1924-03-31

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the resolution adopted by this House on Thursday, 27th March, as follows:
"That in the opinion of this House, in view of the failure of the Home Bank and of the fact that official prosecutions and inquiries have been instituted, including the royal commission which has been appointed to investigate the facts alleged in the petition represented by the depositors of the bank and the affairs of the bank generally; and considering that the evidence received and to be taken before the several tribunals will be available for consideration, the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce should be instructed to consider the provisions of the Bank Act with a view to recommending such amendments to the act as will better protect the interests of depositors generally and will prevent similar occurrences in the future; and also to consider the report of the royal commission in its bearing upon these matters and with respect to the possibility of saving the Home Bank depositors from loss."
be referred to the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce for such action as the committee may deem advisable.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This motion will require the unanimous leave of the House.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The motion you have read,
Mr. Speaker, was made by way of amendment to a motion which appeared on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine). On Thursday night the amendment was declared carried, but I find on the order paper to-day the original motion still remaining, and with no reference made to the amendment. I do not know that I can explain it, but I presume it is because the Speaker on Thursday night, after putting the amendement, did not put the motion as amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh yes.


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear it put. If it was put, the motion should not appear on the order paper to-day.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: I do not see the motion on the order paper to which the right hon. gentleman refers. It is another resolution that is on the order paper.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, it is another one. But was the motion as amended put?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, March 27, as appears on page 99:
And the question being put on the said amendment, it was agreed to, on the following division.
Then after the division I find this:
And the question being put on the main motion, as amended, it was agreed to.


William Charles Good: I would like to inquire from the Prime Minister what is the effect of referring this resolution or the amended motion to the committee, whether or not the committee is supposed to reconsider the propriety of going on with this investigation. I do not quite understand the effect of the motion now made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion now made is to give effect to the amended resolution that passed this House the other evening whereby certain matters were referred to the Banking and Commerce committee. The motion has been worded in the terms of the amendment, so that everything that was included in the amendment will go to the Banking committee.


Arthur Meighen: I have not looked up the Votes and Proceedings, but a reference to Hansard shows that my recollection was correct. The motion as amended does not appear
as put in Hansard, page 789.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Votes and Proceedings are the official record of parliament-


Arthur Meighen: So is Hansard.	[DOT]

Home Bank


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and my own personal recollection of what took place that evening accords entirely with the record in the Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. ROBB:: May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the House, that my right hon. friend himself said after the division, as will be seen by page 789 of Hansard:
Mr. Meighen: Mr. Speaker, how can there be an amendment carried to a motion that is withdrawn? The amendment is to the motion; the amendment having passed, there is no motion.


Arthur Meighen: I know; that is correct. There is no motion as originally put once an amendment passes, but there is a motion as amended, and the duty of the Speaker is to put the motion as amended, which I observed at the time was not done, and the Hansard record shows that.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I quite remember my
right hon. friend saying that, and we called the attention of the Speaker to it. The Speaker spoke in a rather low voice, but he said "The motion as amended is carried."


Arthur Meighen: The point I drew attention to was this:	The Speaker wanted to
carry out the desire of the hon. member for East Calgary to have his motion withdrawn and asked for unanimous leave, just as it appears in Hansard. I said it could not now be withdrawn and gave my reasons, and there the matter closed. That evidently carried the Speaker's mind away from the point. It was only an oversight on his part, I know, and I have no objection whatever to a correction being made.


Ernest Lapointe: I think I am right in
stating that the Deputy Clerk of the House wont to the Speaker's chair and called his attention to the point, and then the Speaker corrected himself by saying that the motion as amended was carried.


Mr. HOCKEN:: You are altogether wrong.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon). I remember the occasion distinctly, and members in this part of the House discussed at the time what would be the fate of that main motion. We a.rgued that the main motion as amended should be put, and that is what should have been done. We waited with interest to see whether it would happen or not. It did not. It is an oversight it did not happen, but it is no use trying to bolster up the Votes and Proceedings and say it was done when it was not done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MANION:: My distinct recollection
is exactly as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) mentions, and the reason I say this is because I think the Votes and Proceedings should be put in order if they are out of order. Hansard agrees with our understanding. I remember the discussion on this side of the House and remember speaking of the thing being out of order as the motion had not been completely put.


George Newcombe Gordon: I see by the
Votes and Proceedings that the motion as amended was agreed to.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of mem-bet's to compose the select standing committees constituted by this House on Thursday, 27th March, instant, said committee to be composed of Messrs.: Belaud, Copp, Low, Kyte, Papineau, Tolmie, Boys, Johnston, and Halbert, and that that portion of rule 10 limiting the number of members of the said committee be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the names of Messrs Duff, Kay and McBride be substituted for those of Messrs Marcil (Bagot), Boucher and Davies on the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and that the name of Mr. Davies be substituted for that of Mr. McBride on the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MONDAY SITTINGS

William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be well, I think, at this time for me to move the resolution that appears on the order paper with respect to government business, and which is as follows:
That on Monday, the 7th of April, and on subsequent Mondays to the end of the session, government Notices of Motions and government Orders shall * have precedence after Questions and Notices of Motions for Production of Papers.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader
of the Opposition):	This motion does
not come usually so early. I suggest there is

Business oj the House
no need of it until the government is ready with its budget.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is anxious to get on with business as rapidly as possible. I think it is desirable to give this notice at as early a date as may be convenient. Usually when a similar notice has been brought to the attention of the House there has been some exception taken to the date fixed. It would be well, if there is an exception to be taken on the present occasion, that it be taken at once. In the opinion of the government it is desirable that we should take Mondays for government work after April 7.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert) :: There is a notice of motion standing in my name on the order paper that we had planned to take up to-day, but the Minister of Railways is not here at present and theiefoie we cannot deal with it very well. I should therefore like to have some assurance from the government that an opportunity will be given for dealing with this motion at a later date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there
are one or two other motions that precede the resolution of my hon. friend, and probably the Minister of Railways will be here before his motion is reached. If it is reached, and the matter has had to be delayed on account of the absence of the Minister of Railways, the government will arrange a date for its discussion.


William Charles Good: I feel that
this is a retrograde move. It is not many weeks since the session opened, and I would suggest that Monday is really the only opportunity given here for the emergence of new ideas. Anything that is not settled upon by the government as a government measure will therefore be practically stifled if this motion is proceeded with. It seems to me that if we are going to follow the practice outlined in the resolution we are going to put a damper upon what is very necessary, particularly at this time in the history of our country. I do think the government ought to provide continued opportunity for private members to advance what they think is of interest and importance to the country. The difficulty about Wednesdays, as every hon. member knows, is that one cannot get a vote on that day if there is any opposition, and it means practically that Wednesday is of no use for the purpose of private members' resolutions except simply to ventilate ideas as far as time may permit. ' I want to submit that it is a movement in the wrong 534
direction to cut off private members' days at so early a period in the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend brings forward a point which has often been discussed, namely, whether hon. members are afforded sufficient opportunity to deal with the resolutions which appear in their names. I am correct, I think, in saying that at least six times this session a complete list of resolutions appearing in the names of private members has been called, so that my hon. friend-with respect to resolutions of his that appeared on the order paper at all early in the session-has had at least six opportunities up to the present time of dealing with them. I do not think the government is unduly limiting discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: I desire to present three petitions of the members and adherents of St. Columba's Church, Fairville, N. B., Greenock Church, St. Andrew's N. B., and Presfbyterian Church of St. Martin's, N. B., against the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I desire to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if he is ready to give the date for the delivery of the budget yet?


James Alexander Robb: Not yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend prepared to state whether it will be next week?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure as to next week, I will try and let my hon. friend know before the end of the week.



ALBERTA MINERAL TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat):: I should like to ask the government if they have received from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, or from both, a petition asking that certain legislation passed -by the Alberta legislature, known as the Mineral Tax Act, be disallowed and what action they have taken in regard thereto.


Ernest Lapointe: The government have received petitions from the parties mentioned by my hon. friend, and other parties asking for the
Postal Workers

disallowance of that act. The question is under consideration.
DAM ACROSS ST. LAWRENCE On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I should like to call the attention of the government to a despatch from New York which appears in the Montreal Standard of yesterday regarding a project for the construction of a dam across the St. Lawrence river for the development of electrical power to be supplied to New York, Boston and other large cities in the northeast. Has the government any knowledge of such project, and has any company applied for authority to develop such power?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Replying offhand I would say to my hon. friend that I am not aware of the government having received any official intimation of the matter to which he refers. I understand that the despatch itself has since been denied.


Joseph Archambault: When?


Mr. BUREAU:: In this morning's papers.
CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL On the Orders of the Day:


Henry Lumley Drayton: This would be a proper time to ask the leader of the government whether he has yet obtained the consent of the United States government to table further correspondence in connection with the diversion of water from the upper lakes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes we have received consent and the correspondence is ready for submission. It will be tabled either to-night when the House rises or to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: In that connection I hope the government will see to it that an opportunity is given for the resumption of the debate on the motion of the hon. member for North Toronto. The papers had not been tabled by the government when the debate was under way.


Sii HENRY DRAYTON:: I think that was agreed at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is correct. The debate was adjourned with the understanding that it would be continued after the papers were down.
POSTAL WORKERS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I should like to ask the government if they are aware of a despatch in this morning's press to 
the effect that the postal workers have called a strike for April 14, and if the government has taken any action to prevent such strike?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the exception of the report to which my hon. friend refers the government has no intimation as to the matter to which he refers. I may say, however, that from a reading of the despatch it would appear that the representatives of the postal employees who were present at the meeting in Toronto on Saturday were acting in accordance with instructions given them apparently several days ago, at the time the announcement was made that the bonuses would be reduced but before any intimation had gone to the employees as to the terms on which the Civil Service Commission would be asked to revise salaries. I might make it clear at this moment that the government in referring the matter of salary revision to the Civil Service Commission intimated that in its opinion should the salary revision give to any employee a salary larger than he would be in receipt of in virtue of the reduction of his bonus effected under the change, that the revision should date back to the first of the fiscal year 1924-5, beginning April 1, so that so far as the bonus was concerned that difference would be made good. I think, under these circumstances, it is hardly probable that this matter will go any further.


Arthur Meighen: In the same connection may I ask the Prime Minister:	Are the instructions to the Civil Service Commission, in relation to the revision in salaries in writing? Are they in the form of an order m council? And do they direct a revision upwards?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was
an order in council passed in the matter; I think I had better lay it on the Table.' I shall do so tomorrow.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARK moved the second reading of Bill 22, to amend an act respecting the Bur-rard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: There is a standing rule of the House that bills must be printed in both languages before they can be proceeded with. I raise that objection to this order.


