people have asserted that there is not real anthracite coal in Wales. I must differ from that view, because in a test some Welsh coal that was brought to Canada this winter proved to be in every particular a little superior to the Pennsylvania coal.


Mr. COOTE:: Does the minister know
whether that particular brand of Welsh coal was brought to Ottawa or not?


George Perry Graham: I do not know whether it reached Ottawa or not, but some of it was brought to Canada.
In addition to their work in connection with Welsh coal, the Advisory Fuel Committee was in constant touch with the Fuel Distributor at Washington as well as with a similar body in Pennsylvania. Some person has said that the state of Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting the export of coal, which law had been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot quite grasp how the state of Pennsylvania would have the right to pass a law prohibiting the export of coal. They might pass a law in reference to mining leases, which leases might contain a clause in effect against export unless certain conditions were complied with, but my own view is that no state could pass a law prohibiting export, that that would rest with the federal authorities at Washington, just as it rests with the federal power at Ottawa in this country.
Our Advisory Fuel Committee met several times with the Pennsylvania body having the same work in hand. Their task was not an easy one because there was in the United States as every person knows a feeling among a class of the people that coal should not be exported to Canada during the time there was a scarcity; but this same scarcity applied to the New England states as much as it did to Canada, and at a meeting held at Washington in the autumn, I think it was, it was arranged that Canada was to have about sixty per cent of her regular quota of coal. Later it was thought that that amount should be reduced to fifty per cent in order to encourage the people to use substitutes for coal, but as a matter of fact by the end of this month, March 31, it would appear that Canada will have received sixty-three per cent of her usual quota of hard coal. I am speaking altogether of anthracite.
It will be remembered that the Interstate Commerce Commission had an investigation at which Mr. Magrath appeared, and that about December 16 an order was passed
restricting the export of coal to Canada until such time as relief would be had in the New England states. But feeling ran strong among some classes, and I want to call the attention of the House to a bill that was introduced at Washington on February the 17th. It reads as follows:
A Bill
Authorizing the President to declare an embargo on
coal.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That whenever the President shall find that the public interest so requires he is hereby authorized to declare an embargo on the exportation of coal from the United States to foreign countries; such embargo may include either anthracite or bituminous coal or both and may be complete or partial: Provided, however, that without further authority of the Congress no such embargo shall continue in operation for a period of more than six months at any one time.
It is needless to say that that bill did not become law. I now wish to read some of the evidence given by Mr. Bermingham, President of the Delaware, Lackawanna, and Western Railway,-who appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission just as Mr. Magrath did-in order to show that all the people in the United States are not of the same mind as the gentleman who introduced that bill into the House of Representatives. Here are the answers given by Mr. Bermingham to questions put to him:
Q. Mr. Bermingham, have you any information as to whether, assuming there was an embargo against any further shipments of coal by your company in Canada, you would have any difficulty in sending that into New England, over lines leading into New England instead of sending it to Canada? The question is, do you think you have enough information on that to answer the question ?
A. I think, as a matter of record, I would refuse to ship any coal any place, if any such purpose as that was put over, after the record that I have made in the 32 years I have been in this game. I tried to ship coal to New England last year. Why did I close down the mines? Why did we only produce 400,000 tons in December instead of 750,000 tons? Why did I carry $11,000,000 worth of coal on hand? New England didnt come to me with any open arms for coal.
Q. You are not prepared to speak as to any operating difficulty; any traffic congestion that you might encounter if you tried to divert your Canadian allotment to points in New England?
A. I don't quite catch what you mean by diverting my Canadian allotments, when I shipped over 1,000,000 tons and have only shipped 300,000 tons below my allotment. I hope I am going to play just as fair with everyone in the United States as I do with the people in Canada, and also the fellow in Canada. His money has been good all these years, and I needed his line of business there. These sizes of coal- I had barley coal there that nobody would take six weeks ago, and I shipped some of it to Canada, and was awfully glad to get the order.
I could read more along the same line, but I am merely trying to point out that the American coal operator is very happy because he has had a good market and that,
Canada's Coal Supply

outside of a few legislators and some mayors of cities, the United States coal operators, as well as the transportation men over there, were glad and anxious, so far as possible, to give Canada the amount of coal to which she was entitled in other years. A good deal of this happy feeling, I may say, was due to the work of the Advisory Fuel Committee that I have named.
Now, just one more word as to the question , of freight rates. I forgot, however, to mention this: My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) said there were a lot of empty cars going west. Well, that is the trouble with the situation. We have so Hw people, comparatively speaking, occupying such a vast expanse of territory that when you bring a car of coal east that car has to go back empty instead of returning full of goods. It can readily be seen that the longer the freight car has to be hauled the more difficult it is to get a cheap freight rate; because, unless the railway is to go behind more and more, and eventually go into bankruptcy, it must obtain the cost price of operation at least, and that cost price is the cost, as figured out, of hauling a ton of coal from one point to another point; it is the cost price in a great many cases of hauling a ton of coal from point to point, and hauling the empty car back again. A numerous and well distributed population would remedy this to a large extent.


Mr. SHAW:: Does the hon. gentleman give it as his opinion that the people of Alberta, for example, cannot reasonably expect a train load of coal to be hauled from that province to central Canada at a rate that will permit Alberta coal to compete with coal from the United States?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to be put into the position of saying that; but the people of Canada cannot continue to pay the price for coal which they have been paying for the last three or four years. At the present- time it might be possible to do that; but when coal gets back to its normal price again, or nearly so, unless some means has been found of reducing freight rates in one way or the other it will be a difficult matter for coal hauled from a point 1,800 miles away to compete with coal hauled from a point 500 miles or even 800 miles away, that is the situation. It is a matter of economics and freight rates. Everything else being equal, coal can be hauled from mines only 500 miles away and brought to your door more cheaply than coal hauled from a point 1,800 miles away. However, I want to say this: I am in favour of the National Railways, as far as I can control the system, doing everything

possible to help to assist in developing the coal areas both east and west in the Dominion. We have coal deposits in the East and we have coal deposits in the West. The coal in the East, in recent years, with few exceptions, only came as far as Montreal; on one occasion it did come as far as Brockville. The steamship haul from the Cape Breton mines is comparatively cheap; it may be utilized also for coal from other mines. Nova Scotia coal is brought to Montreal, I think, by that route at the rate of 85 cents to $1.10 per ton and thus, so far as freight rates are concerned, comes within reasonable distance of the consumer.	.
But one of the difficulties of the whole situation is that in the summer months when we could haul the coal cheaply there is not -there has not been in past years at any rate-a demand for it.
There would be a prospect of a reduction in coal rates, particularly in trainloads, if the hauling could be done in the months in which there is not a very great traffic in other products. But the trouble with freight originating in the West is that it is nearly all eastward. Perhaps I should not put it that way, but the major portion of the traffic is east bound, so that when we bring coal east we add to the traffic without having any return traffic to carry back. Notwithstanding these difficulties I believe something can be gained by referring this matter to a committee for investigation. We have no coal in central Canada but I am not despondent. I believe that anthracite coal will yet be found in the province of Ontario. At any rate we have coal in the East and coal in the West and the time has come when we ought to take active measures without spending too much time upon rediscussion of theoretical ideas, to ascertain if there is a possibility of getting the unity of action between the East and the West to the end that may become self contained in case of needs. That cannot be done in a day or in a year; but as scientific processes are improved and developed there must be some way by which if we cannot use the soft coal itself we can use the products of that coal. Some person has compared bituminous coal to hard coal. There are, of course, different grades of bituminous coal, but a first class bituminous coal, properly fired, will dispense as much heat as a ton of anthracite. At any rate that is my opinion. That being the case we ought to be able in this Dominion to devise a means of transportation and so improve our processes of handling and of development, to make use of our bituminous coal to the best advantage. Because the time may come in future when

Canada's Coal Supply
it may be imperative for us to use our own coal for domestic and industrial purposes.
I believe the Canadian National Railway, and in fact the Canadian Pacific and all the railways, will find it to their advantage to develop Canada first, not as against Other countries, but to develop Canada first, and one of the things that will assist in doing that will be the intensive development of our coal areas for our own consumption. I would not be in favour of doing anything that would imply our saying to the United States "We do not want to deal with you in coal because Alberta wants to sell her coal in the United States", and rightly so as the haul is short and the demand likely to increase. But while being on terms with our neighbours across the border, it is a sign of true friendship and an evidence of hope for a strong nationality, that we should, so far as possible, use our own materials for the benefit of our own people, and I believe the Canadian National Railway will be found ready to do all it possibly can to bring that about.
Mr. WILLIAM A. BOYS (South Simcoe):
I am in absolute accord with the purpose of the resolution, and believe that it raises one of the most vitally important questions for the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Ontario. I am also in accord with the suggestion contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), but it seems to me that the two propositions are contradictory. The amendment proposes to add the following:
And that the whole question of fuel supply for Canada, together with the question of costs, transportation, desirable interprovincial action and other means whereby Canada may be self-sustaining and self-supplying as regards fuel and to inquire into the necessity and possibility of supplying substitutes for coal be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals and that said committee report to the House.
It will be borne in mind that the member proposes to add this paragraph to the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). The latter part of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for North Toronto reads:
That further in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately consider the initiation of an all British and Canadian coal supply and that such a policy is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the future of Canada.
Suppose the amendment carried and these words were added to the motion, it seems to me you would have a double-barrelled proposition. You have in the resolution a reference to the government of Canada and in the amendment you have the very opposile-a
reference to the standing committees of this House-and unless there is a recasting of either the amendment or the resolution, the one is inconsistent with the other and would be out of order. It is highly probable that this debate will continue till six o'clock and the hon. members interested might get together.
I do not rise to place any impediment in the way of either the passage of the resolution or the appointment of a committee. So far as I am personally concerned, I believe it would be better that this matter should go to a committee, where witnesses could be called and the whole matter could be thoroughly investigated, but as the matter stands, I cannot come to any conclusion but the one I have mentioned, namely that the amendment is inconsistent with the motion.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very glad that this matter is to be referred to a Committee, notwithstanding the objections raised by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys), who however, has expressed the hope that some way will be found by which this course can be taken. It has been represented in western Canada that in my previous utterances in this House I have said that it was impossible to bring western coal to Ontario. Nothing is impossible, Mr. Speaker. Having in mind the statement made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) that during this winter strong efforts were being made to capture the market at Winnipeg for western coal, I might point out to my hon. friend that during the years of 1917, 1918, 1919 the Alberta government kept representatives in Winnipeg to make an attempt to capture that market against the product of the United States. One of the great difficulties we had to contend with was transportation. Another difficulty was that the cars carrying wheat eastward to Fort William and the ships carrying grain to Buffalo and lake Erie ports brought back coal and this naturally gave a very low freight rate to the actual products coming from the United States billed to western Canada. We had a great deal of difficulty with the rate of $4.25 per ton from the Alberta coal fields, to meet the strong competition upon these occasions. I am glad to say that has been abolished and Alberta coal is firmly established as far east as Winnipeg, and not only established, but giving entire satisfaction in a field where formerly it was looked upon with suspicion. As the hon. member for North Toronto has referred to this question, I may say that after looking up the reports from Alberta I find that there are 370 mines in that province, which are sufficient
12S2
Canada's Coal Supply

to supply the whole of Canada, let alone Ontario. So far as western coal is concerned, it would not be necessary to build another mile of railway, or to open another mine so far as production is concerned, to meet all the requirements to satisfy this market. Then it comes down to a question of rates in its entirety. Therefore, I am glad that, for the purpose of disseminating information this matter may go before a committee, that you may call the rate experts and the officials of the Department of Mines who have made an attempt to study this matter, hear what they have to communicate and give that information to the public. We as westerners will be delighted to send the coal, which is our great natural product, from the province of Alberta as far east in Canada as possible and to sell it in competition with coal from any other portion of the world. I have been intensely interested in the scheme for bringing coal from Nova Scotia principally by water during the summer months as far west as possible. That is a matter to which we are giving a great deal of attention in the Department of Mines at the present moment, and we hope that by the coking process great results will be obtained, because already we have large interests who are prepared to back this project relying on the success of the work which has been done in this line in Minneapolis and other places in the United States. We hope to serve the market with coke where there is a possibility of the consumption of the by-products, thereby cheapening the cost to the consumer.
I want to add to what the Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham) has said with respect to the Fuel Board. These men have given their services freely and have met a difficult situation. By their tact and consideration they were able to overcome what at times promised to develop into rather a serious situation in Ontario and Quebec, and they did this without remuneration.
My department is one of investigation rather than one dealing with the situation as it exists at the moment, but we had hoped to assist in a very material way in solving the problem, in so far as it is possible so to do with regard to the Canadian people, with the products of their own mines.


Mr. EULER:: Is there any real anthracite
coal in Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know. If you put it on a comparative basis with the anthracite of Pennsylvania, the answer would be, yes. But undoubtedly, we have a very high grade of semi-anthracite coal in Alberta, west of High River, in the foot hills 
and in the area known as the Hoppe leases on the Smoky river in northern Alberta.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss this problem at any length, but I wish to support the first part of the resolution and the amendment. I should like this problem to be referred to the select standing committee on Mines and Minerals to gather information on the subject and lay it before the House. In fact, there may be available to the committee all the information that is needed.
I do not think we should do anything that would make the cost of coal higher to the consumer in the long run; on the contrary, our efforts should be directed not only to securing an adequate supply of fuel from our own mines but at no higher, and if possible at a cheaper, rate than we are now paying for American coal. Therefore it is important that we should have an investigation of this problem in order to ascertain what we can do for the advantage both of the consumers of coal and of those who have it to sell in Canada.
Several hon. members have referred to the necessity of having a back haul for the cars bringing coal from our mines. I grant that it is desirable to have just as much return traffic as possible, but I have wondered in this connection how much we have benefited in the case of cars sent back to the coal mines iD the States. That would be something for the committee to investigate. It seems to me that when those cars reach the boundary line and are taken over by the United States railways our benefit ceases. Consequently it ap-apears to me that it would be worth considering that our coal miners would not only be advantaged by the fuel needs of the central portion of the Dominion being supplied by our western and eastern mines, but this traffic would also enure to the advantage of our National Railways. That is another factor that the committee might investigate for our information.
We need all varieties of coal. In Alberta good lignite, bituminous, and steam coal is being mined. Each of these varieties is required for domestic and industrial purposes, and it should be our purpose to make it economically possible to bring this coal to meet the domestic demand at the maximum distance from the source of supply.
I understand that a new railroad is being asked for running from Grand Prairie to connect

Canada's Coal Supply
west of Edmonton with the main line of our National railway to the coast. That road would enable us to tap extensive anthracite deposits in northern Alberta. There is a great quantity of anthracite within fifteen or twenty miles of that projected road, which, I believe, will be built in the near future. If that is the case, anthracite coal will be mined there before very long, and we shall be able to send quantities of it to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If we can send it to Ontario to compete with coal coming in from the United States, we want to see that done. An analysis of that coal shows that it is practically as good as Pennsylvania anthracite.
I mentioned in this House some time ago in discussing the Hudson bay project that we were sending out of our country 160,000,000 annually for coal. If that be true, and I believe it is, to save only half of that by using our own coal would be a good thing for Canada. I want to see Canadian coal used in preference to coal from any other country. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) asks that we have an all-British supply, but I do not know that we can do that. I do not know that it is feasible or possible to bring coal from the Old Country entirely to take the place of the United States coal. We shall want to send a considerable amount of coal from Alberta to the United States, and I understand that considerable quantities are going into that country from British Columbia. I do not know that I would go so far as to say that I would favour bringing British coal in instead of the United States coal, in view of the conditions, but I do want to emphasize the importance of our using Canadian coal wherever it can be used to advantage. I support the amendment. I want to see this matter inquired into by the Mines and Minerals committee so that we may know what is best to do in the interests of Canada as a whole.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to occupy the time of the House at great length; I simply wish to make a few observations on this coal question before the resolution comes to a vote. I was afraid for a moment that the hon. Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham) was going to branch into the immigration question, but fortunately we got back to coal before very long. I quite agree with him, as I think all from the West do, that this country is capable of supporting a population of 50,000,000 people. But, Sir, there will have to be some economic readjustment and perhaps some changes in our fiscal system before that
condition can be attained. An increase in the traffic does not necessarily mean a reduction in the overhead charges of our railways. An increase in the amount of grain handled on the western prairies might not mean a decrease in operating costs, because the railways are taxed to their utmost during the grain handling season. But one way, I should think, of reducing the cost of handling goods on the railway would be to ha,ve something to handle during the seasons in which ordinarily, most of the equipment and a great many of the men are idle. Mr. Hanna, former president of the Canadian National Railway Board, giving evidence before the freight rates committee here last summer, pointed out that grain was the most profitable commodity that the railway handled, and that the ideal situation for the railways would be to have a sufficiently large quantity of grain to handle all the year round. Grain is handled to-day much more cheaply than many other commodities; it is the long haul in large quantities, solid trains of grain, with very little switching between divisional points-that makes for minimum cost of transport. It seems to me that on the same basis coal could be shipped from Alberta to eastern Canada, but it would have to be done in the season when the railway equipment was otherwise more or less idle.
The Minister of Defence pointed out that coal was not needed during the summer season. That is something like the Irishman who had a leaky roof and was asked why he did not repair it. He replied that when it was raining he could not fix it, and when it was not raining it did not need to be fixed.


George Perry Graham: Do I understand the hon. member to quote me as saying that we did not need coal in the summer?


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the hon. minister misunderstood me-that it would not be needed so far as the railways were concerned.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am sorry I misunderstood the minister.


George Perry Graham: I said the experience was that the western people themselves did not order their coal in the summer.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is what I meant; perhaps I did not express it quite clearly- that so far as the railways were concerned the coal was not available to be handled. It seems to me that the only way to bring that about would be to have lower rates in the summer season. If the householders in the

Canada's Coal Supply

East found they could save four or five dollars a ton on their coal by buying it in the summer, undoubtedly they would put in a stock of coal during that season. The rate on coal from Drumheller to points in Ontario is 63i cents per hundred pounds, or $12.70 a ton. Taking the rates on grain from the western prairies on the same basis, it would figure out about $9 a ton. We can assume that if the railway can handle grain in large quantities at $9 a ton over that mileage, they could handle coal at the same price; and the longer the mileage, the cheaper it could be handled. In the summer season, with the more favourable conditions of transportation then prevailing, I believe, Sir, that the coal could be handled at the rate of $6 a ton. In Alberta the coal is put on the car for about $4 a ton, and they have facilities for handling a great deal more coal than they have orders for. If the output is increased the cost of the coal on the cars will be greatly reduced. I believe that is one of the solutions of the difficulty to-day. If we can keep our railways occupied in the summer; if we can get something that will be the equivalent of grain-taking Mr. Hanna's word for it-the railways could be busy, all year round and engaged in a profitable business. I suggest that the rates should be increased in the fall when the cold weather comes on; the railways would be kept sufficiently busy during the summer in transporting coal both ways between Alberta and Nova Scotia. That would very largely reduce overhead costs, because no extra equipment and no extra men would be needed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wish to refer the mover of the resolution to a point that was made by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) this afternoon, who mentioned that the motion as it stands with the amendment proposed, is somewhat contradictory, the first part of the motion having special reference to the government, and the second part referring more particularly to a reference to a committee. If my hon. friend who moved the resolution is agreeable to dropping the second part of it, that will remove the conflict that has been pointed out. The motion would then stop at the word "supply" at the end of the first sentence.


Thomas Langton Church: That is quite satisfactory.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion as amended will then read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for Canada to have a national policy in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on a United States coal

supply, and that the whole question of fuel supply for Canada together with the question of costs, transportation, desirable inter-provincial action and other means whereby Canada may be self-sustaining and self-supplying as regards fuel, and to inquire into the necessity and possibility of supplying substitutes for coal be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals and that the said committee report to the House.
Motion as amended agreed to.


EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, railway rates westward from the prairie provinces should be reduced to an equality with railway rates eastward from said provinces for similar goods and distances.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds with his motion, I am informed that the question which is involved in it is presently sub judice and a question being sub judice must not be discussed in this House. The practice is well known. You will find in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, under rule 19:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(c) refer ^o any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
But in order to do justice to the question, if the hon. gentleman would agree to suspend the presentation of this resolution at the present moment, I would like to refer to the Railway Act to see whether or not an appeal from the Railway Commission to the Privy Council would be considered sub judice. If it was an appeal to the Supreme Court, then there would be no hesitation on my part in saying that the question was sub judice, but the appeal, I am told, is from the Railway Commission to the Privy Council, that is to say, to the government. I have not the Railway Act under my hand at the moment and have not had time to study the question. It is rather a fine point, and if the hon. gentleman would kindly suspend the discussion of his motion for the time being, I will take the opportunity to look up the Railway Act and be in a position to give a ruling later on. Meanwhile I would like to invite the opinion of the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and that of the ex-Chairman of the Railway Commission (Sir Henry Drayton), as I would be largely guided by the opinion of hon. gentlemen who are absolutely au fait with the powers of the Railway Commission. Just at the present moment I am not ready to give a decision and I would not like a debate to start which would be irregular and contrary to the rules and practice of the House.

12S5
Titles and Decorations


John Arthur Clark: If this motion might hold its place and be called in this order, if it is found on consideration to be in order, I would be very pleased to have it stand under those conditions, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to prevent the hon. gentleman from bringing the question before the House, but I want to be quite sure that the motion will be brought regularly before it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the hon. member's request, the government will be only too happy to comply with anything that will help to serve the purpose he has in view, anil to meet your wishes, Mr. Speaker.


John Arthur Clark: And keep its order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Motion stands.


TITLES, HONOURS AND DECORATIONS MOTION BY MR. LADNER TO DEFINE INTENT OF ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South) moved:: Whereas a certain address respecting titles, honours and decorations was on motion of this House (May 22nd, 1919) forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General praying him to transmit the same to His Majesty the King.
And whereas it is expedient to define more clearly the intent and effect of said address in certain respects.
It is therefore the opinion of this House that an address should be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, in the following words:-
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased to accept the request of this House that the effect of the said address shall not henceforth preclude the granting by Your Majesty, or by any foreign ruler or government, of decorations (save those carrying titles) for distinguished service or high attainments in education, literature, art and science.
This House is also of the opinion that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to correct the last paragraph of the report of the committee on titles, honours, and decorations made to this House 14th May, 1919, and adopted 22nd May, 1919, so that the said paragraph shall not henceforth preclude the granting by any foreign ruler or government of decorations (save those carrying titles) for distinguished service or high attainments in education, literature, art and science.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1919 a committee was appointed by this honourable House to consider the question of titles, honours and decorations. On the 14th of May of that year that committee brought in a report dealing with the question which in substance recommended the conferring of no more titles or titular distinctions on British subjects
82 h
ordinarily resident in Canada, and the extinction of hereditary titles of honour or titular distinctions. In order that the House may be accurately apprised of the wording of that recommendation, and in order that they may understand the purpose of this resolution, I propose to read the two paragraphs which deal substantially with the problem of that day. In the petition referred to it was recommended that an address be presented to His Majesty the King praying that His Majesty might be graciously pleased:
(a) to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
The other important portion of the petition is contained in paragraph (b) which it is unnecessary for me to read but which practically disposes of the granting of hereditary titles in the future. Then at the end of this report is a recommendation that is responsible for the resolution I am bringing in this evening. That recommendation is thus worded:
Your committee further recommends that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it was never intended that the wording of that resolution should go to the extent of precluding the granting of such decorations without titles as would be given to a student or, let us say, to a scholar of high attainments in science, literature, art and education; but subsequently we had an actual instance in which the working and interpretation of that clause was determined. In that case-and there are several but I will take one in order that the House may understand the effect of this resolution-we had in British Columbia the case of Dr. Ashton, who is Professor of French in the University of British Columbia. That gentleman engaged for some years in research work in French literature. In the course of his investigations he produced a book, and several other works, that surpassed the other authorities at that time upon certain features of old French literature. The result was that the French authorities in recognition of the scholarly attainments and literary achievements of this professor made him a member of the Order of the Legion of Honour, but in the process of passing the declaration formally through the foreign office and the British Embassy it was found that owing to the Nickle resolution, and owing to the latter portion of
Titles and Decorations