George Newcombe Gordon: These two
bills do not appear to be printed in French;

Questions
for that reason I order that the two bills on the order paper of the second reading for today, Nos. 22 and 23, must stand.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What is the present number of Military Districts in Canada and where located?
2.	What is the period of the tenure of appointment of an Officer Commanding a Military District?
3.	What was the salary attached to that position including allowances in the respective years 1910, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1920 and 1924?
4.	What is the name, the rank, the date of 1st appointment, the date of extensions, if there are some, of the Officers Commanding Districts 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11?
5.	Does the Department of National Defence intend to place the above Officers on the Reserve and Pension at the expiration of the present tenure of appointment to permit the promotion of other Officers of the Permanent Force before being too old in the Service?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	There are eleven Military Districts in Canada with Headquarters as follows:
Military District No. 1, London, Ont.
Military District No. 2, Toronto, Ont.
Military District No. 3, Kingston, Ont.
Military District No. 4, Montreal, P.Q.
Military District No. 5, Quebec, P.Q.
Military District No. 6, Halifax, N.S.
Military District No. 7, St. John, N.B.
Military District No. 10, Winnipeg, Man.
Military District No. 11, Victoria, B.C.
Military District No. 12, Regina, Sask.
Military District No. 13. Calgary, Alta.
2.	Pour years, which may be extended under the provisions of Para 109, King's Regulations and Orders (Canada) 1917.
3.
1910, $3,000.00 per annum.
1912, $4,000.00 per annum.
1914, $4,000.00 per annum.
1916, $4,000.00 per annum.
1920, $6,000.00 per annum.
1924, $6,000.00 per annum.
The salary attached to this position is fixed by Pay and Allowance Regulations, and is not dependent upon the rank held by the officer filling the position.
4.	Military District No. 4, Colonel Commandant (Hon. Brigadier General) C. J. Armstrong, C.B., C.M.G. Appointed 1st October, 1919. (One year extension to 30th September, 1924).
Military District No. 5. Colonel Commandant (Hon. Brigadier General) J. P. Landry, C.M.G. Appointed 1st October, 1919 (one year extension to 30th September, 1924).
Military District No. 6. Major General H. C. Thacker, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O. Appointed 1st October, 1919 (one year extension to 30th September, 1924).
Military District No. 10.	Major-General
H. D. B. Ketchen, C.B., C.M.G. Appointed 1st October, 1919 (one year extension to 30th September, 1924).
Military District No. 11.	Colonel Commandant (Hon. Brigadier General) J. M. Ross, C.M.G., D.S.O. Appointed 15th January, 1920 (one year extension to 14th January, 1925).
5. The matter has not yet been considered.


PORT NELSON-DREDGING
Mr. BIRD:: 1. What is the amount, in cubic j'ards, of the dredging that will be required before ships can dock at Port Nelson?
2.	What work remains to be done in order to complete the artificial island at Port Nelson, and what is the estimated cost of this work?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question was answered on the 28th March, so it will be dropped.
MILITARY HOSPITALS Mr. ROSS (Kingston):
1.	How many patients have been sent from Kingston district to Ste. Anne's Hospital during the year 1923?
2.	How many days' treatment did these cases receive?	#
3.	How many patients have been sent from Kingston district to Christie Street Hospital during the year 1923?
4.	How many days' treatment did these cases receive?
5.	How many patients have been sent from Kingston district to hospitals outside Kingston, other than Christie Street and Ste. Anne's?
6.	How many days' treatment did these cases receive ?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	71.
2.	3,916.
3.	51.
4.	4,188.
5.	15.
6.	1,523.


MANITOBA LIQUOR LICENSES
Mr. WARD:: 1.	Does the government's policy limit in any way .the number of brewers' licenses which may be issued
in Manitoba?
2.	Has the government yet established any policy as to the issue or continuance of licenses to brewers convicted of infractions of law, and if so, what is its policy ?
3.	Has the government given consideration to the proposal that it should adopt the policy of refusal to issue permits for manufacture of liquor within the bounds of those provinces in which the importation and sale of liquor for beverage purposes is prohibited? If so, what conclusion was reached or policy established?
Questions


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	There is a government policy limiting the number of brewers' licenses in the province of Manitoba.
2.	The government has no policy with regard to the issue of licenses in Manitoba. The law regulates that.
3.	In answer to the first part of the question; "Has the government given consideration to the proposal that it should adopt the policy of refusal to issue permits for manufacture of liquor within the bounds of those provinces in which the importation and sale of liquor for beverage purposes is prohibited?"-I say again, that is governed by regulation. Then, in answer to the latter part of the question, "If so, what conclusion was reached or policy established?"-I may say that as far as the Department of Customs and Excise is concerned, under whose control these matters come, there have been no such proposals made.
ME. DUNCAN MARSHALL Mr. SUTHERLAND:
1.	How much money has been drawn by Mr. Duncan Marshall in salary and how much in expenses, since the present government came into power?
2.	What countries has Mr. Marshall visited, and how often to each, at the expense of the government, since the present administration came into power?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Department of Agriculture:
1.	Mr. Marshall was paid $11,774.19 for salary and $7,863.79 for expenses.
2.	Two trips to United States; two trips to Great Britain; one trip to Great Britain and France.
Department of Immigration and Colonization:
1.	$300 on account of expenses.
2.	United States, once.


MONTREAL CHAUFFEURS AND TAXI DRIVERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Did the Honourable the Minister of Labour receive a communication from an organization known as: The Montreal Chauffeurs Protective Association?
2.	If so, what were the complaints therein set out?
3.	Did this association request the intervention of the minister and his department ?-
4.	Did the minister order an inquiry?
5.	If so, who was the official who conducted the inquiry?
6.	Did he make a report to the minister?
7.	If so, what was the nature of such report?
8.	Did the Bramson Taxi Cab and the Yellow Taxi Company, Limited, make new representations to the Minister of Labour?
9.	What further action did the minister take?
10.	Is the departmenet prepared to lend its assistance to the chauffeurs and taxi-drivers of Montreal and the Montreal Chauffeurs Protective Association?
11.	Is the minister prepared, if such is demanded, to establish a Board of Conciliation, in order to prevent a dispute?

12.	Is the minister prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission, in order to more fully investigate the situation between the Bramson Taxi Cab and the Yellow Taxi Company, Limited, and the taxi-drivers and chauffeurs of Montreal?
13.	Did the Montreal Chauffeurs Protective Association fde with the department a copy of its constitution and by-laws?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes. Letter dated at Montreal, November 20, 1923, over the signature of Mr. H. W. Watt, business agent, Montreal Chauffeurs' Protective Association.
2.	Complaint was made that the Bramsons Auto Service Limited had posted notices on their premises to the effect that any of their drivers becoming members of the Montreal Chauffeurs' Protective Association would be instantly dismissed.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. November 23, 1923.
5.	Mr. E. McG. Quirk.
6.	Yes.
7.	Mr. Quirk's report merely confirmed the employees' statement regarding the action taken by the Bramsons Auto Service Limited, namely, that the company had notified its chauffeur employees that if they or any one of them joined or became identified with the Montreal Chauffeurs' Protective Association, they would be discharged from the company's service.
8.	The company made a statement of its attitude and views to Mr. Quirk.
9.	A copy of the company's statement mentioned in No. 8 was forwarded to the business agent of the Montreal Chauffeurs' Protective Association.
10.	The department is always prepared to lend its good offices so far as possible in connection with the settlement of industrial disputes brought to its attention.
11.	If an application for a board of conciliation and investigation is received, all of the facts, circumstances and the authority of the department in the matters referred to will be considered and a decision will then be given on this point.
12.	The Minister has been unable in connection with this matter to find sufficient ground to justify a recommendation for the appointment of a royal commission.
13.	Yes, through Mr. Quirk.
BUREAU OF STATISTICS Hon. Mr. STEVENS:
1.	What is the total number of employees engaged in the Bureau of Statistics Branch?
2.	What is the total amount of their salaries?
3.	What is the cost of printing and publishing the various statistical returns?
4.	What is the total revenue to the department from sale of publications and what other revenue is secured?

Questions


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	March 24, 1924, 380 (including 122 Census); April 1,	1924, 354 (including 119
Census).
2.	Salaries for month March, 1924, $35,-
282.48; salaries for month April, 1924, $33,010.83.	.
3.	1923-24, $89,429.70; estimated cost for
1924-25, $75,000.
4.	1923-24, $807.40; no other revenue.


OVER GRADING OF WHEAT
Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	Has litigation ceased over the cargo of wheat shipped from a private elevator at Fort William to Buffalo in 1922, and held there for some time by order of the Board of Grain Commissioners because the American buyers refused to accept it on grounds of over grading?
2.	Did this government sustain any financial loss because of such over grading? If so, how much?


Hon. Mr. LOW :: 1.	The department is notified that the suit entered against the bonding company is now ready for trial and will probably be heard within the next two weeks. The Board of Grain Commissioners did not order the cargo to be held but instructed an inspector to go to Buffalo and draw samples at the unloading of cargo there.
2.	No.
refunding loan


CHICOUTIMI WHARF
Mr. SAVARD:: How many ships docked at the Chicoutimi wharf during the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively, and what was the amount collected by the government from said wharf during above period?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: Most of the traffic at Chicoutimi wharf is carried on by vessels operating on account of the Canada Steamship Lines, Limited, and Messrs. Price Bros., Limited, which companies have obtained commutation of wharfage. The department has not at hand the number of calls of vessels operating for the above companies, as the commutation is determined by the bulk of traffic rather than by the number of calls.
Commutation Canada
	Price Bros. Ltd. SS. Lines.	
1921.. .	.. $575.00	$500.001922.. .	.. 4.000.00	500.001923.. .	.. 5.000.00	500.00Other	vessels docking were:	Vessels1Q91	.. .. 241922 1993	.... 37.... 37Total 1921 1922 1923	collections:	$4,928.845.638.437,818.90


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1	What are the expenses in connection with the refunding loan of $200,000,000 floated this year (a) on the five-year bonds and (b) on the twenty-year bonds?
2	What are the expenses in connectioL with die railway loan of $50,000,000 issued this year and guaranteed by the government?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Tenders were called for and the issue awarded to a Canadian financial syndicate. Five-year bonds realized 96.75 and acciued interest, and twenty-year bonds 96 and accrued interest. Commissions to banks and brokers, advertising expenses, and such other charges as are usually included in flotation expenses, were borne by the syndicate. For printing interim certificates and bonds, and clerical assistance, etc., in connection with t.heir issue, and the taking in of maturing bonds, the Department of Finance has spent $182,328.96.
2.	The railway issue was also sold by tender to a Canadian syndicate, and realized 97.813 and accrued interest. Commissions, advertising expenses, etc., were paid by the brokers. Expenses of the railway company for printing securities are not yet fully ascertained.
Season 1924 not yet open.



COPYRIGHT ACT

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Has the government received requests for licenses to publish Canadian works since the putting into force of the Copyright Act, January 1, 1924?
2.	If so, what publishing houses have made these requests, and for what works?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to grant such requests ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT, QUEBEC

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Who was awarded the contract in 1922. for the restaurant and canteen in connection with the Immigration Department at Quebec? .
2.	Was this contract awarded in 1923? If so, m
favour of whom?	,
3.	Were complaints made in 1922 and 1923 against those who held the contract?
4.	Were reports made in 1923 to the government by the Abbe Casgrain of Quebec, against the service of the restaurant and canteen.
5.	Was an official of the Department of Immigration sent, following these reports, as controller or superintendent of the said service? If so, how long was he employed, on what date was he recalled and for what reason?
Questions

6.	Did this official report to the government relating to said service ?
7.	Were reports made by the official in charge of the Health Department at Quebec or Ottawa, or by the officials of that department, relating to said service and the carrying out of the hygienic regulations by the contractors ?
8.	Has the government received anv further correspondence except that referred to above, relating to said sendee?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Joseph R. H. Byme and Paul E. Paquet.
2.	Yes. Joseph R. H. Byme.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Yes, but before complaints were made
by Abbe Casgrain. (b) From May 6 to October 24.	(c) To resume his position in
Montreal.
6.	Yes.
7.	No.
8.	Yes.
MR. J. E. FEATHERSTONE Mr. CAMPBELL:	,
1.	Is Mr. J. E. Featherstone, formerly of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, still an employee of the government, and if so, in what capacity is he employed?
2.	What were the reasons for Mr. Fcatherstone's removal from his former position?


James Alexander Robb: stituted by it through the Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the district.
4.	Answered by 1, 2 and 3.
5.	The Civil Service Commission has been asked to nil the vacancy.


Mr. COOTE:: J-	is the total amount advanced to settlers by
the Soldier Settlement Board for seed grain and relief since the formation of the board?
2.	How much of this amount has been repaid?
3.	What amount has been paid to settlers for break-mg land or other improvements?
4.	What amount has been expended by the board for land surveys ?
5.	How much has been expended by the board for building roads?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Seed, $1,863,513.94; subsistence, $100,915.58.
2.	Impossible to state as indebtedness of settlers has been consolidated.
3.	Total loans for breaking, $666,739.02 [DOT] clearing, $143,082.21; draining, $14,014.25. Impossible to state what proportion of these amounts paid to the settlers and what to other parties.
4.	Nil.
5.	$39,050.71.
1.	Yes; as Commissioner of Immigration for Canada in China, with headquarters at Hong Kong.
2.	To fill new position.
FISHERIES OVERSEER-QUEENS COUNTY Mr. HANSON:
MANUFACTURE OF FARM IMPLEMENTS Mr. PREVOST:
1.	What was the total amount of farming implements
manufactured in Canada for the years 1920 1921 1922 1923, respectively?	'	'2.	What was the total amount of said farming implements exported for the years 1920, 1921 1922 1923 respectively?	'	'1.	Has W. E. Fraser of Queens county, Nova Scotia, been requested to resign the position of fisheries overseer for West Queens, and if so, has he resigned?2.	Why was Mr. Fraser requested to resign?3.	Were any charges made or laid against him? If so, who made or laid such charges, and what were their nature?4.	Was an investigation held? If so, by whom and with what result?5.	Is it the intention of the department to fill the position, or to amalgamate the duties with those of the Overseer of Fisheries for East Queens?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The Chief Inspector of Fisheries requested him to resign and he has done so.
2.	On account of irregularities in accounting for fishery license fees and in connection with the delivering of licenses to licensees.
3.	A fisherman wrote to the department explaining that he had paid $24.00 to the overseer as fee3 on four trap licenses, and that he found that others had paid only one dollar each for similar licenses. As only four dollars had been forwarded to the department on account of these licenses enquiries were in-

:. """u	amount paid out in duty by
manufacturers for raw material for the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, respectively?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	The total value of farming implements manufactured in Canada for the years ended December 31, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, was as follows:
1920	 $44,073,847
1921		 36,763,160
1922		 18,240,381
1923	 (a)
(a) The statistics of production for 1923 are in process of collection and are therefore not available.
2.	The total value of Canadian farm implements and machinery exported from Canada for the years ended December 31 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, was as follows:
1920		 $12,197,994
1921		 7,615,825
1922		 5,041,044
1923		 8,187,492

Questions
3.	Imports of raw materials for use in the manufacture of farming implements are not separately classified for statistical purposes, and information as to the total amount of duty paid on such raw materials is not available.



PHYSICIANS D.S.C.R.-OTTAWA

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: How much per annum are the eighteen medical doctors at Ottawa in the employ of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment paid by the government?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: .



$68,900. UNITED STATES COIN

Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: 1.	Was United States coin gathered in Canada transferred to the United States previous to the year 1920?
2.	If so, was a profit made on the transfer of such coin.
3.	What were the amounts transferred during the years 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920?
4.	What profit was made in each of the said years?
5.	Has the transferring of United States coin been discontinued since 1920?
6.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	1917-18, $1,367,676.22; 1918-19, $853,638.48; 1919-20, $674,849.08.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	At the expense of the government, yes.
6.	In view of the prevailing premium on New York funds, it was not considered necessary for the Department of Finance to pay shipping charges and bank commission.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT, 1923

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Referring to the answer to question of Mr. Sutherland of 10th March, 1924, to the effect that complaints of violation of the Combines Investigation Act, 1923, had been informally laid and had been investigated and that the results of such investigations had avoided the necessity of prosecution.
1.	What complaints were laid and by whom?
2.	Against what persons, companies or corporations were such complaints laid?
3.	Had such complaints not been laid what prosecutions would have been necessary or justified, and for what offence and against whom?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	It is not in the interest of the public to give the information requested.
2.	See answer to 1.
3.	Not understood.



D.S.C.R.-HOSPITALS

Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	What hospitals are used in Montreal for patients of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
2.	Are any hospitals wholly employed by this department ?
3.	What other institutions are under control of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in Montreal?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	The majority of patients admitted for treatment in Montreal are sent to the hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue; some patients are referred to the Montreal General hospital; certain special cases to the Royal Victoria hospital ; and terminal incurable cases to the Mount Royal hospital.
2.	No. '
3.	None. The only hospital operated by the department in the province of Quebec is situated at Ste. Anne de Bellevue.



SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. ANDERSON:: What commodities have been exempted from the present sales tax by order in council?


James Alexander Robb: Commodities exempted: Barley meal; usual coverings to be used exclusively for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax; materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of usual coverings to be used for covering goo'ds not subject to the consumption or sales tax; woollen rolls or wool yam milled for a producer of wool from such wool supplied by him for his own use; articles admitted to free entry under Customs Tariff item 692; goods enumerated in Customs Tariff item 139; bakers' cake and pies, not to include biscuits.
Also, printing paper for use exclusively in producing newspapers and quarterly, monthly and semi-monthly magazines, weekly literary papers unbound, hymn books, religious tracts and Sunday school lesson pictures-reduced by fifty per cent, on the amount of consumption or sales tax.



MR. W. T. R. PRESTON

Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: On the 26th March a question was asked by Mr. Maybee relating to the positions held by Mr. W. T. R. Preston, question No. 20. When the information came to the office one department was overlooked, and not included in the answer. I beg to lay on the Table the answer as relates to that department. The question was:


Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	What positions have been held by Mr. W. T. R. Preston since the present government came into power ?
2.	For how long has he held each position?
Questions

3.	How much in remuneration and expenses has he drawn in each position?
4.	Is he still in the employ of the government?
5.	If so, just what is he doing and what does he receive ?
The remainder of the answer is as follows: Department of Labour:
1.	(a) Chairman of board of conciliation in dispute of the Algoma Eastern Railway and its employees.
(b)	Chairman of board of conciliation in dispute of the Pere Marquette Railway Company and its shop employees.
(c)	Chairman of board of conciliation in dispute of the Pere Marquette Railway Company and its steamship clerks, freight handlers, etc.
2.	(a) April 21, 1922, to June 17, 1922.
(b)	July 21, 1922, to September 15, 1922.
(c)	August 10, 1922, to September 14, 1922.
3.	(a) Services S320, expenses $159.80; total, $479.80.
(b)	Services $425, expenses $245.06; total, $670.06.
(c)	Services $235, expenses $202.16; total, $437.16.
4 and 5 No information.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
Ralifax-dominion property
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What is the estimated value of Dominion owned real property situated in (a) the city of Halifax; (b) the county of Halifax outside of the city under the direction or control of (1) Department of Public Works; (2) Department of National Defence; (3) Post Office Department; (4) The Canadian National Railways; (5) other government departments, respectively ?
2.	Since the consolidation of the Intercolonial Railway with the Canadian National system has there been any change in the assessment of the property formerly belonging to the Intercolonial?
3.	If so, what is the change?
4.	Does the system pay any municipal tax in the province of Nova Scotia?
5.	If so, what municipal taxes are paid in Halifax city and county?
6.	Is there any difference so far as taxation is concerned in the province of Nova Scotia in assessment and taxation of property formerly owned by the Intercolonial and the property of the other lines of the Canadian National Railways system?
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS. SIX NATIONS INDIANS Mr. SENN:
For a copy of the report of Commissioner A. T. Thompson, who was appointed to investigate conditions among the Six Nations Indians. Also a copy of all evidence, letters, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government in this connection.
[Mr. Maybee.J



BELLE RIVER IMPROVEMENTS

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents, correspondence and contract, if any, between the Minister of Public Works or any official of the Department of Public Works, or any other minister or official of the government, and the Northern Navigation Company, or member for North Essex, or other parties, having reference to proposed harbour improvements at Belle River and referred to in public works vote 157.



OTTAWA PROPERTY OWNED OR LEASED BY THE GOVERNMENT

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing properties rented for governmental purposes in Ottawa and date when rented and date of expiry of lease, if any, giving floor space and annual rental in each case; also statement of vacant properties owned by the government in Ottawa showing ground area, purchase price and annual carrying charge including taxes in each case.



PRIVATE JOHN J. QUILTY

Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the government, with reference to the case of Private John J. Quilty, No. 3257368, so far as the same deals with his enlistment and discharge, and including any correspondence with the Canadian Pacific Railway with reference to an alleged forgery of documents in connection with his case.



HOME BANK-CORRESPONDENCE

Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, telegrams and documents exchanged between the government or any member thereof or any government official and the management or any of the directors of the Home Bank since January 1, 1922.


James Alexander Robb: I do not rise to offer
any objection to this resolution; but I should be glad if my hon. friend would allow it to stand until to-morrow, in order that I may consult the department as to the advisability of giving out this information while these inquiries are going on.
Motion stands.



CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. Li CHURCH (North Toro-to) 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 United States for such supply.
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.
That a duty should be placed on coal from the United States to ensure an all British supply for

Canada's Coal Supply
Canada and thus afford adequate protection to coal mined and coked under the British flag.
That whereas coal is a necessity in effect equal to that of food it should therefore be carried on a preferential toll basis by the railway on the same basis as food.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for a national policy for Canada in relation to its fuel supply. At the present time this country is dependent for its coal supply on the United States. If this policy is adopted, it will ensure an all-British coal supply, mined and coked under the British flag; it will preserve our own markets for our own coal products, and our own work for our own workmen. At present over 8100,000,000 a year is going out of Canada for the benefit of wage-earners in the United States.
George Newcombe Gordon: Might I draw
the attention of hon. members to the fact that difficulty in hearing is caused frequently by conversation in the chamber, and it is very hard for the hon. member to proceed with his speech?


Mr. CHURCH:: It will provide work for
thousands of men at present out of work in this country. The existing general exodus of from 25,000 to 28,000 a month from Canada is appalling. Canada has 20,000 miles of a national railway, we have our own merchant marine; and yet we are unable to develop the magnificent resources of the Maritime provinces, those great provinces which have done so much, before a,nd since confederation, to make Canada what it is to-day, or to develop the resources of Alberta, a province which is so rich in natural resources. This motion proposes a national policy which would enable us to develop the great coal resources of those provinces and also to bring coal to Canada from Wales, so that all the coal we use in this coimtry would be mined and coked under the British flag.
As the motion reads, the government should immediately consider the initiation of such a policy, which is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the [DOT] future of Canada. How are you going to get a national coal supply in Canada or to have a national policy in regard to Canada's coal supply, unless you adopt the basic principles of a national policy, namely a tariff to protect your own industry, the coal industry in this country, from coast to coast, to preserve your own markets for your own coal and work for your own workmen? I do not say that this can be done to-day, or in a day or two, or in the twinkling of an eye, but we should work up to it in the years that are to come.
In addition to that, the coal question today is 95 per cent a transportation problem, and there are many sides to this problem.
In this country the Railway Commission provides for a certain preferential tariff for certain products. For instance, there is the Crowsnest pass agreement, which provides for carrying certain basic products at preferential rates from the West to the head of the lakes. There is special treatment in regard to food of all kinds. Coal to-day is just as much a necessity throughout Canada as food, because, after all is said and done, coal is a food necessity. Every article of food that appears on the table requires coal in its preparation. Besides the visible supply of coal for heating our houses, what might be called "invisible" coal is required for the generation of gas, electric light and steam in steam plants. Coal is thus, in effect, a food necessity, and for that reason it should be carried on a preferential tariff. It is so carried in the United States in many cases.
Last year this same motion was introduced in this House, not without some effect, because it led to a discussion nation-wide from coast to coast, and especially in the Maritime provinces and the great western provinces as to the appalling state of affairs and the danger the people of Canada faced in not utilising their own coal reserves. It was pointed out that they were living simply in a fool's paradise. It was stated then that Canada requires a coal supply from some other source than the United States, because Canada's dependence on the United States for its coal supply is not only a national humiliation, but a national danger. It is the duty of this parliament to take warning and to seek out some other arrangement, namely by utilising our own coal reserves. We have a national policy as regards food and clothing, and we should'have a national policy as regards our coal supplies.
The question of the distribution on an equitable basis of the coal supplies of the world is one of the most pressing problems of mankind to-day, and it must be considered and dealt with in an efficient manner. This problem has been increasing in importance every year, and undoubtedly the present situation developed largely during the war when there was a scarcity of coal the world over. Every country is suffering to-day from a shortage of coal, especially Europe and the South American people. The future industrial development and the well-being of the people of the world depend as much upon an adequate supply of fuel as upon a steady supply of food. This opinion is endorsed by Mr. Herbert Hoover, the present Secretary of the Interior, in the United States government. Indeed, he declares that the civilization of Europe now
844	COMMONS
Canada's Coal Supply
_____________________*____________________________
rests in the hands of the coal miners to an equal degree as it does with the producers of food, if not more so; and he contends that only an adequate production of fuel will save Europe from disaster. I do not intend to go into the question of the fuel supply. Like the financial situation, it is a matter of interlocking and international interests; the fuel supply is interrelated as between the various countries in the same way as financial interests are interlocked. The geologists of the Conservation Commission of the United States have expressed the opinion that the available coal supply in that country will actually have been exhausted within a comparatively short period, and there are frequent complaints in Washington against the shipment of coal out of that country into Canada. So that, sooner or later, there is sure to be put into force an embargo against the export of coal from the United States into Canada and other countries. This probability has been pointed out by Sir Henry Thornton, the President of the Canadian National Railways. Speaking at Edmonton quite recently Sir Henry stated:
It is essential that the railway companies, by proper service and by such assistance as lies within their power, should do all that they can to assist in mineral development and extend the selling radius of the coal and other minerals which lie in the West. 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 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.
Sir Clifford Sifton said the other day in Ottawa at a dinner 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.
And Dr. Frank D. Adams, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science of McGill University, says the same thing. He declares:
They have got us by the throat. If they chose they could freeze us to death in one winter. All of Ontario and most of Quebec now depend for their supplies on the United States.
And what does Mr. George Otis Smith, director of the Geological Department of the United States say on this question? He says that it is a menace to the United States to export every year forty per cent of their coal, and that this raw material should be preserved to the United States for the purpose of manu-

facturing and supplying all the nations of the world with the goods they are in need of; so that they will impose a partial if not a total restriction on the export of American coal. And the Deputy Minister of Mines in the United States says practically the same thing.
The people of Manitoba the year before last adopted the national policy in regard to the problem of their coal supply. Unable any longer to get anthracite from Pennsylvania owing to the strike and shortage they were forced to use Alberta coal, and they found it quite satisfactory. As a matter of fact, they considered it fifty per cent better than the coal they formerly got from Pennsylvania. Now, what Manitoba did in reference to her coal supply the people of Ontario and central Canada should do also. There is no reason why central Canada should not obtain a part of its coal supply from the Maritime provinces, with the assistance of the merchant marine. In my opinion the people of Ontario could very well get their coal both from the East and from the West; and what the province of Manitoba did yesterday Ontario should do to-morrow and Canada the day after. The coal supply problem is largely a matter of transportation. As was pointed out last year by the committee that investigated this matter, thousands of national cars are standing at the head of the lakes in the slack spring and summer season and while it is true that some of these cars are only wheat cars, I do not see why they could not be converted to the purposes of fuel transportation, or why a special kind of car could not be constructed to serve both purposes. Besides this, I would suggest that there be a summer rate on coal transportation. The problem of supplying the Canadian people with Canadian coal is perfectly practicable: it is purely a question of transportation. When we consider the amount of money that is paid out by the Canadian people to the United States for the coal that is imported from that country, the figures are simply appalling. Last year the total imports into Canada from the United States of this one commodity amounted to $56,000,000, this sum being paid for 12,000,000 tons of anthracite in addition to shipments of soft coal. According to a return laid upon the Table of the House last week this sum has now increased in 1923 to the astounding figure of $89,000,000. These figures can be nothing but appalling in view of the general exodus of the population from Canada. When our people are leaving the country in such large numbers, it seems to me to be a matter of the gravest concern that these stupendous amounts of money should be

Canada's Coal Supply
paid out by the Canadian people for the support of the American coal barons, who can charge anything they like <and over whom this parliament has of course no control whatever. And the situation is all the more serious when we look at the unfavourable trade balance between Canada and the United States at the present time. In my opinion the position of the Canadian people in this respect is particularly humiliating, especially from the economic labour and financial standpoints.
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 the United States coal? They regard Canada as 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 that the American people are friendly to us, but their papers are not sympathetic in reference to the coal situation. The New York Times says that it is about time that the Canadian people looked after their own coal supply. I submit that no part of the Dominion of Canada 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 a national policy under which the people of Canada will use coal produced under the British flag. The account is not by any means one-sided as between Canada and the United States, for the United States to-day obtains from Canada 158,000 horse-power of electrical energy which is worth between $6,000,000 and $8,000,000. This power is exported to maintain industries on the American side. Then again there is the export of pulp wood from Canada to the United States. I think there should be an embargo on pulp wood shipments from this country. The late Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer
Gouin) took very strong ground the other day when he supported a declaration of a national policy in respect to our pulpwood resources. He expressed himself in favour of an embargo on the export of pulpwood to ensure the manufacture of the raw material in Canada, thus providing employment for our workmen. A ten per cent export tax on pulpwood would return nearly $8,000,000 a year, and would enable the government to grant a bounty of $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 towards the solution of our coal problem. I do not think such a bonus would be necessary if the railway situation were thoroughly investigated, but in the absence of such investigation a bounty of $8,000,000 to encourage coal production in the Maritime provinces, and the West and the importation of coal from Wales would solve the problem of assuring the Dominion a coal supply under the British flag. That solution cannot come too soon. It is only proper that our expenditure on fuel should be distributed within our own borders. This would not only stimulate our coal mining industry,-the beneficial effects would extend to our other industries. Certainly we should not be left to the tender mercies of foreign coal miners for our fuel supply. Labour strikes may interrupt this supply at the	most	critical season of	the
year. Therefore this is a national question and should be dealt with as such.
Another feature not to be overlooked is that sooner or later we shall lose our industrial and commercial supremacy if we continue to depend on a foreign country for our coal supply. If the United States government imposed an embargo on the export of coal, our great industrial centres in Ontario and Quebec	would	be paralyzed. One of	theforemost authorities on political economy has recently	given	it as	his opinion that	theindustrial expansion of Great Britain was not due to the adoption of Cobdenism and free trade, but to the union of coal and steel. If we develop our water powers and our coal resources we shall witness the greatest industrial expansion in the history of this country. The union of steel and white coal as well as the union of steel and bituminous coal will bring this about.	Ontario and	Quebec are our	two
coalless provinces, and any interruption in our coal supply from the south would be so serious in its consequences, not only in the home but in the factory also, that the importance of the problem would be forced on the attention of the people, and it would receive the attention which it merits. Economic reasons alone are considered in the location of factories, and unless we solve this
Canada's Coal Supply