the committee's report which I have read to you, it was impossible for the French government to confer this honour upon this distinguished professor. In reading the debates of that period in the Dominion House, it is very clear that it was never the intention of the House that men of such standing should be denied the right of being honoured in a manner such as this. I have read carefully the speeches of that time. The present Solicitor General discussed the matter very fully and it is very clear from his remarks-it is clear from the remarks of the members of the opposition-that what was really intended in Canada was to do away with the abuse which it was alleged appertained to the granting of titles and hereditary distinctions at that time, but the wording of the report created the impression that something further was intended. Accordingly it was held, in this actual case, that the award of the Legion of Honour by the French government to this professor came within the prohibitory section of the report in question. Rulings have been made by the proper department of the government on the subject, and I wish to assure the House that that is the effect.
The purpose of this resolution is to change it so as to make it possible for men like Dr. Banting and Mr. Best, who discovered the insulin cure for diabetes, and who perhaps in the future, we can hope, will make other discoveries that will benefit mankind, to be honoured by any government. Because, after all, competition in the intellectual world is a competition of a world wide nature; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why eminent men who distinguish themselves in such activities should be deprived of the rewards which come in the nature of honours. We all know that scientists, educationalists, and other men of that class, do not work and slave for the material reward derived by other people engaged in business, who win for themselves affluence and the comforts which go with it. Their chief reward is the honour of their intellectual attainments. I am therefore appealing to the House that it may correct the error which was involved in the Nickle resolution, and make it possible for Canadian students in the intellectual world of Canada to be recognized by another country.
It is contended in some newspapers that this resolution may be a measure for the renewing of the granting of titles. I wish to assure the House-after considerable investigation, after consulting with the Under Secretary of State, and after making other inquiries in reliable quarters-that there is no intention of that kind, nor does the wording

of the resolution permit of such an interpretation. The resolution is very clear. It simply says that the British government, or a foreign government, may grant decorations, save those carrying titles, for distinguished services or high attainments in education, literature, art and science. It is an impossibility for persons to receive a decoration with which a title is connected. They can only receive the decoration, or the recognition for their accomplishments, or the good which they do mankind. It can only be a recognition which has no title, and it must be limited to distinguished services or high attainments in education, literature, art and science.
Some may ask, why should not men work for the honour without the recognition? The simple answer is that it is not in accordance with human nature to do so. If you make it impossible for Canadian scholars and Canadian students to be honoured by foreign governments-for after all- the intellectual kingdom is world wide, it is not limited to Canada -if you make it impossible for them to be honoured by foreign governments you create a situation as a result of which these men will be disinclined to pursue their educational or scholarly careers in Canada. We might take the instance of patriotism. It may be said that patriotism should not need a flag, but I submit that a flag does no harm to patriotism; it serves as a rallying point. You may say that services to humanity should need no bauble; but decorations do no harm, they serve as a rallying point for public appreciation. Again, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if this country continues in a course-either out of prejudice, narrowmindedness, or any other cause-when it becomes necessary for our professors to journey to the Old Country they will not be able to stand on the same plane as the men from the United States, and you prejudice and handicap the future of the university world of Canada. Because at the present time men may go over to Europe, they may engage in congresses and conventions of various kinds there and they are confronted with an anomalous situation. The United States which is alleged to be the most democratic of all countries-although it is not admitted by all of us to be so-can send over their representatives to Europe and they are able to take a stand in the congresses and conventions of the literary, scientific and educational world, superior to that occupied by the students and scholars of Canada.
I submit that hon. members of this House will not be so prejudiced, that they will not be so narrow minded, and that they will not be so ungenerous, as to deny our own Canadian scholars the privilege which is accorded to

Titles and Decorations
those in the United States and in every other country in the world. It is an unthinkable thing to me, and I do not believe hon. members here, upon reflection, even from the fear that there may be some question of titles or honours involved in this resolution, will be so prejudiced as to deny our men the rights other people enjoy. We need in Canada just as much of the brain as we do of the brawn of the world. We have lately listened to an address by the hon. Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) in which he advanced quite a comprehensive scheme with regard to immigration and with regard to bringing into Canada by the thousands people that have the muscle and the arm, and I submit you should give them equal advantages with the men who have the brain and intelligence to direct the affairs of this country. You will find-and I think it was well proven during the war-that in Great Britain and in France it was the intellectual power of the leaders of the men which made victory possible for the allies. It combined necessarily the brawn and the muscle, but both go hand in hand.
It can be truthfully said, I submit, that decorations are purely democratic. Democracy has always recognized and rewarded personal endeavour, as distinguished from inherited privilege. It is purely democratic to reward self-sacrifice and abnegation in the work of peace, just as we reward those qualities in time of war. Why should the people of Canada extend to the eminently successful citizens of the country great distinction in time of war, a rare period in our national history, and then during a long period of peace, turn a deaf ear to the men who have become benefactors of their country and mankind, merely because of some prejudice or perhaps some abuse of the granting of honours or declarations in the past. I do not think hon. members here will allow their minds to be perverted into a prejudice that will draw a conclusion of that kind.
I submit there is no homage so true and unprejudiced as that which the foreigner or the foreign government offers. A foreign nation in conferring an honour anticipates the verdict of posterity and is impersonal in its judgment. There is no intrusion of personal feeling. It gives a fair verdict which is neither won by favour nor withheld by prejudice. Whatever has a tendency to make great nations forget those things in which they differ and remember those only in which they have a common interest is a benefit to them both, and such is the granting of honours of this kind mutually by great nations of the world. Proceedings of this kind and recognitions of this class by the citizens of different countries make us blind to the faults of each other and make us kind to their virtues. This is an appeal on behalf of the men who rank high in the intellectual world of our country.
We have examples, as I mentioned, in the case of Dr. Banting and Mr. Best. We have also Dr. McLennan, who has made some wonderful discoveries with regard to helium. We all know of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell and I will draw the attention of hon. members to such men as Pasteur, who made the wonderful discovery of a certain serum, Professor Roentgen the discoverer of the X-rays, Monsieur and Madame Curie, the discoverers of radium, and Dr. Flexner, the discoverer of a serum for spinal meningitis. The names of many others will readily be called to recollection. The activities of these men are world wide. Their great discoveries are for mankind. They are not for nations, but for the whole people of the universe, and I wonder if to-day there are hon. members here who bn account of some bogey imagination with ' regard to the question of titles will rise in their seats and say that the Canadian scholars shall be denied recognition by every other country of the world.


Mr. JACOBS:: Would the hon. member be in favour of a Canadian accepting decorations from the Chinese or Japanese governments?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member's question is easily answered. I most certainly would. It is not the Chinese or Japanese government that the people of British Columbia have a contest with. It is the inferior and lower class of people who come into our country and make economic conditions under which it is impossible for the working classes to exist. The problems are different. My hon. friend seeks to inject just a slight political jab which is not relative to the subject matter of my discussion.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to act upon the advice of a speaker whom I once heard-and perhaps other members of the House would find it useful and enlightening to follow the same course-and to limit my speech to the smallest possible amount. This is a broad subject but it is not very involved. The purpose of my resolution is very simple. It seeks to interpret and to correct an error which unfortunately crept into the report of the special committee in 1919. It is confined to the intellectual world of Canada. I appeal to hon. members to forget their prejudices, to be generous to Canadian scholars, students and members of the universities from Vancouver to
128S
Titles and Decorations

Halifax, who are looking to parliament for enlightenment by the example of their decisions, to realize the attention which is being given to this question, and to rise to the occasion and say to those who work, not for any reward in life, but for the service of Canada and for the service of humanity, that they will recognize their claim for special consideration, and that the spirit of this resolution and this debate will be understood, so that the people of this country cannot say that the lawmakers of Canada denied them the right of being recognized in the intellectual world and of receiving the honours to which they may be properly entitled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should have preferred to haye heard some general expression from members of the House before venturing to express an opinion of my own on this question. However, the absence of any expression of view by any hon. member would seem to suggest that the subject is not one which is greatly concerning parliament at the present time, and the question which I would submit to my hon. friend is whether any circumstance has arisen, since the House, after investigation by one of its committees, reported against the acceptance of titles and decorations by Canadians, which affords reason why at this time the House should alter the decision it then made.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does my hon. friend not understand from the resolution 'and my remarks that the proposal in no way conflicts with the Nickle resolution? It is merely interpreting it for the benefit of the classes of whom I spoke.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are two observations which I would like to make with respect to this matter. The first is that I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. friend in his desire to have all possible recognition given to intellectual attainment and scholarship. .By limiting, however, decorations to scholarship alone, to art, letters and science, there is established a somewhat invidious distinction between that particular class of attainment and attainments in other directions. If decorations or titles are to be given for service, the recognition should be made general. It would appear it should apply to public service in all fields as well as to service in what my hon. friend calls the intellectual world.
But that is not the only observation I wish to make. The one I regard as being more important is this. Distinctions of the type to which reference is made in the resolution are largely of two classes-titles and decorations.

Of the two, decorations are of an inferior order. The effect of the resolution being passed would be to limit recognition of Canadians as regards the intellectual world, to the lesser order of distinction. It would still be impossible to give to any Canadian, no matter how meritorious his public service might have been or how high his intellectual atainments or achievements, the same high distinction which would still be open to citizens of other parts of the British Empire or to citizens of other countries, for service in the field of letters, science or art. That, I think, is possibly one phase of the question which may have escaped my hon. friend's notice. I confess I had not thought of it particularly until it was drawn to my attention, because I am sympathetic with him in his endeavour to find every possible avenue for the recognition of the class of merit to which he refers in his resolution. Realizing, however, that the effect of his resolution will be to limit our scholars and men of science to a recognition of a lesser order, but yet to have them denied the higher recognition which men in other countries and in other parts of the British Empire would still be entitled to for a possible lesser service, I am inclined to think it would be just as advisable to have matters remain as they are at the present time, and not to recognize either titles or orders of any kind. For that reason I shall not support the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I take a different view of this question from that * expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I wish in what I have to say to confine myself to the merits of the resolution alone. But I want to be perfectly frank with the House; so far as my views go on the general question, they would not be expressed by the mere terms of the resolution. I was a member of the House at the time of the debate of 1919, at the time of the report of the committee referred to in the last paragraph of this resolution, and at the time of the decision embodied in an address to His Majesty, praying for a cessation of all titles and decorations to Canadian people.
I did not vote for the acceptance of the committee's report. I voted against it. I did not think it was a fitting act on the part of the Canadian parliament; I did not think it did honour to the people of Canada; nor did I think it embodied a becoming attitude towards the Throne. I would not for a moment argue that in our country, as in other countries, there had not in the past been abuses of the title-granting privilege, and particularly that there had been too much confining

12S9
Titles and Decorations
of the honour which titles bring to those engaged in what is usually known as public life and as well to those engaged in business life. Because of those abuses, because of that error of policy, a very considerable agitation arose against the entire practice, and in
9 p.m. that wave of so-called democracy that succeeded the war and that swept this, as other countries, like a hurricane, we took in 1919 the step that brought us where we are now. I was of judgment myself that the solution of the question proposed by the then Prime Minister in one of the ablest state papers that, I think, I ever read, was a solution that met all the exigencies that were reasonable, a solution that was based on sound common sense and that as well brought into conformity with present democratic ideas, the title-granting privilege. I thought it was a solution that would have done greater credit to our parliament than the course that was finally adopted. That is only by way of expressing my general opinion on the subject.
Coming to the resolution, I want to say something more definite. I do not agree at all with the Prime Minister in either of the reasons he advances. He says that it is illogical to confine this to this class of men or of women, those who attain eminence and do great service in the cause of education, literature, art and science. He says that to admit them to the privilege of decoration at the hands of our own country or another, is to do for them something to which they are no more entitled than would be other classes of people, and he cites particularly those engaged in public service. With that position I do not agree, to begin with; but even if that were the case, it would not be an argument against doing justice to some, that at the same time, we are not doing the same justice to others. We are doing no injury to any. But in the next place, I want to impress this. The class, the admission of which would be the best for the whole country, is just the class denominated in this resolution. There is no reason, to begin with, why recognition by a decoration should not be the reward of service, just as much as the attainment of money should be the reward of devotion to duty and toil. Whatever reasoning gets to that conclusion, for myself, I cannot comprehend.
What might be the division of peoples in respect of this subject? One might say: Some attain eminence, do great service in public life; others attain eminence, great success, and do great service in business life; others, on the contrary, do their work in less remunerative fields. The latter come under the terms of this resolution. But those wrho attain success in public life get a reward that none of those obtain who do service to their country, their race and their time in the spheres that are named in this resolution. There is a certain claim; there is a certain glamour; there is a certain obvious honour which all or, at any rate, most human kind loves, in the reward of public life. Public men are not without those incentives to activity, aside from money, that animate and inspire mankind. Nor is the business man without rewards that appeal to our race. The reward of money is perhaps more within his reach than it is within the reach of the man engaged in any other pursuit. The business man therefore does not need recognition by other methods as do those who are in the class named in this resolution. I always thought that far too many of these recognitions came to men in public life and to men in business life, although they were already in the enjoyment of rewards which, if not wholly consonant and adequate to their success, were at least something in the way of recognition.
But coming now to this class, no man enters the field of education, no man enters the field of science, no man enters the field of art hoping that the reward of great wealth will be for him if he succeeds; no man enters any of these activities save out of love of the service that the activity brings. Consequently I arrive by that method at the conclusion that it is men and women engaged * in these pursuits whereby they serve their fellows to whom a denial of recognition by the usual decorations means the most. So I think if it is impossible to be somewhat broader, let us at least do this. Why should we say to a Canadian scholar or to a Canadian scientist who toils day by day and week by week, who denies himself that remuneration which his fellow, perhaps not half as well endowed, perhaps not half as strenuously at work, gains-why should we say to him, "Because you live in Canada we will not allow you to accept the ordinary recognition that your fellow across the border is entitled to receive even in republican United States."
Now, it seems to me that the spirit animating this attitude is not a spirit that becomes the Canadian people at all, I do not know that I could improve on the class of those who would here be admitted to a responsible degree of recognition by the terms of the resolution. I think it is wide enough to include all who enter the service of art, literature or science, and who, as a result of that service, have been successful but have been denied those rewards that wait on men in public and business life. So I say, let us be big enough
Titles and Decorations