problem of a national coal supply it is nothing more than logical that industry will leave the central provinces and go east and west so as to be close to local sources of coal. To-day American capitalists are the masters of Canada's industrial situation. There are over three and a half million men to-day out of work in free trade England. And our working men cannot get jobs here because with our low tariff we too have practically free trade, and consequently twenty-five thousand of them go to the United States every
4 p.m. month. As though this were not bad enough, we are sending 8100,000,000 to the United States every year to buy their coal, although Canada is one of the richest coal countries in the worfd, possessing one-sixth of the world's supply. American capitalists are exploiting our timber resources, and this is apparent when we scan the directorate of the large timber and lumber companies operating in the Dominion. Now they are going into the power field as well and unless we are on our guard New York capital will soon control all our waterpowers. In a word, the American capitalists will soon have some of the title deeds of this country.
We have long deplored the failure of various governments, Dominion and provincial, to take hold of this vital question and place it on a satisfactory basis. In England one of the foremost publicists of the day, Lord Milner, has expressed himself in favour of nationalizing the coal reserves of the Mother Country, in order to get over the periodical labour troubles at the mines. Even the United States talk of controlling their natural resources coal, timber, petroleum and gas wells-and a few years ago the late President Roosevelt expressed himself on the subject in these terms:
The people of our country are threatened by a monopoly more powerful than has been ever seen, as it affects very closely their domestic and industrial life. Our next generation will witness a shortage of those natural resources, petroleum and gas. The price of coal will be such that hydraulic power turned into electrical energy will, owing to its cost, become the prevailing factor for transport, for manufacturers, for lighting and heating our towns. Our hydraulic power alone, entirely and judiciously employed, would be adequate for the present needs of transport, industries. municipalities and private individuals. The major portion of these powers is not developed and remains the national property. It would be madness to part, without conditions, with one of our greatest resources. If we become guilty of this crime, our children will be bound to pay an annual royalty on a capitalization fixed at the highest price that the trade will stand for. They will see themselves struggling with powerful sweaters entrenched behind the doctrine of discharged rights strengthened by all means of protection that, money can buy and the cunning of corporations defended by legal men. These ogres of finance will have succeeded long before then to monop-
oiize those resources so as to be able to dictate to the people the management of their affairs and their way of existence. Public opinion will be their least worry.
Those words sound prophetic to-day when we consider what has become of the vast coal, timber and oil resources of the United States; they are entirely under the control of great private corporations and trusts. The same thing happened in England last year and the year before, where they have periodic strikes among the coal miners, so much so that millions of people depending on them for their coal are unable to get it. Lord Milner said with respect to nationalization of the coal industry in Great Britain:
If, as is not unreasonable, so drastic a measure as the nationalization of all the coal mines is regarded as too great a leap in the dark, it seems a pity that the experiment should not be tried in a single coalfield sufficiently large to give it a fair chance of success.
The eternal controversy between the advocates of private and public ownership, whether of the mines or of any other great source of national wealth is never going to be settled by abstract arguments. Why should it be impossible to submit it to the test of fact?
Lord Milner adds his opinion that the conclusion an impartial student would draw from evidence given before the Coal Industry Commission would be that the present methods of producing and distributing coal are "neither economically sound nor socially beneficent. As long as they continue unchanged" said Lord Milner, "the agitation and unrest will also continue."
In view of all this the people in this country are becoming alarmed and are wondering if the day is not far distant when the 'people of Canada will control the oil reserves of the western provinces of Canada and have control over the coal mines also, nationalizing these basic products and using in their transport the National railways and the merchant marine. I may say to my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), who takes a great deal of interest in this question, as do all the members from the Maritime provinces, that we would like you all to come into Macedonia and help us in Ontario to solve this coal problem. You have magnificent resources down in the Maritime provinces, and you could bring your coal up the St. Lawrence to the cities of Ontario and on up through the Great Lakes, and the people of central Canada would welcome it. If there is one province more than another that admires the people of the Maritime provinces it is Ontario, because we appreciate what we owe in confederation and the war to the great Maritime provinces. I was very glad last year as a member of the

Canada's Coal Supply
Mines and Minerals committee to observe the activity of the members from the Maritime provinces in helping to solve this problem. With the western members they took a great deal of interest in it. I can assure the maritime members that if they will come up into Ontario and help us solve this problem they will get a right royal welcome.
I believe the ships of the merchant marine could help solve this problem. Those ships are scrapped to-day. One of them was sold not long ago for a sum requiring only a deposit of $25,000 to a private boat owner in Toronto and was put on carrying package freight between the Maritime provinces, Toronto and the head of the lakes, and in a short time it cleaned up a fabulous sum of money. During the winter months the owner took a cargo of manufactured goods from the big warehouses on Wellington street, Toronto, and had his boat go down the St. Lawrence and through the Panama canal, and it cleaned up from $45,000 to $50,000 on one trip, and on the return trip made as much again. I tried to pursuade our Harbour Commission in Toronto to utilize five or six of these ships to bring freight from the Maritime provinces and also coal up to Ontario. If they had done it, they would have made from two to three hundred per cent on the money invested, just as one private owner did. What was done by private ownership should have been done long ago by the National railways and the merchant marine, but instead, those ships are being sold and others of them are tied up doing nothing. They could have been used to bring maritime coal up to Toronto and the head of the lakes. I know that some of them cannot navigate the lakes on account of their draft. They would need their boilers and engines reconstructed perhaps for that particular class of freight, but that could be done. A great many of these ships were built at Port Arthur and Collingwood and could be so reconstructed that they could solve the coal problem between the Maritime provinces and the central provinces of Canada. Private individuals can show the way when it comes to using, the ships of the merchant marine for solving this problem.
I was sorry not to hear the Minister of Railways deny a statement that was made in a debate in this House the other day that the Canadian Merchant Marine has entered into the Atlantic combine for keeping up the rates and that they sat in to fix rates with the railways. I thought the object of the merchant marine was not only to act as a feeder for the
National railways, but to break up shipping combines; but instead of that they just sit in with the railways and keep up the rates. I am surprised that the merchant marine has not been used long ago to bring maritime coal up to the central provinces. The Canadian National Railways are spending millions of dollars for their own purposes. If a boat load of coal comes to Toronto from Wales the first man who is down at the dock is an agent of the Canadian National Railways, and he offers a high price for that coal instead of leaving it for the householders of Ontario. If the National Railways want coal for their railway and they use millions of dollars' worth, let them take the boats of the merchant marine which are tied up at the docks and utilize them in bringing that coal from Wales.
Ontario has no coal, and as a result we are dependent on outside sources, and on foreign nations. We are as a result at the mercy of striking miners and profiteering operators over whom we have no control. Coal shortages are sometimes due to strikes in the United States and to transportation difficulties. You will see very shortly an embargo put on coal by the United States government, either before the coming elections next fall or a little after, and Canada will be left to shift for itself. Experts say that the United States will run out of coal in thirty-five or forty years in view of the increased rate of consumption; in a few years the supply of anthracite coal will be exhausted, and we shall have to look elsewhere. Canada is spending $100,000,000 in the United States every year for coal. If that money was spent in Canada it would help our trade balance and help our transportation system. Alberta is strong on developing its own resources, just as the Maritime provinces are. We have the merchant marine and twenty thousand miles of National railways, and yet they have not solved the problem.
Summing up, Canada has one-sixth of the coal of the world. We ; can solve this coal problem. We have solved greater problems. Canada solved greater problems during the war. Why cannot Canadians solve our fuel problem? In conclusion, I wish to refer to the transportation feature of this question, because ninety-five per cent of the coal question is a question of transportation. Two committees of this House met last year, heard evidence and presented a report. That report has not been carried out in any particular. The Railway Commission have practically abdicated their functions under the Railway Act. They have allowed the railways to fix their own coal charges; they have never fixed a rate for Alberta coal or coal from the Maritime provinces. For that
Canada's Coal Supply

reason I wrote the following letter to the Hon. Mr. Carvell, Chairman of the Railway Commission, on October 11, 1923:
I wish to call the attention of your board to the excessive rates quoted for carrying coal from Alberta to Ontario and Central Canada by the Canadian National Railway and the discrimination in various rates quoted by this railway from time to time.
As coal is a necessity equal to food cannot your board under the Railway Act protect the public by going into this case and laying down a rate? Two select committees of the House went into this question last session and I am surprised that the Railway Commission have not long ago come to the help of the people of Central Canada by protecting them from such a camouflage rate of $9.00 per ton in train lots granted by the head of the National railways.
As I intend to raise this question again at the next session of parliament I write to find out if your board will enforce of their own volition the Railway Act against these excessive tolls.
Two or three months passed without a reply and the people of Canada were wondering whether there was any railway commission in Canada because there did not seem to be any likelihood that any adequate steps would be taken to protect them. They have been asking themselves the same question for two or three years past-whether there is really a railway commission in this country. If there is a railway commission why are not the railway companies summoned before it and compelled to cut their rates down to figures that would be in consonance with the actual costs and conditions. One would expect that the head of the National Railways of Canada would come to the assistance of the people in a matter like this which is of such urgent importance. But no, instead of coming to the people's relief Sir Henry Thornton fixes a rate and says "Here is the rate which has been laid down, it is the best I can do for you".
The reply of the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to the letter which I addressed to him did not come until late in October. The chief commissioner then wrote as follows:
Board of
Railway Commissioners for Canada
Ottawa, October 26, 1923.
Dear Mr. Church,-
On arriving here yesterday I found yours of the 11th, instant, which was acknowledged by my secretary. In reply I can only say that the rates on coal have been filed by the railway companies in the ordinary course of events and are presumed to be just and reasonable.
It is always open to any person to attack these or any other rates, however, according to the terms of the Railway Act; and if you wish to make an application to the board with the object of having a thorough investigation into the whole question of coal rates in Canada, the board will be only too glad to offer you every opportunity and assistance, and will provide for public hearings at as early a date as 
possible, at which all parties can be represented and an intelligent decision reached.
Sincerely yours,
F. B. Carvell,
Chief Commissioner.
Unfortunately I had not time to go into this question myself, so I made representations to the government of Ontario and the city of Toronto. As to the former I got very little satisfaction until the Ferguson government came into office, when an application was made to the Railway Commission to fix more equitable rates. Their grounds for doing so were:
The provincial government alleges that the rates filed by the railway companies with the board as tariff rates for transportation of such coal are excessive, and prevent the marketing of such coal in Ontario, and that Alberta and Nova Scotia coal is essential to and should be made available at reasonable and competitive prices for domestic and manufacturing purposes in Ontario, and such use would result in the profitable extension of the coal mining industry in Alberta and Nova Scotia.
The province also claims that rates covering transportation costs at a reasonable profit can be fixed at an amount which would enable and encourage the use of Alberta and Nova Scotia coal in Ontario, based on a rate for hauling during the year and for seasonal hauling from about March 1 to September 1, from Alberta and Nova Scotia to Ontario, and rates yearly and seasonal from Alberta to Fort William.
The province ask that the railway companies be directed to answer such interrogatories, giving information, as may be submitted by the applicants.
Now, the coal problem is not a problem for the private individual or for the provinces, it is one that the Dominion government should attack. The coal operators of the United States have adopted a policy of selling coal-and much of it of an inferior quality-to Canada at the highest prices. The province of Ontario is one of the greatest markets for coal on the continent to-day and it is time the federal government acted in this matter. No gov svnment, more particularly one owning such an enormous railway mileage and a merchant marine as well, should leave this question to be pressed by the provincial authorities or even by individuals. Look at what President Coolidge in the United States did when he first assumed office. He called the officials of the railway companies and the mine owners before him at the White House in Washington, and declared that unless they reduced their rates he would submit a measure to congress to control the situation. That is the kind of leader we want in this country. That is the kind of stand we want the government of this country to take. We want a government that will say to the people "We are going to adopt a national coal supply policy and we are going to carry it out. It shall no longer be the concern of the individual to