to open the gates so far. If we do not want to go any further, all right, I am not going to complain; but let us go at least far enough to say to those who are engaged in these unselfish walks of life, "Though others may not be admitted to these rewards, to you who are in walks of life that mean the greatest sacrifice and the greatest service we will not deny them."
I have in my mind-I cannot mention his name-a man who has served his fellows, not only in our country but in the world, perhaps as few others, if any, of this generation have. That man might have entered other work, and was qualified by powers of concentration and application to attain the distinction and reward of professional activity. Instead he laid before himself a scientific goal which, if he reached, he believed would be a great boon to his race. For five years he denied himself almost everything save the bread of life, for five years he denied himself not only those things that go to make for human comfort, but those things that go to make for human society, those amenities of social life which we all love so much. I cannot tell the House all that that man went through, though I have the information. He ends by a great success. At the time of his success and for the future, so far as ordinary rewards of the world are concerned, he is just where he began. And we say to him-though I did not doubt for a moment that he would be the last to seek anything of this kind-"We are so desperately democratic that we won't let our own country nor any other country in the world put a few letters after your name or give you an insignia of honour in recognition of the services you have done the world." Is that democracy? Is that common sense? For that reason I am not in accord with the first argument advanced by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my right hon. friend proceeds, I understood him to allude to the United States and to intimate that Canadians were denied recognition which is permitted in the United States. Does my right hon. friend say that titles and decorations are permitted by the United States government?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say titles. The resolution does not refer to titles. Decorations are permitted.


William Findlay Maclean: Are they granted by the government of the United States? That is the real point.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it is. This man could get a decoration if he lived in the Uni-

ted States; but because he lived in Canada he could not.


Samuel William Jacobs: My right hon. friend does not pretend that the United States government hands out decorations?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not so pretend. But if I were a citizen of the United States I would rather have my own government hand out such recognition than have a fellow-citizen honoured by a foreign government. At any rate, if a man lived in the United States he would not be denied a decoration at the hands of those who were big enough to give it to him. That is the statement I make.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Well, it is a mistake.


Arthur Meighen: The second reason given is that because this resolution does not admit men to titles it is illogical to admit them to ordinary decorations. Really I cannot follow my right hon. friend's reasoning. I do not know how to put that reason in a sufficiently plausible form to make it appear serious. If we cannot admit a man to a title, why in the world should we prevent a man from accepting an ordinary decoration not carrying a title? It seems to me it would be just as illogical to say: Do not admit a man to a title because you do not admit him to any hereditary titles. No one wants hereditary titles here. That is not the point. There is no reason behind the suggestion that because you cannot go further and allow a man to wear a title, you are not using good judgment in letting him accept a decoration. Both reasons seem to me unsound.
Therefore because I think the purpose is right, because I believe in incentive, because I believe in rewards other than mere money in this world, I support the resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as I had some little share in bringing about the result in 1919 which is questioned to-night, I desire to say only a word or two. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) states that this step was actuated by a spirit of so-called democracy. May I assure him that it was actuated by a spirit of real democracy, and that the parliament of Canada in 1919 did not commit any mistake? I do not think that the people of Canada have ever regretted the decision then arrived at, and I do not think this House should reverse that decision to-night. My right hon. friend says that he voted against it. I understand his position to-night, but the resolution of Mr. Nickle was adopted by an almost unanimous vote and well repre-

Titles and Decorations
sented the sentiment and public feeling of the country. If there is one thing for which I am grateful to the parliament that was elected in 1917-and there were few things in that parliament, of course, that I admired-it is that it made possible the abolition of titles of honour in Canada. Titles had been lavishly bestowed throughout the country and the people became aroused; a spirit of resentment was manifested everywhere, and the result was the abolition of a practice that had certainly had a demoralizing effect.
The mover of the resolution says that the purpose of his motion is merely to interpret the resolution of Mr. Nickle. Surely the mover of the resolution adopted by the House in 1919 knows as well as my hon. friend what he meant, and Mr. Nickle himself has indicated his opposition to the motion now before us. The reason why the committee which studied the question reported that in their opinion these decorations should be abolished at the same time that titles of honour were abolished is a very simple one. The Imperial government could not very well allow foreign governments to carry on a sort of propaganda in this country by distributing decorations or orders of high standing in their own lands while the Imperial government was prevented from conferring titles of honour'which really corresponded to those foreign decorations. After all, has anybody in Canada suffered because these titles and decorations were abolished in 1919?


Jacques Bureau: Some have, in their pride.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Tory party has.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know that any person has really suffered. But let me tell you another thing which perhaps is a little personal. I had the honour, with my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to represent my country at the meeting of the League of Nations. We attended certain functions, dinners and other things, where almost everybody present was decorated with ribbons, medals, and so on; only two had none-the Minister of Finance and myself. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we were proud to represent Canada there; that was sufficient for us; and we were well received by everybody, without any titles or medals or ribbons. I admit that real merit deserves special recognition, but I deny that that recognition should take the form of titles or empty decorations. The people always discern real merit and recognize it. When I spoke on this question in 1919 I referred to the case of M. Thiers, of France, who had been created a baron by King Louis Philippe but refused to
wear the title. But, Sir, the French people, who knew the real merit of Mr. Thiers, called him the "Liberator of the Territory" after he had delivered his country from the Germans in 1870. That title, given him by the whole people, was better than the title of baron which King Louis Philippe had bestowed upon him against his will.
I really think, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution should be rejected by the House. It is the thin end of the wedge; and I do not think the country will suffer very much if we go on without any titles.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker; I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) missed one point in his remarks with regard to this resolution, namely, the great joy of success and achievement that comes to anyone who has done something worth while. To add a few letters to a man's name when he has really achieved greatness is simply trying to paint the lily and adorn the rose. I have noticed that all the great men of past days were not known by their titles. The people generally have shown a peculiar tendency even to drop the courtesy of titles and speak about men like Gladstone, Disraeli, Napoleon and other great men by their surnames, forgetting all the trappings that their admirers or posterity tried to wrap around them. I am proud to think that Canadians are quite content with their simple names; they are satisfied to be known by those names and by any achievements they may have accomplished, without any extra adornment. The hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) stated it well when he said that abuses crept in when such titles or adornments were given to individuals; favouritism and special notice began to breed jealousy and ill feeling. I think, therefore, we can safely leave it to the people themselves to place the laurels upon the proper heads.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I hope this resolution will pass, if only to afford a measure of honour to a celebrated British Columbian.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: I assure my hon. friends that I have no anticipation of receiving the Order of the Yellow Dragon in the near future. But I am surprised at the moderation of the hon. member who introduces this resolution (Mr. Ladner); it is not characteristic of him. He is less than modest; he is inconsistent. Both the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader
Titles and Decorations

of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) rather indicated their appreciation of that fact. I would go further; indeed, I would be frank and go the whole length; I would abolish what is known as the Nickle resolution in its entirety. If we accept the resolution now under consideration, then it is logical to go on to the conclusion and abolish the whole thing. I always did think it was churlish that we should get up upon a pedestal and say to our honoured ruler: "We do not want the honours you may be pleased to confer upon us." We might well have provoked the retort; " I never intended to give you any." I do not think there is any other dominion that has taken the same attitude. New Zealand, and I think Australia, object to hereditary titles, as I am sure we all do, but they do not object to the granting of life titles in recognition of the honour a man may achieve in one form or another.
One hon. member suggested that we might be flooded with foreign propaganda in the form of orders and decorations. That could easily be prevented by having those honours bestowed only with the permission of the Canadian government. There would never be any refusal of them under reasonable circumstances, and under that arrangement foreign propaganda would not be possible.
The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) spoke of the banquets and so forth that he attended with his colleague and how they sat among lords and dukes, and all did them honour, and I have no doubt they too well upheld the honour of Canada. But they would have upheld it just as well if they had had a title of distinction. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that they had received the greatest politeness and courtesy from these other men and I am quite sure they did. But I am quite sure that they would have received the same politeness and courtesy if they had appeared at these functions without a dress coat but there was no honour to be gained by going without a dress coat nor was there any honour to be gained by going without a decoration if they had earned it. But there are disadvantages when our representatives go abroad without having some honour or title of that kind and move amongst men who have such distinctions. As the hon. gentleman has said they invariably have a prefix to their name. If we are going into this thing of abandoning titles let us go into it in its entirety. Why allude to an hon. member as the hon. member for so and so? That is a title of honour. Away with it! Why write to our constituents as so and so, Esquire?

That is a feudal title. Away with it! Why should a gentleman or his wife be referred to as Mr. or Mrs.? That is another title. Let us go back to the days of the French Commune and refer to them as Citizen and Citizeness. It is only carrying out an illogical position to its conclusion. Do we not feel a certain amount of pride when we hear Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier alluded to or see their names recorded in the pages of our history? We do not feel any indignity associated with that, surely. Would not any of us feel honoured if this resolution were to be passed as I suggest, and we saw the venerable leader of the Finance department honoured in the evening of his days with a title of honour? We would not feel that there was any shame attached to a title given to such a man. We would all be proud of his distinction.
I am entirely against any hereditary tjtles, but I think my position is sufficiently obscure to do away with any suggestion, as I said at the outset, that I have any personal interest in this matter, and to put the thing to an issue, if any hon member will second my resolution I would move to strike out the words "save those carrying titles" and the words "in education, literature, art and science." .


Hewitt Bostock: May I ask the hon. member to put his amendment in writing?


Alan Webster Neill: I will do so, Mr. Speaker.
Are the rewards of public life so great that we should begrudge to any man who has given the best years of his life-and they are not gained by a few years in office-recognition of this kind?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: As one of those who were here in 1919 when this question dame before the House on the Nickle resolution, I should like to say what I think I said then, that there seems to be very frequently some confusion between titles and decorations. Those who went to the front, for example, and were given the Victoria Cross were given a decoration, but it carried with it no title. Take, for example, the hon. gentleman who represented ' Skeena in the last House, Colonel Peck; he was given the Victoria Cross, but Colonel Peck was still Colonel Peck. He carried his military title, it is true, but no title went with the decoration. I think as one of those who voted I quite well remember with my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) that there is a confusion between titles and decorations.

Titles and Decorations
My hon. friend for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) stands up in this House and takes the attitude that those, for example, who distinguish themselves in literature, if they should receive from the French government the decoration of the Legion of Honour, such as you, yourself, Mr. Speaker, carry, should be permitted to accept it. That is the position of my hon. friend for Vancouver South. But the Legion of Honour, as you well know, Sir, does not carry with it a title. It is a * decoration in virtue of the fact that some man has distinguished himself from the standpoint of literature; or in the case of Colonel Cy. Peck of whom I spoke a moment ago, the Victoria Cross was awarded for gallantry on the field, and it is the highest decoration that any man could receive.
The idea of the Nickle resolution, to my mind-though Mr. Nickle did not vote for it, and I did-was to cut out the giving of knighthoods in this country whereby some men were called Sir so-and-so and their wives Lady so-and-so. I do not wish to mention names, but that was the idea of the Nickle resolution, to cut out the titles but not the decorations. My hon. friend for Vancouver South takes the attitude, and I think he is perfectly right, that decorations might well be given, but he distinctly says in his resolution "save those carrying titles." So far as I have been able to see, and I have tried to [DOT] understand the question in a general way, I do not think that I would be voting against my vote of 1919 at all in supporting my hon. friend for Vancouver South on this resolution. What he is suggesting is that you give decorations, but not titles. The whole idea of the Nickle resolution, if I understood it aright at that time-and if I did not, I voted without understanding it-was to do away with the title of Sir and Lady and so do away particularly with hereditary titles. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Marine will agree with me that that was the idea.


Ernest Lapointe: But does not my hon. friend know that the report of the committee was in favour of doing away with all these decorations except those awarded for military or naval valour?