Canada's Coal Supply
look out for their supply of coal." Sir Henry Thornton has gone up and down this country quoting one railway tariff rate here, and another tariff rate there. I should like to know if Sir Henry Thornton is the court of last resort on this question, bearing in mind that we have a Railway Commission in this country that is empowered under the Railway Act to bring into force rates that are just and reasonable in the interests of the people. It is the duty of that commission to see that there is no unfair, unjust or undue discrimination between different localities on the part of the railways, but that the law shall be enforced so as to accord equality of treatment to all. That is not being done to-day. Sir Henry Thornton declares in an interview that the railway rates are not going to be reduced. How does he know that when there has been no proper determination or hearing of the case before the Railway Commission, and no adequate inquiry into railway charges and railway operations? The people of Canada are becoming very much alarmed when they see how railway rates are advancing and they are asking themselves whether we have any railway commission in this country at all, or is Sir Henry the commission of one?
Last year, in the month of July the Railway Association of Canada-which includes the Canadian Pacific Railway company and the Canadian National Railways-in one of their weekly pamphlets gave tnis intimation to the public:
Central Canada is, if course, completely dependent on the American coal fields for coal.
That is what a pamphlet sent out by the Railway Association of Canada said, with respect to our source of coal supply. They say virtually "You will have to continue getting your coal supply from the United States, and what do you propose to do about it?" That is practically what Sir Henry Thornton says. Let me quote further:
But worse than that, she is completely dependent on heavily burdened foreign railways to get that coal into cars and to get those cars away when loaded.
It is not just a matter of Canadians having money to pay for the coal.
The miners may strike again. Production may fall again! American home demand may increase again! There may be no coal!
And, even if the coal is ready to be shipped, cars to ship it in may be short next fall and winter.
If cars are available they will have to wait for the opportunity to be loaded.
Loaded, they may have to wait for engines to draw them away.
On the road they will face heavy traffic movement, snow storms, snow-plugged terminals and all the difficulties of fall and winter railway operation.
All of these factors menace Canada's fuel supply for next winter; possible mining strikes or lock-outs!
Lowered production! Increased American domestic demand! Car shortage in the United States! Rail congestion! Power shortage! Snow-storms!
I ask the question now: What is this parliament going to do about this question? The discussion of this subject last session led to a nationwide consideration of the problem The debate in the House, the proceedings before the Mines and Minerals committee, and the discussion in the Senate led to the question of the coal supply being considered everywhere from coast to coast. What we want is a national coal policy that will keep in Canada $100,000,000 we are now sending out, that will provide employment for the miners of the Maritime provinces and Alberta, that will keep Canadian work for Canadian workmen, that will retain our own markets for our own fuel. I believe that is the only policy for us to adopt. I do not say that such a policy can be worked out in a day or two. We may even have to continue to pay $15 or $16 a ton for our coal for a year or two longer. But if the government seriously considers this question and applies itself to the solution of the problem a definite and clearcut Canadian national policy can be reached. If we put an embargo on the export of pulpwood and power and make the American users of newsprint and power pay for it, we shall obtain enough revenue from these sources to take care of any increase in the cost of coal and solve the problem of its transportation. In formulating such a policy we are only following in the national policy path that was traced out by Sir John Macdonald and Sir J. P. Whitney. If we do as I suggest we shall devise a policy which will be truly national and which will help to safeguard Canadian industry and Canadian homes and make us a happier people-a policy of Canada for the Canadians our own home coal markets for our own coal and our own work for our own workmen.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland): I agree with the hon. member for North Toronto that this is probably one of the most important matters that could come before the House. In view of its importance-involving as it does the economic independence of Canada and perhaps even more than that- I regret that so few members are present and, incidentally, that several members of the government are absent. In my humble opinion this matter is of supreme importance and it has many ramifications. My hon. friend has gone into many of the questions involved, and has shown the urgent need of something being done. I think it was last year, when the Americans threatened to put an embargo

Canada's Coal Supply

on American coal coming into Canada, the people of Canada had an attack of "nerves;" but the incident only brought home to us our lack of wisdom in failing to make due provision for the wants of the people and of a great many industries of this country.
What are the conditions? In the Maritime provinces, it is estimated by those who are competent to know, that we have over 9,000,000,000 tons of bituminous coal. In the western country the amount in tons of coal is not measured in millions or billions, but in trillions. And yet we brought into this country last year, to keep the people warm and to' provide power for manufacturers more than 20,000,000 tons mined in the United States, produced by United States miners, hauled by Uqited States railroads and United States vessels.	-
Now, having stated the amount of coal we have imported, it might be well to suggest some ideas as to what can be done. There is no use talking about things unless we do something. Well, Mr. Speaker, one matter has been solved during the last year, and that is the production of coke from the bituminous coal of Canada, particularly the bituminous coals of the Maritime provinces. It has been demonstrated by the federal Mines department that coke of an equal heat-producing quality as anthracite can be produced from our bituminous coal. It has been further demonstrated that it takes one and a half tons of our bituminous coal to produce a ton of coke. Therefore, the first proposition, to my mind for this government to get busy over is the question as to what we shall do to increase the production of coke. Does it ever occur to you that if we could eliminate the importation of 5,000,000 tons of anthracite into this country-and that is the amount which came in last year-it would mean the use in coke production of 7,500,000 tons of bituminous coal in the production of that coke? Even that alone would mean an increase in the production of coal in Canada of nearly 50 per cent. It would mean the employment of thousands of miners, and the paying out of a very large amount of money for the increased production.
There are many problems involved in the production of coke. It is an expensive operation. I am informed on good authority that to put up a proper coke plant in the city of Montreal-and by the way it is almost a necessity to build coking plants in large centres in order to dispose of the by-products such as gas, and so forth-to take care of the coke requirements of Ontario and Quebec would cost about $5,000,000. Well that is a
IMr. Logan.]
large amount of money, but we lost last year, Mr. Speaker, in exchange alone according to figures which I will read later on in buying American coal, the sum of $2,771,262, according to the rate of exchange which has predominated in this country for the last three months. If we even took the money we are throwing away and used it to build coking plants in the country, wTe would have gone a long way in solving the problem. Suggestions are made that we should guarantee the bonds- of a company, or companies who undertake the work, if we do not desire to make it a government operation. It is also suggested there should be a bonus paid upon the production of coke per ton. These are matters which are well worthy our consideration and the consideration of the government.
Then what is the second great problem in reference to the coal question? It is transportation. We cannot transport coal from Cape Breton to, Montreal at $4.80 a ton, or from Alberta to Toronto at $12 a ton and compete with American coal in Ontario and Quebec. That is a self-evident fact. I do not agree that the customs price of coal coming into this country last year is the proper value; but the value they put on coal bituminous and run of mine coal, coming into the country from the United States last year, was $3.30 per ton.


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. gentleman says that we cannot transport coal from Cape Breton at $4.80 per ton. Does that mean by water?


Mr. LOGAN:: That is by rail. We cannot transport it to Montreal and compete with American coal successfully, at that rate. As I said our friends cannot transport it from Alberta at $12 a ton. But coal was transported from Nova Scotia to Montreal six years ago for $1.60 per ton.


John Livingstone Brown: By rail also?


Hance James Logan: Yes. The rate six or seven years ago was $1.60 from Springhill, Nova Scotia to Montreal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What is it now?


Hance James Logan: It is about $3.60. This
matter was taken up by the Mines committee last session. As my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) knows, we called a great many persons as witnesses. We called the officials of the railroads, we called the freight officials of the Canadian National Railways and we called the Canadian Pacific officials. But we did not get very far. We made a report, I think a very good report, which was brought down to this

Canada's Coal Supply
House about the last day or two of the session. That report has not been acted upon. What was disclosed in that committee? It was disclosed in the first place that officials of the Canadian National Railways had consulted with officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway before they came near the committee. But some independent witnesses came before that committee. One was Mr. M. J. Butler, formerly Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, a man who has occupied some of the biggest positions in Canada, at one time being general manager of the Dominion Coal Company at Sydney and afterwards general manager of the Armstrong-Whitworth Company, a man now living in retirement in Ontario. He made certain statements which, I think, should be considered seriously by the government. He said, to begin with: "We must eliminate the 'know it cannot be done' type. Let us also eliminate the traffic officers who are making rates predicated upon using small cars, or weak locomotives with small trainloads, or mixed train loads with a few cars of coal to fill up the tonnage."
It is, I think, clear that the problem is one that demands that equipment from beginning to end shall be adequate to handle the traffic at the lowest possible cost. The problem, as was demonstrated last year, is one of equipment. We cannot carry coal from the Alberta mines down to Toronto, or coal from Nova Scotia to central Canada, in old, broken-down cars, with small engines, and mixed trains of that character. The only way in which we can deal with the problem, which is a national problem, is to provide equipment by which coal can be brought from Alberta and from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the central provinces in trains built for the purpose of carrying coal. In other words, let us adopt as regards coal the same kind of transportation we have for wheat. Wheat could never be economically transported to the seaboard if you had one car filled with wheat, another filled with iron and another filled with groceries. Wheat is brought east from western Canada in solid trains.
This matter is so important that it behooves the government to get busy in regard to securing proper equipment to carry coal from the West and from the Maritime provinces to central Canada. I am not going to weary the House by going through the evidence taken before the Mines committee except to say that Mr. Butler concluded by quoting from rates paid on roads on which there is proper equipment. For instance, he cited the Virginia railway, and he was able to set before the committee that, instead of 54i
its costing $12 a ton to carry coal from Edmonton to Toronto, the actual cost, if we had the proper equipment, would not exceed $4.57. Those figures have not yet been proven to be untrue. What is to be done about this? In addressing this House a few weeks ago in' the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I threw out the suggestion that the government should appoint a commission; that Mr. Butler be made chairman of it; that there be on that commission one man from the East and one from the West

Mr. Butler is from central Canada- that they be allowed to visit the Virginia railway, the Chesapeake and Ohio, the Illinois Central and other railway companies that have proper equipment for carrying coal, and that carry it at such a low rate, and that they come back and show us, not what the freight tariff should be, but the actual cost of carrying coal in a properly equipped train. I again urge that that policy be adopted by the government. I am not attacking any railway officials, but naturally they want to defend the old rate paid on the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. What I want to know, what I think this House wants to know and what, I believe, this country demands to know, is the actual cost of carrying coal in Canada provided we have proper equipment for carrying it. So much for the transportation question.
Let me now hurry on to consider one or two other matters which, I think, are of some interest in reference to this coal question.


Mr. McBRIDE:: What did Mr. Butler 6ay this equipment would cost, and what would be the expense of increasing the strength of bridges in order to carry that equipment?