Robert James Manion: I understand that was the effect of the report, but certainly that was not my understanding of the report, and the debates do not show that that was the understanding of the report. My understanding of the report was that the report as presented did away with all titles or decorations of any kind which conferred a title on the people who received them-the K.C.M.G., Knight
Commander of St. Michael and St. George, for instance which carried the title of Sir. Take, for instance, the decoration which you, Mr. Speaker, so well deserved and received the decoration of the Legion of Honour of France. It confers no title. Therefore that was not done away with. I remember reading just a few days ago an article in one of the papers-I think it was an English-speaking paper, but I am not sure, perhaps it was a French paper-to the effect that a number of learned gentlemen in the province of Quebec, had received decorations. I am sorry I did not cut it out at the time, but at any rate a number of learned gentlemen in the province of Quebec, professors, received decorations from the French government, but they carried no title with them.


Ernest Lapointe: Those gentlemen were citizens of France living in Canada.


Robert James Manion: I did not know that. The paper did not say that. I do not dispute it for a moment, but if these gentlemen were citizens of the republic of France, is there any harm in giving to a citizen of the Canadian nation, since we now speak of the Canadian nation, the same decoration? I assuredly do not wish to speak about myself but, I have the privilege of using certain letters which were given to me at Edinburgh, for example as doctor of medicine-


Jacques Bureau: That is different. That is not a title conferred by a government.


Robert James Manion: -but I assure you I do not wish to speak of that in any spirit of vanity. Yet I have the right to use those letters which give me the title of doctor. ' Is there any reason why the French republic should not be able to give a decoration to some worthy gentleman such as he who was spoken of by my hon. friend for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner)-providing it does not carry with it a title which places him on a different footing from the ordinary citizens of this country.
Now, I think I can vote for the amendment; if I cannot then I am mistaken. I certainly can vote for the resolution of my hon. friend which, as he distinctly pointed out again and again, does not mean that a decoration will carry with it a title. I think I can vote for the resolution without incurring any such reflection as is contained in the speech of the Minister of Marine. Certainly I have no idea of changing my point of view of 1919. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the attitude of the mover of the resolution. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in it. I care not whether it
Titles and Decorations

is a decoration conferred by the French republic, the English monarchy or some other country. I see no wrong in any citizen of Canada accepting it so long as it does not place him, in a general way, above the ordinary citizenship of this country.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. Neill, seconded b*' Mr. Bancroft, in amendment to the main motion, to strike out the words "save those carrying titles" and the words "in education, literature, art and science."


Robert James Manion: May I just say one word.
I did not hear the amendment distinctly when it was moved but now, having heard it read,
I certainly shall vote against it. So far as the resolution is concerned I still adhere to what I said. I shall unhesitatingly suport the motion of my hon. friend for Vancouver South.


Thomas Langton Church: If we are going to pass this motion we might as well repeal the Nickle resolution altogether. The Nickle resolution does not apply to professional men who aid science. It would be far better, instead of granting decorations along the lines proposed in this resolution, to do something financially practical for men of science, like Dr. Banting, and not leave them to apply for the benefits of the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Institute. I read the other day a newspaper article in a Brit- [DOT] ish medical paper alluding to the neglect of men of science by the country, and perhaps it would not be inappropriate for me to make a quotation from that article here:
London, February 28.-The world's neglect of its men of science was the theme taken by Col. Sir Ronald Ross, the eminent authority on tropical diseases in addressing the British Science Guild here yesterday.
"You throw your geniuses on the dust heap," said Sir Ronald scornfully. He recounted the brief recognition accorded to those who solve important scientific problems although he made no complaint of his own treatment, which the record shows, has been liberal.
"The genius who saved countless lives in India by discovering methods of inoculation against cholera and plague," the speaker asserted, "is not employed by Great Britain in any capacity whatever to-day."
Sir Ronald added that he was not at liberty to divulge the name of this man, but his hearers assumed that he referred to Waldemar M. W. Haffkine, former bacteriologist with the government of India. Continuing, the speaker said:
"Walter Reed, the young American, who discovered that yellow fever is carried by the mosquito, was given a menial medical job after his discovery, seeing people's tongues and prescribing castor oil. He was allowed to fall ill and die feeling the greatest apprehension as to the future livelihood of his wife and children."
Sir Ronald referred to Sir David Bruce, who discovered the cure for sleeping sickness. "England doesn't even think it worth while to employ him now," the speaker declared.
He added that there were three or four other eminent scientists in this field who were equally neglected, and continued:

"It has often been said that the man who could find the cure for tuberculosis or who could discover the cause and cure of cancer would become a millionaire. On the contrary, .it is more likely that he would die in the workhouse."
Sir Ronald urged that the country liberally pension such men, encouraging them to pursue their investigations.
I maintain that even under the Nickle resolution there is nothing to prevent the monarch, or government of any outside country conferring degrees or honours on men renowned in medicine, science or art. No government went further than the Union government in the tin-pot title business. I was a member of the executive of the exhibition board at Toronto. We had nine members on the executive and I was the only one who was not an honorary colonel. There is nothing within the four corners of the Nickle resolution to prevent the conferring of honours for any such purposes claimed in the resolution- and there is nothing in international law to stop it.
There was a commission of inquiry in Great Britain which made an investigation and brought in a report on the subject of granting of titles. Our Canadian public men seek titles more than those in England. The leading public men over there do not want them. Gladstone and Bright did not want them. Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Bonar Law are not asking for titles. There is no demand for such action as this resolution proposes. I repeat that if you pass this resolution you might as well repeal the Nickle resolution in its entirety; you might as well go back to the days of the Union government when they conferred titles on everybody. If there was any person who did not receive a title from that government all he had to do was just to stand up and ask for one; he could get it for the asking. The commission which investigated the matter of titles in the Old Country did not recommend any extension of the present system of title granting, but a huge curtailment. In that respect the committee displayed admirable common sense.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: We are today living in very strenuous times. Efficiency is one of the most important qualities required of men, but I cannot see how the granting of titles or decorations is going to add in the slightest degree to the efficiency of those engaged in education, science, art or statesmanship. I am opposed to the resolution on this ground. I do not think it is going to add anything to the efficiency of individuals in this country, or that it is going in any way to make this land better than it is at the present time.

Titles and Decorations


William Findlay Maclean: In my opinion the inevitable result of doing what is proposed here is for Canada to assume the responsibility of setting up a bureau of decorations. That is not democratic. They have not done it in the United States and they do not intend to do it. For that reason I do not think we should do it here. That is the whole issue. One would infer from the arguments advanced here to-night that we had a poor system of democracy in Canada, because there are certain services rendered to the public that are not recognized by the awarding of decorations. If the state is to make any recognition of such services it should be in a financial form rather than in the form of decoration. If that is not expedient then there ought to be an expression of appreciation by this House as representing the people. The proper thing to do is to recognize by resolution the services of those who have won distinction, and not recognize any services by the conferring of a decoration. Decorations do not count in a real vote of confidence. But recognition is something that should be forthcoming in this House. Mention has been made of Canadian scientists and doctors who have rendered great service to the public, and I believe they should be recognized in parliament or in the legislature, but it should be, not by a decoration, but by a vote of recognition or grant of money.
Mr. 8. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :	It will give me great pleasure to vote
against both the resolution and the amendment. I can do so without torturing my conscience very much, seeing that in 1919, the time of the Union government, I voted for the resolution abolishing titles. Any person who has read the English newspapers must remember that a short time ago the question was discussed in those papers respecting the purchase by English gentlemen of titles at so much each. Knighthoods had a certain price and the cost of baronetcies was a little higher.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about dukedoms?


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not know what the
price of dukedoms was. They were not hocked about as the others were. That being the case in England, does the mover of the amendment not think that such a condition would obtain to a more or less degree in Canada? We had had a large number of titles conferred upon Canadian citizens; why, the Lord only knows. Those gentlemen wrho were decorated during the closing days of the war were Tories, and during the Grit days it was the Grits that were decorated. But those of
the Grit party found that when we needed these gentlemen at certain periods in their career they were all Tories. We scratched the Grits and we found they were Tories. I have in my mind's eye half a dozen Grit gentlemen who were decorated and later, deserted us.


Robert James Manion: Name them.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am sure their names will suggest themselves to my hon. friend. When we needed them they were not there. They became so loyal to the Crown that they felt it was almost treason to vote for the Liberal party on certain occasions. I was reading in the reminiscences of Sir Charles Tupper's life some rather interesting stories respecting ine conferring of knighthoods upon Canadian citizens in his day. Any person interested will find that Sir Charles Tupper boldly and bluntly tells us in his own reminiscences written by his own hand, that on one occasion it was found impossible to appoint a gentleman to the Senate although he had che promise of it in his pocket a year or two before the vacancy occurred. He says: "I consulted Sir John Macdonald and a letter was written to the gentleman in which we asked him if he would forego his right to be nominated to the Senate provided we would make him a K.C.M.G." The letter was sent, and in d ie course a wire was received saying that he was willing that .his eminent services should be withheld from the Senate and from the peopA of Canada, in consideration of his being made a Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George. That is a very high honour in certain cases, but not a very high honour in that particular case. We find a rather amusing incident about Sir John himself which Sir Charles relates. In 1885 or 1886, when Sir John Macdonald was in England, Sir Charles said, "I think it only right we should advance you a grade in the order which you hold." He was at that time, I think, a Knight Commander of the Bath, and Sir Charles thought he should be a Grand Commander of the Bath. He said "I saw Lord Derby about it and he acquiesced that there should be an advance in grade. The next day I notified Sir John Macdonald what I was able to do, and in due course before Sir John left London he was made a G.C.B." The following is the substance of a letter from Sir John Macdonald written to Sir Charles Tupper-
Thank you very much for what you have done, in seeing to it that I was advanced a grade in the order which I hold. Would you be good enough to see the correspondents of the Montreal Gazette and the Mail Empire and have a cable sent across to Canada, something to this effect.-
Titles and Decorations

"Appointment was altogether unsolicited and was made by Mr. Gladstone"
Sir John said it would make the Grits so mad. I will say for Sir John Macdonald that he had the saving grace and the gift of humour, which my hon. friend who is moving the resolution has not developed to the same degree. I cannot see the consistency of asking that we give permission to foreign governments to decorate Canadian citizens when we have taken away from these people the right to receive decorations at our own hands or at the hands of the British government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does my hon. friend
understand that my resolution is limited only to foreign governments? If so, he has not read the resolution.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that it applies only to foreign governments.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is a wrong understanding.


Samuel William Jacobs: I may be wrong in that respect. But once we have laid the axe at the root of the tree, and have felled the tree, we do not want to let any part grow again. We did a good day's work in 1919, and I do not know that the members composing this parliament are any wiser than the membeis of the House in 1919 in that respect. The vote at that time was, I think, 96 to 43 or 44 in favour of the Nickle resolution. We do not want to encourage the camel to put his head into the tent, because he will end by getting his entire body in. My hon. friend evidently is oblivious to the famous words of Robert Burns:
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gowd for a' that.
I have very much pleasure in opposing both the amendment and the resolution.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I well remember the debate which took place, in 1919, on the resolution moved by Mr. Nickle, then member for Kingston. However, after glancing over the Hansard of that date, I perceive that I was not present in the House when the vote was taken. I therefore feel perfectly at ease today in expressing my views on the present resolution and amendment before the House.
The purport of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) is that Canadian citizens may accept only such decorations as might be conferred upon them by Great Britain or by foreign countries. I do not like the phraseology of his motion. It strikes me that the hon. member iq too modest in respect to Canadian citi-

zenship. In his modesty he wants Canadians to accept decorations; only he will not grant-other countries permission to bestow higher honours, such as those, at present, bestowed by Great Britain on her citizens. If we admit that Canadian citizens have a right to decorations, to my mind we should also allow them to accept all honours that might be conferred either by Great Britain or foreign countries.
In certain countries, decorations have no titles attached to them, and perhaps the hon. member had in mind such decorations, which are the highest honours that these countries can bestow. But, on the other hand, among the royal honours conferred in the British Empire, are to be found decorations bearing titles, and I state that the resolution of the hon. member is certainly too humble, since it runs shy of these decorations. I therefore cannot support this resolution I would rather favour the proposed amendment. I think Canadians should be allowed to accept the highest honours that the British Empire or foreign countries can confer. In my opinion all decorations should be acceptable or else none whatever. As Canadian citizens we are not strangers in the British Empire and since we form part of the latter, we should stand on equal footing with all British subjects. If we adopt this resolution, it would be admitting that we, Canadian citizens, may but accept certain decorations carrying' with them no titles, while those domiciled in the British Isles could, themselves, accept titles. I think that this implication of inferiority which this resolution carries with it should not be endorsed by the Canadian parliament. Again I state, since we are part of the British Empire, we have a right to all the honours that are therein conferred, and we should not be content, because we are domiciled in Canada, with a little second or third rate decoration. To my view, we should accept all that is forthcoming or nothing whatsoever, and this is why, I am rather in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).
At the time we took up the question of titles, a spirit of democracy seemed to sweep over this country. We then desired to abolish certain titles, and, considering ourselves democrats, we wanted to follow the example of the United States which from times immemorial, never conferred honours on their citizens. Was it wise for us, in 1919, to follow the precedent of the United States and deny to our distinguished men well deserved honours and who certainly formed an elite in our country? Was it fair, in 1919, to abolish titles? I think this question has