Hance James Logan: I have no statement by
Mr. Butler in reference to cost of equipment. In fact, he distinctly said, in the evidence which he gave before us last year, that he did not give an estimate of the cost. There is no doubt the cost would be heavy, but the object to be attained is stupendous. We cannot go on fooling with this question. We might as well try to put out a conflagration with a garden hose as endeavour to deal with this matter with the present equipment and under the present system.
I have referred briefly to coke and to transportation. Before closing-and this will be the last part of my remarks,-I propose to deal with my good friends who often twit us in eastern Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia, with the statement that we have a wonderful protective tariff on coal. Since
Canada's Coal Supply

speaking in this House a few weeks ago, I have devoted some attention to preparing a statement in order to get the actual facts This is a statement of imports of coal entered for consumption in Canada and customs duties collected thereon during the calendar year, 1923, and I think, before I have finished, you will see that there is not a protective tariff on coal. The Fielding tariff amounted to 53 cents a ton on bituminous coal, but coal at that time was worth only $2.20 a ton,
and this specific duty has remained the same ever since in spite of the increased cost of production. This statement will show we are a long way from having the tariff on coal that we had even ten or fifteen years ago. It will be observed the ad valorem rate which is given is computed on the value placed on the product by the Customs department and not the value at which it sells In Canada. The statement is as follows:
Statement of Imports of Coal entered for consumption in Canada and Customs Duty collected thereon during the Calendar
Year 1923
Item	Country	Tons	Customs Value	Customs Value per ton	Duty	Amount of duty collected	Rate ad val.%	$	$ ct.	p.c.Coal, anthracite, grate, egg, stove, nut and pea.	United Kingdom. United States	240,319 4,514,355	2,504,243 42,693,159	$10 42 9 46	Free	4,754,674	45,197,402	9 50	Coal, anthracite, n.o.p., buckwheat, rice and barley.	United Kingdom. United States	21,356 389,352	163,739 1,096,821	7 67 2 82	Free	410,708	1,260,560	3 07	
Total imports anthracite		5,165,382	46,457,962	9 19			
							
Coal, bituminous, slack, such as will pass through a f inch screen.	United Kingdom. United States	221,119 3,667,511	876,328 9,510,860	3 97 2 59	10c. per ton 14c. "	22,111 90 513,451 54	2-6 5-43,888,630	10,387,188	2 93	535,563 44	5-2Coal, bituminous, round, and run of the mine and coal, n.o.p.	United Kingdom.	89,776 4	436,493 85	4 86	35c. "	31,422 14 2 12	7-2140	750	53c. "	74 20	United States	11,843,690	39,074,583	3 30	53c. "	6,277,155 70	16-0611,933,610	39,511,911	3 31	6,308,654 16	16
Total Imports Bituminous		15,822,240	49,899,099	3 15		6,844,217 60	13-72
							
		20,987,622	96,357,061	4 59		6,844,217 60	7-1
							
Customs value on coal imported from United States	S 92,375,423
Loss by exchange depreciation at present average rate	 2,771,262
Customs value on coal imported from United States	S 92,375,423
Loss by exchange depreciation at present average rate	 2,771,262
Mr. CARROLL Are the figures which the hon. member has submitted carried up to the last of December, 1923?


Hance James Logan: Yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to losing almost $3,000,000 in exchange, the whole balance of trade was upset. It is a question whether, if we had not imported $92,000,000 worth of American coal, our money would not have been at par during the whole year. If we had had par money, apart from the coal altogether, if we take other importations from the United States, we find that we could have saved in exchange during the last year some $15,000,000 which was virtually thrown away; and that, added to what we have lost by way of exchange in connection with our coal imports, represents a total loss to this country in this

respect of $18,000,000 in one year. When any man says this is not an important matter, I say it is the most important that could come before parliament during this session, because it involves not only the problem of our coal supply but the whole question of the country's trade.
Let me refer to the history of this coal tariff. Away back in 1880 there was a duty of 50 cents a ton on all coal, anthracite and bituminous. In 1887, for some reason which I have never been able to learn, the duty was taken off what is sometimes called the rich man's coal, but what at any rate is the coal of the well-to-do, while the duty was left on bituminous coal. So that since 1887 there has not been one single dollar paid in duty on anthracite coal coming into Canada. As I have shown, we imported into this country

Canada's Coal Supply
last year $46,000,000 worth of anthracite. A poor man buys a suit of clothes and if it is imported from the United States he has to pay 35 per cent duty upon it, but the wealthier people of the country can buy American coal and bring it into Canada without paying any duty whatever. We need a vast amount of money to carry on the affairs of the country. We all know we are taxed to about the limit; we all know how irksome are the sales tax and the income tax. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, any reason under the light of heaven why we should not impose a duty upon anthracite coal to secure revenue if for no other reason.
Let me trace the history of the duty on bituminous coal. A specific duty of 53 cents per ton was placed on bituminous large coal and of 14 cents a ton on bituminous small or slack coal imported from the United States, importations from Great Britain being entitled to a preference of 33 J per cent. When the duty of 14 cents was placed on slack coal, this coal was considered to be of very little value. At that time you could buy millions of tons of slack coal in the United States at about 60 cents a ton. But owing to improved methods of using it and a greater demand, I find that slack coal from the United States is now given a customs value of $2.59 per ton, or only 71 cents less than the customs value of round coal. And yet this slack coal is paying a duty of 14 cents a ton, or less than 5i per cent ad valorem while round coal is paying a duty of 53 cents per ton or about 16 per cent ad valorem.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I think our tariff not only in reference to coal but in reference to a mighty lot of other commodities needs scientific revision, because of the many incongruous and ridiculous features now prevailing in it. At the United States mines facilities are provided for taking out the slack, and about 50 per cent of the bituminous coal imported comes in as slack coal and pays only 14 cents a ton. But it is a well-known fact that the slack is mixed with the other coal after arriving in Canada and sold as run-of-mine coal, the Customs department being defrauded of the difference in duty. Yet nothing is done to stop this fraud. The practice has been going on for years. I submit, at the present time, there is no reason why slack coal should not pay the same amount as bituminous large coal. When the duty 53 cents was put upon bituminous coal by Mr. Fielding, it meant at the then price a tariff of about 25 per cent ad valorem. I am not asking to-day for a return to such an ad valorem duty, but I do advocate that we should place bituminous coal of all
kinds and descriptions on the same basis, which would put a stop to the fraud now practised. When we have the prices so near together, we might very well impose a duty of at least 20 per cent ad valorem, and even then we would be below the tariff established by Mr. Fielding over twenty years ago.


James Alexander Robb: What would that be per ton on to-day's value?


Hance James Logan: Sixty-six cents a ton.


Mr. WHITE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is in favour of a 20 per cent duty on agricultural implements?


Hance James Logan: I am discussing the subject of an independent coal policy in order that we may not have to rely upon outside sources for our industrial and domestic fuel, so there is no use trying to drag a herring across the trail about what we are going to do to assist another great natural industry, namely, agriculture. A 20 per cent ad valorem duty would mean, according to the customs value of our coal imports last year, 66 cents a ton if it were specific, or an increase of 13 cents a ton. This would mean an annual tax of only
5 p.m. $1.95 a year on imported coal to a man using fifteen tons for his domestic requirements. If he should use Canadian coal even if the price were advanced 13 cents a ton, he would keep in Canada $49.50 a year most of which would be wages.
If a 20 per cent duty were put on American anthracite, with a preference of 33J per cent in favour of Welsh anthracite, it would mean an increased revenue, based on last year's importations, of over $9,000,000, or a total increase, at 20 per cent on all coal anthracite and bituminous, of $12,286,272. But some one may say, "Oh, well 20 per cent is too high a tariff on anthracite coal." It would mean an increase in the price to-day, according to the customs value, of $1.85 a ton.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Might 1
be permitted to ask this question: Supposing you establish this tariff duty, it would be for the purpose of excluding American coal, I take it; if so, where would the revenue come from?


Hance James Logan: It would not be an entirely excluding tariff, I am trying to demonstrate that if we continue importing coal we will secure a vast amount of revenue by this readjustment and we will put a stop to fraud. Of course, everybody knows that incidentally under a tariff for revenue there is a certain amount of protection to the industry itself; there is no doubt about that. But if it is
Canada's Coal Supply

considered that a duty of 20 per cent on anthracite coal is too high, let me suggest to the Minister of Finance and to the government that they could at least put a duty of 50 cents a ton on this fuel of the well-to-do. This would mean on last year's importations found revenue of $2,500,000. What would it mean to the consumer? If he uses fifteen tons in the year it would mean an extra cost to him of $7.50.
These are some of the suggestions I desire to make in regard to the tariff. It was unfortunate, I submit, that when Mr. Fielding imposed the duty he did not make it ad valorem. It was placed at a specific rate per ton. As I said before, it was equivalent tc about 25 per cent ad valorem at that time. Surely now when we need revenue ten times more than we needed it then, we can put a duty of 20 per cent on bituminous coal and a duty of at least 50 cents a ton on anthracite coal. By so doing we would assist in stabilizing our coal industry, assist in raising revenue, and in establishing that national coal policy which is so dear to the hearts of many of us. We have in Nova Scotia vast coal measures, but last year when we were bringing nearly $100,000,000 worth of coal from the United States to Canada five or six of our collieries down there were absolutely idle. Why? Simply because there was no market for their coal.
I only wish to repeat in closing what I said in opening. This is a matter of stupendous importance to the Dominion and deserves the attention of a full House. At the same time it deserves the most serious attention of the government, because there is a feeling throughout the country that we should be independent of the United States in respect to our fuel supply. We are dependent upon them at the present time; there is no doubt about it. Let us get down to business and see if we cannot work out a policy which will ensure our coal supply independence, and at the same time bring a tremendous amount of prosperity to Canada and add very little, if anything, to the cost of consumers. Because, I submit, if we can increase our production of coal, if we could make it possible for a mine to produce two thousand tons a day where it is now producing only six or seven hundred tons, we could in a very short time bring about a reduction in the price of our coal. One of the reasons for the present high price is the lack of a market for the production of our mines, with the resultant heavy overhead, which, of course, is reflected in the price of the commodity.
(Mr. Logan.]