Titles and Decorations
Been in the past and is at present much debated both on the floor of the House and all over the country.
A further argument in support of my views is that, in all civilized countries, a legion of honour imposes itself so as to create an elite which becomes an object of admiration for other nations. How do you expect to choose this elite? Who is going to raise it above the common level of all citizens? It behooves [DOT]the authorities to do so. To my mind, the principle involved in honours and titles is one that has been acknowledged by all civilized nations and it is still necessary to perpetuate it so that there be an elite within the nation. It is quite proper for Canada to have an elite including not only those who have distinguished themselves on the battlefield, but also those who have devoted them-* selves to the public service in the field of science, art and literature, in fact in all spheres of human activity. These people certainly are deserving of recognition and I state that honours emanating from the sovereign should be conferred, unreservedly, to any eminent citizen who has given his services to the country at large, and not exclusively to the army or universities. We have no right to discriminate.
For the reasons enumerated, should we be called upon to vote on the two motions, I shall support the proposed amendment because it agrees more with my views.
I do not advocate hereditary titles. The latter are perhaps not necessary in a colony and probably not as popular as the others. I am aware that the general feeling in this country, is that hereditary titles be not conferred here; but so far as other royal honours that have been granted to eminent Canadians, for many generations past and have been honourably borne by them, we should still retain the right of accepting such titles and decorations as it was the usage of conferring upon those who have proved worthy of them. Canada, like other nations should have the privilege of creating this elite necessary to all civilized countries.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to observe that the trend of this debate has centered on the question of titles. Whether that has been a deliberate in-
10 p.m. tention on the part of some hon. members or not, is not for me to say; but this is not a resolution affirming the principle of titles. This is not a resolution, in the words of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) a moment ago, to reverse the decision of 1919, approving the abolition of titles of honour in Canada. The
question is asked: Has anybody suffered because titles have been abolished? Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of titles at all. It is an effort to draw as clearly as is humanly possible a line of demarcation between men who earn recognition by their outstanding ability and men on whom honours are thrust without justification of personal merit. I submit to hon. members to-night that if they reject this resolution-I stated it before and I re-affirm it now-they are simply saying to the scholars of this country: "We who sit in authority in parliament are afraid that if we allow some great scientist to receive nominal recognition for his work at the hands of a foreign government it will mean to adopt the simile used by an hon. member to-night- " the camel's head entering the tent and soon we will have his body inside ". My hon. friend took his information from a newspaper report of Mr. Nickle's remarks and from one other quotation which he did not very accurately give. But I submit that the point there stated is not the point in this debate at all. I would ask hon. members to direct their attention to the wording of the resolution. It refers simply toclpcorations-save those carrying titles-for distinguished service or high attainments in education, literature, art and science.	.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who is to decide whethei the service is distinguished or not. The foreign government?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is a matter which must pass through governmental hands.
. Mr. JACOBS: The party intended to be honoured would not have to pass an examination to ascertain whether his services were distinguished or not. I should fancy he would get the distinction because he had " pull


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friend's mind runs in pulls. He has been pulling around so much that he cannot pull straight. With all due respect to him, he has distorted my words and has presented arguments that are not pertinent to this resolution at all. As I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, the decorations I refer to are purely academic, and I must confess that I am somewhat amazed to find an hon. gentleman in the position of the Prime Minister of Canada, eminent in the world of letters and possessing a few decorations to which he is worthily entitled-I have had the honour of reading some of his works-take the attitude that because the resolution goes in the direction of giving recognition to our scholars and students, and because it does not go further and give recognition to another
Titles and Decorations

class-which I submit is less worthy-there fore the resolution should be rejected. I submit that this is no argument against the resolution.


Mr. MARTELL:: If my hon. friend will
permit. It is all very well to speak about academic decorations and so on, but so long as we are a portion of the British Empire why should not citizens of the Empire be permitted to accept honours from their sovereign?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, that question is an example of the ideas which have been injected into this debate and have, I think, confused many hon. members. That is not the question before the House. I am not arguing whether or not we should interfere with the right of the sovereign to confer titles.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend will
permit me again. Is it not preferable that a man should receive an honour from his sovereign, who is the head of his country, rather than that he should accept an honour, whether academic or otherwise, from the head of any foreign country? That is my idea.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman is asking the same question which another hon. memtyr put and which I answered. Apparently my hon. friend has not been following the debate.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I was out; that is the reason.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The resolution is not of the intent the hon. gentleman suggests. It covers both British and foreign governments. Now, I wish again to emphasize what the point of this resolution really is. It is to enable the scholars and students of our country-and the wording is confined to them-to have the right to receive a distinction conferred on them by the British government or by any foreign government. What right have we as members of this House to say to the intellectual giants of this country: "We will not permit you that right; we are afraid that you will become some sort of a camel and get your head into the tent and later we will have your whole body in."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend really believe it will be adding to the standing of any Canadian in the intellectual world to confine his recognition on the part of governments to an inferior order of merit, if I may use that term, which I think is correctly applied? The orders that my hon. friend's resolution covers are second or third

class, so to speak. A Canadian who received h second or third class honour would be judged in European circles by that recognition and would be prevented from receiving anything higher. That is the point to which I should like my hon. friend to direct his attention.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is a question for the recipient to determine. If he wishes to accept a second or third class degree of the Legion of Honour instead of some higher degree in that order, it is for him to say whether he will or will not. But what right have we as members of parliament to deny him the privilege of receiving even an inferior order?


Samuel William Jacobs: We want to save him from himself.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I have seen many generous gentlemen of that kind, but we do not always take them at their word.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend permit me again? If that is the case, what right has parliament to come in and say to a citizen of the British Empire that he shall not receive from his sovereign, if the latter sees fit to honour him, the highest honour in his gift?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman is back again to the old question of titles, and that is what is confusing this debate. This is not a question of titles; this is a question of academic distinctions. I would point out to hon. members that throughout Canada there are in our universities many professors from all parts of the world helping to build up our institutions. They slave all their life and the only thing they can expect in return for their unstinted effort and distinguished service is what? It is not money. It is recognition in honour of distinguished accomplishment in their particular field of work. But is there anything wrong in asking that that honour should be ear-marked by a decoration from some foreign government or from the British government? I am at a loss to understand any reason why hon. members should exercise their authority here to preclude the granting of such decorations to our academic world. In my judgment it is a blind submission to a prejudice of mind which arises from the old Nickle resolution. I am frank to say that I think it is a very narrow viewpoint, for it is ungenerous in our law-makers to deny to our educationalists, our artists, our scientists and our authors any recognition of their merit's.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this resolution relates only to the distinguished accomplishments of men in the

Titles and Decorations
fields of education,	literature, art and science,
and it does not permit them to receive a decoration which in any way carries with it a title. I appeal to members of this House to throw away their prejudice, to be more generous, and to give to the classes to which I have referred the opportunity to receive honours. The right still remains with parlia-	
ment to correct any	abuses which may arise if
this proposal is adopted. From the days of titles the pendulum has swung very far to	
the other extreme.	Let us be moderate; let
us be sensible; let	us be reasonable. Let us
do justice to the men who are struggling in the educational fields of Canada.	
Amendment (Mr.	Neill) negatived.
The House divided on the main motion (Mr.	
Ladner), which was	negatived on the following
divison:	YEAS
	Messrs.
Baxter,	MacLaren,
Chaplin,	Martell,
Fortier,	Meighen,
Hanson,	Neill,
Jones,	Spence,
Ladner,	Stevens,
MacKelvie,	Stewart (Leeds)-14.
	NAYS Messrs. [DOT]
Baldwin,	Foi fester,
Bancroft,	Fournier,
Benoit,	Gardiner,
Binette,	Garland (Bow River),
Bird,	Gauvreau,
Black (Huron),	Gervais,
Black (Yukon),	Gordon,
Boucher,	Gould,
Bourassa,	Graham,
Brethen,	Halbert,
Brown,	Hammell,
Bureau,	Hatfield,
Cahill,	Healy,
Caldwell,	Hod gins,
Cardin,	Hoey,
Carmichael,	Hudson,
Carroll,	Hughes,
Carruthers,	Humphrey,
Casgrain,	Jacobs,
Chevrier,	Johnston (Last Mountain),
Church,	Kellner,
Coote,	Kennedy (Glengarry &
d'Anjou,	Stormont),
Delisle,	Kennedy (Port Arthur &
Denis (Joliette),	Kenora),
Denis (St. Denis),	King (Huron),
Desaulniers,	King (Kootenay),
Deslauriers,	King, Mackenie (York),
Desrochers,	Kyte,
Drummond,	Lanctot,
Elliott (Dundas),	Lapierre,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Lapointe,
Euler,	Leader, [DOT]
Fafard,	Leger,
Fielding,	Lovett,
Findlay,	Lovie,
Fontaine,	Low,
Forke,	Lucas,
83	
Maclean (York),	Robichaud,
Macphail,	Robinson,
McBride,	Robitaille,
McGiverin,	Sales,
McKay,	Savard,
Malcolm,	Seguin,
Marcile (Bagot),	Sexsmith,
Mercier,	Shaw,
Michaud,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Milne,	Speakman,
Mitchell,	Spencei,
Morin,	Steedsman,
Motherwell,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Munro,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Murdock,	Stork, [DOT]
Ouimet,	Sutherland,
Papineau,	Thurston,
Parent,	Tobin,
Pelletier,	Wallace,
Pritchard,	Ward,
Raymond,	Warner,
Reed.	Woods,
Rinfret,	Woodsworth-121.
Robb,


RULES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. FRED. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House a special committee of eleven members be appointed to inquire jointly with Mr. Speaker into the advisability of adopting a rule of the House which will provide that an amendment to an amendment be allowed on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of Supply or Ways and Means; with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time.
Hewitt Bostock: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the motion calls for a special committee of eleven members to inquire jointly with Mr. Speaker into the subject matter of the resolution? As the Speaker is called upon to give rulings on questions of this nature, he would prefer not to be included in the committee. But I shall see that while the committee sits, if it is agreeable to the House, the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk will give all the assistance needed.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I am quite agreeable
to that, Mr. Speaker. In drafting the resolution in the form in which it now is I thought I was following the best procedure. My remarks at this time will be very brief.
The resolution that you have just read, Mr. Speaker, is, to my mind, self-explanatory and needs very little comment from me or from those in support of it, but its subject matter is one of very great importance to those of us in this quarter of the House. The House will remember that last session the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), then leader of this party, moved a certain amendment, which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order. While

Rules of the House

we are hopeful that the budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance will be of such a character that we can give it a wholehearted support, we do not want to find ourselves in the same predicament that we were in last session. If the government's proposals, as set forth in the budget, do not meet with our approval we want to be in a position to place our opinion before the House and that, under the existing rules, we will be debarred from doing. It may be thought that in asking for this special committee at this time we are asking for a great deal, but in my opinion the work of such a committee should not be unduly prolonged. As a matter of fact I think the object sought could be accomplished in a very few hours. Therefore, in view of the importance of the subject I feel no hesitation in asking the House to grant this request.
Conditions have changed. The rule which governs in the case of amendments to a motion to go into Committee of Supply, or to go into Committee of Ways and Means, was drafted when there were only two parties in this chamber. To-day we have three.


Mr. FIELDING:: Five.


George Perry Graham: Four or five.


John Frederick Johnston: At any rate we have
three great parties. The opinions of a great many of the electorate of this country are represented by over sixty members sitting in this quarter of the chamber. We should, therefore, be able to give expression to those opinions by way of resolution and formal motion, and yet we are debarred from doing that by the rules of the House. In a procedure debate in the British parliament, in 1861, Lord Palmerston used these words:
This House has another function to discharge and one highly conducive to the public interest-namely, that of being the mouthpiece of the nation, the organ by which all opinions, all complaints, all notions of grievances, all hopes and expectations, all wishes and suggestions which may rise, may be discussed, examined, answered, rejected or redressed. This I hold to be as important as the other two (namely legislation and the granting of supplies.)
I hope, therefore, the House will accede to our request and grant us this special committee.
When this matter was brought up last year the Finance Minister said this in reply to the leader of the Progressive party:
If I may be permitted to make a comment on what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says, I would remind him that being the second largest group in the house it was his undoubted right to take the place of the official opposition if he had so desired. Of his own motion and for good reasons, satisfactory to himself and his friends he elected not to take that position. There is an advantage under the British practice in occupying the position of the official oppo-

sition. My hen. friend waived his right to that advantage, and 1 do not think he ought now to complain of the consequences of his action.
Had the hon. member for Marquette chosen to take the position of leader of the Opposition in this House, which no doubt was his right by virtue of the number of members he represented, we would have found hon. gentlemen to my right in the position we occupy to-day; and I for one would not want to see them so placed that it would not be possible for them to put their views before the House in a concrete form. Yet that is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. Without offering any further remarks at this stage, I hope the House will grant our request as set out in this resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: If I felt, as my hon. friend from Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) feels, that by the rules of the House, he and his colleagues are precluded from an opportunity of giving expression to their views I should be willing to join him in the desire for a change. But I think he is mistaken in that respect. It is true that on this particular motion in relation to the budget, and in certain other cases, it is only possible to have one amendment. I think there is a good purpose in that. The object is that you shall concentrate the attention of the House upon a particular matter, whereas if you are to have various amendments brought forward confusion would be created. This rule is one of long established practice in this parliament and, I think, in the Mother of Parliaments as well. There are many opportunities where hon. gentlemen opposite, any hon. member in fact, may find means of expressing their views. Every time the House is moved into Committee of Supply on certain days of the week it is the right of any hon. member to move an amendment setting forth his views on any particular question. Therefore the opinion entertained by my hon. friend that there is no opportunity under the rules for these hon. gentlemen to give expression to their views is. I am sure, an erroneous one. The rules of parliament have been well established for a good purpose. I think it is not wise that we should too hastily change them. In the present case I am quite sure that every time the motion is made for the House to go into Committee of Supply there is abundant opportunity for any hon. member to bring forward a resolution giving expression to his views. Feeling, therefore, that there is not that lack of opportunity that my hon. friend has in his mind, feeling that the rules that are established have been estab-

Rules oj the House
fished for good purposes and should not be hastily changed, and feeling assured that under the existing practice there is ample opportunity for any hon. member in this House to bring forward a motion to give expression to his views, I hope the hon. member will not press his motion for a change in the rules.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: W hen this matter came before the House at the last session I supported the motion moved by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and supported it on this basis: that under the rules and practice of the English House of Commons a second amendment was permitted. I think I am correct in saying that it is still permitted. However, some 50 years ago there was an apparent misapprehension, and a different rule was adopted in this House, and that rule was subsequently followed. It seems to me that the practice as established in England should be adopted, particularly under the existing composition of the present House.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it is incumbent on me, owing to the special privileges of the leader of an official opposition, referred to by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) in his quotation from the Finance Minister, to declare myself on this matter. If I had regard only to party advantage I would be in favour, while I am in opposition, of the motion of my hon. friend and the object he has in view. The more amendments that can be moved the easier for an opposition to make the position of a government difficult. I am against the object of the motion, and being definitely against it,
I caimot consistently support the motion itself looking to the appointment of a committee.
I agree with the reasoning of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and agreeing with it. I think I should say so.
I do not know that it is the British practice to have an amendment to an amendment to the motion for Supply. I am not affirming that it is not. I have not looked into the question for some time. Even if it were, it would not persuade _ me that we should adopt that practice here. It must be recalled in this connection that in Great Britain they have not only a closure rule but a more drastic-I might almost say, a destructive- closure rule. They have not only one but several. They have powers vested in the majority that we never dreamed of exercising in this parliament-powers of forcing to a conclusion any debate, no matter how many amendments may be moved. For that rea-831
son there is not any particular danger in admitting of an amendment to an amendment to Supply, in the British House. We however have not in our parliament seen fit to adopt the extreme closure rules they have there and which they exercise almost daily. They do not always go to the last limit to exercise it, but they would, only for the fact that it is there, and members, knowing it is there, accede to a condition that does not require its exercise all the time. But as a matter of actual practice their control over the debate is exercised in a way we know nothing of in this parliament.
Parenthetically let me say I have been waiting now for eighteen months, or almost that, for the members of the government and the members of the party who support the government to come forward and destroy that awful monster against which they railed some years ago when the mild form of closure we have now in our rules was first adopted. I can recall how there were predictions of the collapse of the institution. Freedom was at an end, and it must be remembered that at that time these hon. members were in opposition; they rose and followed the lead of one distinguished orator among them who declared that in matters of trade, aS well as in matters of rules of the House, he was for freedom on both counts of the indictment, and he demanded that this awful closure preventing freedom of speech be voted down. Even since the closure rules were adopted in 1913 up to the going out of power of the late government they were a constant subject of denunciation at the hands of hon. members opposite who saw in them something that really meant the destruction of free parliamentary government, or responsible government as they called it. I have been looking then for this government to bring in an amendment to the rules abolishing the closure that was adopted in 1913. So far I have waited in vain for any sign. Why? Because m every party, as the duties of parliament multiply, it becomes necessary that there be some control over the lengthening of debate and of discussion, if the business of the cfcntry is to be attended to and despatched, and we in this parliament have, I think, a rule that bears less heavily and harshly on oppositions than that adopted in any other parliament either in Great Britain or in any country where parliamentary government prevails.
Having regard to the nature of our closure rules, I think it would be a mistake to admit of an amendment to an amendment to Supply.
I believe at the hands of an unscrupulous opposition business might be blocked. Such
Rules oj the House

things have been known in this House, although hon. members to my left have had no experience of that kind. I have often wished they had sat in this parliament and known what it was to have an opposition conducted without any regard at all for any principle of fairness to the government, without any regard of the public interest. I often wished they had witnessed it. But if an amendment to an amendment to Supply is to be permitted, under our closure rule it seems to me that it would be possible to so block public business that reasonable expedition could not be exercised and reasonable progress could not be made. Nor do I think any hardship results under the present rules. I followed the reasoning of the hon Minister of Finance in that regard. There is no special right on the part of the official opposition in regard to amendments. The right to move an amendment to Supply is open to any group or any member just as it is open to me. It might be moved by myself or any hon. member behind me. It might have been moved by any member of the Progressive party at least a score of times this session, but no such motion was made. Hon. members say "But when a motion is made we cannot find ourselves just satisfied with either the amendment or the main motion". Then if they are not satisfied the thing to do is to vote against it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My right hon. friend, perhaps, does not quite understand. Suppose an amendment such as the one proposed last year by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) were voted upon, and we presume voted down, would it not then be in order for anvbody else to move an amendment at that time, after the disposition of the first amendment?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that can be done on an amendment to Supply, or Ways and Means. Supply Ways and Means are in the same category as respects the rule. This motion calls for a committee to inquire " into the advisability of adopting a rule of the House which will provide that an amendment^ an amendment be allowed," so that the point brought up by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) would not be pertinent to this resolution.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I quite agree to that.


Arthur Meighen: I was confining my remarks to the resolution. I think if the resolution read differently, I would oppose it too; but we do not need to discuss that now. The resolution as it reads calls for permission to move an amendment to an amend-

ment. I do not know why there is any embarrassment. What hon. members vote on as regards an amendment to Supply is this; they vote on the merits of that amendment. If my hon. friends to my left, on a motion to go into Supply, desired to move an amendment, I am sure that that amendment would contain no embarrassment for me, nor, I believe for any member of this group. If it were an amendment gtich as was proposed by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) some time ago, in line precisely with what we had urged ourselves, we would support it. Ii it was opposed to that, inconsistent with that, we would oppose it. We would not need to express our views by moving an amendment to it, We could simply wait for Supply the next time and then move our amendment. There are no restraints that fall on us particularly, and consequently we have nothing we can complain of. For that reason, I do not see why there is any need to amplify the rule in this regard. I think it will tend to prolixity of discussion, to the hampering of public business, and for that reason I am opposed to such an amendment to the rule, were such an amendment to the rule before the House. Being of that opinion, I do not see why I should support the appointment of a committee to consider arriving at a result, which result I do not think would be beneficial to the business of the House.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion with a good deal of diffidence, because I recognize that a large part of the debate upon this question, if there be a debate must centre around parliamentary procedure of the past, and from that point of view, I acknowledge myself incompetent to speak. I shall not attempt to discuss the matter from that point of view at all. I shall endeavour rather to give the reasons why we feel it would be fair and right that we should be in a position to move an amendment to the amendment if we so wished; or that if we were not in a position where we were debarred, any other considerable body of opinion as represented by a third party in this House, should be placed in that position. We believe it would be in the public interest that any considerable body of opinion as represented by any large party in this House, should be given the
11 p.m. right, not only to express their views by way of debate, not only to advance their views by way of argument, but to be able to put their ideas forward in concrete form and to back those ideas by their vote at the time that they wished to exercise that

Rules of the House
right. That is the reason why we have now moved for the appointment of this committee.
We recognise to some extent the objections. During the debate of last year, objections were brought forward very eloquently. We also presented our point of view, and I am not going to repeat what was said at that time. But we felt then that we were placed in an almost impossible position. I do not mean, as is suggested, that we were embarrassed by either the amendment or the budget itself; but we were placed in this position, that our vote had to be a purely negative vote, not a positive vote. We were not voting for something in which we believed; but we were giving a purely negative vote, voting against two things, neither of which were satisfactory from our point of view. We do not believe that is a fair or just position in which any large body of opinion in this House or in this country should be placed, and that again is our reason for bringing this matter forward at this time. During the discussion, it was pointed out, and I have no doubt quite correctly,-we have no quarrel with the decision rendered at that time- that it was impossible for us, under the rules of the House, to bring in such a second amendment, and while we, of course, challenged the decision, this was merely for the purpose of reaffirming our position in the matter. But we were also told at that time that if we wished to have the rules of the House amended, the proper procedure was to bring the matter forward by way of resolution and to have the matter discussed on its merits at that time. That is the form which our motion is taking at the present time. Several objections have been advanced to that. One is that it would so lengthen the discussion on the budget as to hamper public business; that there would be a great deal more discussion, more debate on the point, if we were allowed to introduce a second amendment To my mind, that is hardly consistent with the view that has been expressed that we are at liberty to advance our arguments at as great length as we wish on the budget itself. A discussion would take place; a discussion, no doubt, will take place whether we are allowed to move a second amendment or not. The only point will be that without our amendment on which we can speak and vote, the discussion will have to be largely academic, and we wish to have it to the point.
If I understood the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) correctly, he stated that the right to move that amendment was not confined to the leader of the official opposition. Possibly not; but most certainly we,
the new members in this House, believed it was the custom of this House to accord that courtesy to the official leader of the Opposition, and to give him the first right to move an amendment if he so wished We felt this was so much in accord with procedure that we did not criticise that right at all.


Arthur Meighen: Conceding that for the moment, was the hon. gentleman or his leader not in a position the very next day, when Supply would come up again, to move the exact position of those he represented? So, where is the hardship?


Alfred Speakman: That is quite possible.
I am not, of course, going to get into an argument on the matter of rules and procedure with the leader of the Opposition; but we feel that the one time when our views can be advanced with force is at the time when the budget is brought down and the amendment to the budget brought in. We can no doubt bring our views forward at other times; but we wish to bring them forward when we shall have an equal opportunity for discussion, and when our amendment will carry the same weight in the country as the budget or the amendment to the budget. It is for that reason that we ask this House to appoint a committee to go into this matter and, if possible, to amend the rules of the House so that they will conform, not so much with the ancient practice of this House, but with actual conditions which now confront this House. We may be correct or incorrect in believing that the day of the purely two-party system has gone; but that is a matter of conjecture.
It is not, however, a matter of conjecture that at the present time the two-party system has ceased to exist, and it is in order to bring the rules of this House into accord with actual conditions as they now exist in this House and in the country, that we make this motion.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very great importance to [DOT] the party in this comer of the House, and I fail to see the force of the argument of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) as to the need for concentration. As I apprehend it, the only way to centre the mind of the House upon a question is to eliminate in an orderly fashion the minority views that prevail on a given question. If you do not permit us by an amendment to the amendment to do that, to discuss our views, the result will be that when we get back to the main motion we will express our views just the same. Then where is your concentration? I have great faith in the time-honoured rules of order
Rules oj the Home

that have obtained in debate from ancient times, methods of accelerating the business 'of a meeting or of a legislative assembly by eliminating one by one the views of the various elements therein.
With regard to the argument of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Meighen) relative to the closure, I do not see why the privilege of moving an amendment to the amendment need be abused and become a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous opposition, as he says, for dilatory purposes. If there is any danger of this happening, cannot we overcome it by permitting not many amendments to the amendment, but only one? So long as there are three parties in the House I think it is a fair proposition to allow an amendment to the amendment. This need not invite trouble from an unscrupulous opposition. Oppositions have not any right to be unscrupulous anyway. Therefore I think this objection could be overcome in the way I have indicated.


Mr. MORIN:: My hon. friend says there are three parties. What about the Labour party.


Mr. IRVINE:: Hear, hear.


Thomas William Bird: Well, as soon as the labour party attains to such dimensions that it can reasonably claim the right to another amendment I would be very glad to extend that privilege to it.


William Irvine: What are the dimensions?


Thomas William Bird: With respect to the argument of the right hon. leader of the Opposition as to the privilege which any one of us has of moving an amendment to the amendment, will not that fact place the Speaker in rather the awkward position of having to discriminate between the two oppositions? Will it not put him in this position, that one year he will have to permit the official opposition this privilege and the next year the unofficial opposition? Now, I do not think we ought to place the Speaker in that position. I think it would be more consonant with the dignity of this House to frame a rule to permit the third party to move an amendment to the amendment.
Then in regard to discussing the merits of a motion, what are the merits of a given amendment? What were the merits, for instance, of the amendment moved last session by the official opposition? Did its merits consist in its verbal construction or in the motive that lay behind it? I guarantee that under the circumstances in which we are at the present time the official opposition carries on its duties
VI- Bird.]
with no other purpose than some day to attain power at any price, because after all that is the time-honoured duty of an official opposition. Under traditional usages an official opposition is not expected to offer any constructive suggestions that may be of benefit to the country, but is always to direct its energies to destructive criticisms, to a strenuous effort to oust the government from power. Therefore I say it is impossible for a third party to judge of the merits of an amendment moved by an official opposition. The amendment last year, while it was agreeable to us verbally, was so disagreeable to us in its motive that we could not support it. We believed that its purpose was not only to embarrass the government but also to embarrass us. Undoubtedly its purpose was incidentally to align us with the official opposition as being in favour of what practically amounted to a resolution of want of confidence in the government. I repeat, it is impossible for a third party to decide at a given moment upon the merits of an amendment moved by an official opposition, because this official opposition is actuated primarily by a desire to attain office.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? He was arguing a moment ago, was he not, that the duty and regular practice of an official opposition is to oppose the government's position irrespective of the merits? Am I right in that?


Thomas William Bird: Yes, that is what I was arguing.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman reflect on what is being done at the present moment? Am I not supporting the government and is he not opposing?


Thomas William Bird: The exception sometimes proves the rule.


Mr. RINFRET:: There are other cases.


Thomas William Bird: But I was arguing not the
present position of the leader of the official opposition, but his usual practice, which I think bears out what I was setting forth as the traditional attitude of an official opposition.


Mr. CALDWELL:: There is a morganatic alliance once in a while.


Thomas William Bird: Under the two party system as it has obtained here and in Great Britain, the duty of the official opposition is to obstruct and criticize, never to help, and under all circumstances its one motive is to oust the government from office. So long as the right hon. gentleman occupies his present position he will have to approximate to the traditional

Rules oj the House
standard, otherwise I think he will not be fulfilling the duties that his party will demand of him.
If this usage had any reasonable tradition behind it one would hesitate to suggest its removal, but so far as I can see it came into being through pure accident and has maintained itself simply by its own inertia. For that reason, for its lack of support in tradition and in general usage, and for the injustice it works on this party in muzzling and preventing us from expressing our views on the merits of a question, I certainly shall most cordially support the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up the time of the House in speaking at any length on this resolution because I realize that in our rules and practices there is nothing which counts for so much as experience in parliamentary affairs, and in comparison with that of many hon. members my experience has been exceedingly limited. I would feel that the House was entitled to give every consideration to any expression of view by so old and distingushed a parliamentarian as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). And may I also say that I think the House should receive with great respect and consideration the views of one who has been a member for so long a time as the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and who takes so thoughtful and so keen an interest in all matters pertaining to parliamentary procedure.
The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) proposes a change in a rule which has been in existence ever since confederation. I would draw attention to the circumstance, that the support likely to be given his motion comes almost exclusively from hon. members who have been at most one or two years in parliament. I think our experience thus far goes to show that many hon. members sitting opposite are beginning to find that many rules and practices which at the outset they were inclined to look upon as irksome or cumbersome, have, after all, the weight of experience behind them and are not by any means useless or burdensome, but that, on the contrary, they make for expedition in the work of parliament, and, indeed, for clearness in all matters pertaining to public discussion.
Reference has been made by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) to what he alleges to be a somewhat different practice in England; and the last speaker (Mr. Bird) has suggested that in our present practice we are not following the English rule but are taking a less enlightened view. May I
quote from a decision which was given by His Honour the Speaker on June 6, 1922, a passage which is pertinent to this point. At that time Mr. Speaker said:
In Great Britain, more than one amendment may be moved on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Supply or Ways and Means, but it is done on conditions quite different from the practice in this House. Whenever an amendment is moved striking out all the words after "That" from the main motion, the Speaker puts the question "That all the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." If this is voted in the negative, amendments and sub-amendments are allowed, but if it is voted in the affirmative, they are not.
The practical meaning of this procedure is that the House grants leave to move the amendment. In another sense it is nothing more nor less than the previous question.
When one comes to look into the rules of the British House and compare them with our own, one will see that the same object is sought to be obtained by both.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat and the mover of the resolution have urged that conditions are different at the present time; that we have three groups in the House, whereas the rules were intended to meet conditions where there are only two. There are one or two observations I should like to make in this connection. First, there is no reason why a subsequent parliament might not have four groups, each of which may wish to press its particular view at the same time and in much the same way as hon. gentlemen opposite who belong to the present third group. The danger of amending the rules to meet any particular situation is that they then become applicable for all future occasions, and the possible mischief that is being worked in an unseen direction may be greater than the evil it is attempted to cure. The circumstance that we have three groups at this time does not, it seems to me, justify our changing practices which have been established ever since the days of confederation.
Moreover, having three groups in the House is not a thing which is entirely new to British parliamentary institutions. In the British parliament there have been at different times large and important groups, and the British government and parliament have been called upon to consider what was the best practice to adopt to meet such situations. They have not, however, on that score altered their procedure. May I in this connection quote a further paragraph from the decision of Mr. Speaker to which I have just referred, and which seems to be very pertinent to the subject. It is to the effect that, after all, the duty of the Speaker is not to recognize groups but to regard all individuals in the House as liav-
Rules oj the House

ing equal rights in his presence. The paragraph I wish to quote is as follows:
As to the suggestion-
It refers to the case that was alluded to a moment ago.
-to give the hon. member for Marquette and his supporters the opportunity of expressing their views upon the budget proposals, I must say that the Speaker, in his interpretation of the rules, is not at liberty to recognize the existence of parties or groups in the House. Although he has to observe certain amenities in giving precedence to leaders in debate, he presides over an assembly of the people's representatives where every member has an equal right of using the rules and usages to express his views on public matters.
In England, although the Home Rule party under Mr. Parnell and his successors consisted of a large group, it never was given an official status in parliamentary procedure. Even to-day, there are at Westminster several groups or parties, but they are all subject to the same rules of procedure. All the members are on an equal footing. I think our rules and practice based on precedents, traditions, and usages give every hon. member ample opportunity to put himself on record upon any question.
That, I think, summarizes conclusively the position we have been discussing, and the force of that view ought to carry weight with hon. members in considering whether it is wise at this moment to endeavour to meet a present situation by changing rules that have been found to be of advantage in the carrying on of the business of the House for some fifty or sixty years.
I would like to say this further word. There are already a number of special committees of the House at work. The time of a good many hon. members is taken up in that connection, and if there is to be a special committee to consider this matter it would seem advisable that other rules-and there are some that would stand revision-should be taken into consideration at the same time. I submit it would be better for the House to examine all the rules which it thinks are in need of revision, and when appointing a special committee give to the committee the work of an entire revision.
However, coming to the main point, namely, the opportunity of hon. members to express their views, I can only repeat what has already been said so effectively; that the rules of the House are such as to permit every hon. member and every group, not only in one particular but in many, to present the views they wish to put forward either as individual members or as expressing the sentiment of the groups to which they belong. The old established rule of the limitation to one amendment on the budget has been in existence, as I have said, for a long time without a change, simply because of the virtue it holds in itself-and that, I trust, the House will not readily sacrifice.


Hewitt Bostock: The reply of the mover will close the debate.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Speaker, despite all that has been said, I still think that the rules of this House are made fo serve the purposes of hon. members of the House, not the government. This being the case, I still feel that the House should grant our request and give us a special committee.
The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to the fact that there was no rule-I am afraid I shall not be ible to state this in exact language-that the Speaker should see the leader of the official opposition first in Case of an amendment to any motion being moved. Well, it would seem to me that if our request were granted and we were given the right to move a second amendment, it would relieve you, Sir, from a very embarrassing position. Having seen the leader of the official opposition first last year. I would take it that it would be only just and fair under existing rules if you were to see the leader of this group first this year. If that is the case, I would for the time being accede to the request of the right hon. the Prime Minister and withdraw my motion, with a view to having a special committee appointed to inquire into the whole matter of the revision of the rules at another session. But this particular rule, Mr. Speaker, is not so well founded as some hon. members would make it appear. In 1855 Mr. Speaker Smith gave a ruling that but one amendment could be moved when the House was moved into Committee of Supply, but in 1860 he reversed that ruling. So we have precedent for the change we are asking for at this time.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw), put a question to the right hon. leadet of the Opposition whether if one amendment had been moved and voted down could a second amendment to the main motion be moved? We have a direct ruling on that to the contrary. No second amendment to the main motion may be moved. I feel that jf these rules are to serve the purpose of this House at the present time an amendment is necessary. The Minister of Finance in speaking on another matter in this House this session made use of the phrase "We are dealing with a condition, not a theory." That is what we are confronted with here to-day. There is no use conjecturing about how many parties may come to this House in the future. There may be a score. We shall have to deal with that condition when we meet it. At the present time we have three parties, and I ' think it is only right and fair that a group consisting of sixty members of this Housa

Unopposed Motions
should be given the right to move a second amendment when the House is moved into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means.
Motion negatived.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: For a copy of all correspondence between the federal Department of Agriculture, or any official of the Department of Agriculture, and the town of Moncton, New Brunswick, or any official of the town of Moncton, or any official of the Department of Health of the province of New Brunswick, regarding the testing of dairy cattle, under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act in the vicinity of Monton, New Brunswick.


NIPISSING INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. LAPIERRE:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents which have passed between the government or any minister or official thereof, and all persons who have obtained land in the Nipissing Indian reserve, near Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, since its opening to settlers.


ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, telegrams, and other writings which have passed between the present government, or any minister or official thereof, and the government of the province of British Columbia, or any minister or official thereof, on the subject of oriental immigration, or in any way affecting or dealing with the rights or privileges of orientals in Canada.


GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. d'ANJOU:
For a copy of the bills for living allowances and disbursements, retainers, certificates of taxation and authorities to act on behalf of the government, of W. N. Tilley, K.C., H. A. Lovett, K.C., Hector Mclnnes, K.C., J. C. H. Dusseault, K.C., E. F. Newcombe, Z. A. Lash, K.C., Pierce Butler of Minneapolis, T. Ludlow Christie of New York, Laurence Jones & Co. of London, England, Charles Russell & Co. of London. England, in connection with the Grand Trunk Arbitration and the legislation upon which such proceedings were based.

Mr. SPENCER:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, telegrams and other writings which have passed between the government of the day, or any minister thereof, and any person or persons connected with the sale to the government of lots 31 and 32, block 8, in the town of Vermilion, Alberta.


SIX NATIONS INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. SENN:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, writings, petitions, telegrams and other documents passing between the Department of Indian Affairs, the minister and officers of this department, and the Six Nations Indian reserve, its council or members or residents thereof, since 1st January, 1922, having to do with the
relations of such reserve to the government of Canada and to the complaints of such council regarding the Department of Indian Affairs.


EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Hewitt Bostock: Before I leave the chair I would ask the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who wras not in his seat when this matter came up, to study with some of the older members of the House the point which was raised when the motion of Mr. Clark came before the House a short while ago. I have examined the question since, and my mind is perturbed. I am not decided to give a ruling, and I would like to have enlightenment from the older members of the House. The question will likely come up on Wednesday, if I mistake not, and before giving the ruling I would like to hear the opinion of some of the older members of the House.


Arthur Meighen: In that point, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been arranged that the motion will come up on Monday instead of Wednesday.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.
Tuesday, March 20, 1923