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I heard the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) say some time ago that he did not want to hear anything more about protection on coal, but he seems to have a warm heart for it after all.
I hope this motion will not pass in its present form, or that if it does pass a very different interpretation will be put on the term "national policy" than that which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has given it. Like other "national policies" of which we have heard, it is conceived only in the interests of one section of Canada, and that is th? Hast. It is the old story again: East is East and the West is forgotten. It is a peculiar commentary upon the widespread differences there are in Canada and how difficult it is to evolve a policy which shall be just to them all, when we find the hon. member for Cumberland saying that the mines in his district are being shut down for lack of more protection on coal, and I can say the same thing of the mines in my part of the country, but due to the fact that we have protection on coal. I have in my hand a cutting from a local newspaper. It is a year old, but the point is the same:
Comox mine No. 5 ceased operations on Saturday. This mine gave employment to over three hundred men and produced over one thousand tons of coal pei day. We understand the reason given for the closing down of this mine is the depression in the coal trade caused by the tremendous importation of foreign fuel oil.
And also, I might add, because our market in the United States is reduced by the fact that there is a duty on bituminous coal going into the United States.
I might explain, as perhaps a good many members of this House do not appreciate it, that there are three classes of coal, bituminous, ' lignite and anthracite, and we have in the United States tariff the only real suggestion of reciprocity there is in existence between the two countries, and that is, not a promise, not a suggestion, but an absolute feature of the law, that when Canada puts a tax, not on coal but on any one of these particular classes of coal, the United States retaliates by a similar tax on that class of coal going into the United States. If Canada takes off or reduces that duty, automatically, without legislation, a corresponding reduction is made in the United States duty. There is no duty on anthracite coal coming into Canada. There is no duty on lignite coming into Canada, the duty being taken off last year in order to help the people of Alberta to ship their coal into the United States under this

Canada's Coal Supply
reciprocity arrangement; but there is a duty, as my hon. friend from Cumberland has said, of 53 cents a ton on bituminous coal coming into Canada to help the coal mines of the Maritime provinces. The result is that when we ship our bituminous coal, and we mine a lot of coal on Vancouver Island, to the only large market we have, that is the United States, we are confronted with this reciprocity duty of 53 cents a ton. So if we could get free trade in coal, the mines in British Columbia would be much assisted, the very opposite condition to that presented by my hon. friend from Cumberland.
We are also in the peculiar position that we would be happy and satisfied if this government or parliament would give us either free trade or protection-we do not care which it is. If we had protection against fuel oil, then we would not mind the 53 cents a ton duty on coal. But if they will not give us that then we are out for free trade and taking off the 53 cents a ton on bituminous coal entering Canada, because that will give us a good market for our coal in the United States. If this were done, we would not have the condition I have depicted of our mines being idle for three or four days a week.
I would like while on this subject to remind the government, because it is reminding them, they have often been told it before, of the conditions in connection with our Canadian government ships on the Pacific ocean. Comox coal, which is situated in the district I represent, is absolutely the best coal for steaming purposes that can be got on the Pacific ocean. This is no member's eulogy of his own riding at all. I have under my hand here the results of a drastic and long-continued test made by the United States government, which is not likely to be sympathetic to alien coal, and the result is this: They find that the Comox coal of which I am talking is thirty-six per cent better for steaming purposes than any other coal on the Pacific ocean. Now that is the decision arrived at by the United States navy under very careful conditions. They had no axe to grind in favour of one mine over another, and after a drastic test they say that Comox coal for steaming purposes is thirty-six per cent better than any other steam coal on the Pacific ocean. I know that when the British fleet was stationed at Esquimalt, they used to keep quite a large fleet there, they invariably used Comox steaming coal because they recognized its superiority in that regard. Yet what do we find? We find our own Canadian government boats passing up that mine on some trivial pretext of one kind or another.
It is too far away, they say. It means two hours extra steaming for a boat that is going to Australia. Two hours would not make much difference on a trip to Australia, surely, when the coal is thirty-six per cent superior for steaming purposes. These are some of the, I was going to say childish, absurd reasons given. Another one is that it is too dear. It is not too dear for the Canadian Pacific Railway, it is not too dear for the Dollar Company, both very large shipping concerns who are supposed to be very good business men; but it is too dear apparently for our government ships to buy our own coal, mined by Canadians, by Canadian machinery. It is a reproach, I think I might use almost a harsher word, but I will let it go at that, to our government that they do not patronize this coal.
I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that if this resolution goes through in its present form, the government in its interpretation of it will take a somewhat broader and bigger view of the term "national policy" than was evidently intended by the hon. member who introduced this motion.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of Mines):: Mr. Speaker, I do not
de,sire to enter into a controversy as to whether or not a duty should be placed upon coal, because that is somewhat out of my province, but if the mover of the resolution (Mr. Church) is correct in his premises and coal is a food then, as a member of this government, I am afraid I would have to be opposed to an increased duty. I think in fairness to the House something ought to be said of the investigations carried on by the Mines branch with reference to this very important question.
Let me say at the outset that I for one would be delighted to see Canada independent of any other country so far as fuel is concerned, I think in all probability the time will come when we shall be independent of other countries for our fuel supply. It is unnecessary to point to the fact that in British Columbia they have an ample supply of coal for their own needs. Alberta has to-day opened up mines sufficient to supply the needs of Canada without opening up a single other mine in that province, and if all the mines in Alberta were working full time they alone could supply all the coal necessities of Canada. Nova Scotia too, is quite capable of supplying all Canada's fuel needs, or at all events from the central part of Ontario eastward. So the question of an adequate supply is settled in so far as this resource being within our own borders is concerned.
Canada's Coal Sup-ply

As former speakers have well said, the fuel problem is a question of transportation because the apathy and even antipathy of the people of Ontario and of the western central part of Canada to the lignite coals of Alberta has been overcome. Investigation and trial of the Alberta fuel has proved beyond question that it is a fuel that compares favourably with anthracite. The people like it, and are willing to use it, and there is no question about the ability of Alberta to supply it. So the problem resolves itself into a question of transportation, and transportation alone.
My hon. friends from Nova Scotia have pointed out that with proper equipment the transportation costs can be greatly reduced, and I am inclined to agree with them. Many of you will remember that shipments were made at $7 a ton, and the coal came forward in a good state and people were well satisfied with it. I think I am safe in saying that the experiment was a decided success. With respect to the duty the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has just pointed out that it worked adversely so far as that province was concerned, and we had brought to our attention a few days ago a case in which American coal entering British Columbia was coming in under the name of "subbituminous". Owing to the definition the coal was coming in free, but a better understanding was arrived at.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to correct the minister. The coal referred to was coming in as lignite, and therefore coming in free. It should have come in as sub-bituminous when it would have been liable to a duty.


Charles A. Stewart: At all events the point is that the quality of the coal was not properly set out, and therefore the importation came in free. But we must pay some attention to the fact that we have a reciprocal arrangement with respect to the United States in regard to the import and export of coal. By adding the word "lignite" to the various grades and names of coal, we have been able to export a very considerable amount from the mines of southern Alberta into the adjacent states south of the boundary line. I am in hopes that that importation will increase because the territory importing is very close to the source of supply.
With respect to the fuel situation in Canada it may be resolved into a problem of this character: There is no acute fuel area from Winnipeg westward. There is no acute fuel area from Ottawa eastward. There is no doubt at the present moment that Alberta can compete successfully with any competitor as far as Winnipeg. There is no doubt that Nova 
Scotia can compete successfully with any competitor as far westward as Montreal, and I think even as far as this city. There is no problem in so far as the Alberta fuel is concerned; the antipathy to the Alberta fuel is removed. Neither is there any antipathy with respect to the Nova Scotia fuel. With respect to the American fuel we began an investigation this year in the Mines department, and under the Fuel Board, applicable to what we designate as "the acute fuel area of Canada", and what do we find? We find that about four and a half million tons of anthracite coal are coming into this portion of Canada. We know also that in all probability that supply will, within ten or fifteen years, be cut off and hence a good deal of agitation has arisen. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous supply of bituminous coal in the United States-indeed it is one of the problems we have to face- lying right along the boundaries of Canada within three or four hundred miles of the central portion of Ontario. There are tremendous coal fields there and for the next two hundred years they may be the source of supply of a great part of the United States and of this portion of Canada. I should like to see that shut out, but we will have to remember, in a discussion of this matter, that the part of the United States referred to will always be a lively competitor in the Canadian market. But in order to protect the domestic user in this area against the day when he will be denied anthracite we have carried on an investigation in the coking of bituminous coal, and while it has been conducted in the laboratories of the government here with successful results, we have had an opportunity of trying it in a commercial way in the new plant recently constructed at Hamilton. To that new plant we brought from Nova Scotia several carloads of their coking coal and put them through an experiment. We found that by a slight mixture the Nova Scotia product is equal to, even if it does not actually excel, the anthracite product of the United States, and that there is no difficulty with respect to the coking of that coal.


Mr. HUGHES:: Was that slack coal?


Charles A. Stewart: No that was run of mine coal from Nova Scotia, from the Springliill mines I think; I have forgotten the exact locality. However, the experiment was eminently successful. In the case of the American product, the Hamilton plant can place on the market a product, one ton of which is equal to a ton of anthracite, and which has a lower ash content, at $10 a ton, plus distribution costs. I am

Canada's Coal Supply
not going into the reason why coking plants should be established in the cities of Canada; the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has dealt with that aspect of the question. Suffice it to say it will be necessary that these plants be established in centres where there is a large population in order that the by-products may be used successfully and give an adequate return because when that is the case, it is possible to have a cheapening of the product. As I say, it is possible to have bituminous coal paying a duty of 53 cents a ton manufactured into fuel at $10 a ton which has an equal value to anthracite coal for which $16.50 is being paid to-day in the acute area of Ontario. Add $3 to this price if you like and you still have an advantage of $3.50 over the price of the anthracite.
Now, a word as to the chances for Nova Scotia coal. I was told the other day-not by one of our own officers but by an officer of t'he British Empire Steel and Coal Company-that they can place their coal by the water route in Hamilton at $6 a ton. That is exactly what coal costs the Hamilton plant to-day-$1.75 to $2 a ton at the pit mouth plus transportation, plus the duty, and landed at the plant in Hamilton. I am not arguing that there should not be a duty, I am leaving that to one side. I simply give you the facts as disclosed by our investigation. It would be impossible for coal from Nova Scotia to compete successfully with the American product in Montreal where an all rail rate has to be paid.


Arthur Meighen: Did the minister make
the statement that coal could be transported from Nova Scotia to Hamilton at $6 a ton by rail?


Charles A. Stewart: No by the
all-water route. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that I was not speaking of the rail route. In the case of all-rail transportation it would be difficult for Nova Scotia coal to compete with American coal in the market of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: At what price is the
coal, which the minister states has been transported to Hamilton for $6 a ton, selling for in Nova Scotia?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give my right hon. friend the pit mouth figures; I have not got them. I simply say that was a statement made to me by an official of the Empire Steel Corporation- that run of mine fit for coking could be
landed on the docks at Hamilton for $6 per ton.


Arthur Meighen: I am told it does not
sell for that at wholesale in Nova Scotia.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know what the price is in Nova Scotia. The difficulty lies in rail transportation not particularly in water carriage. I may say that the statement referred to came about in a discussion as to the advantages that would accrue to the Nova Scotia mines if the projected St. Lawrence improvement took place, and then it was pointed out that coal could be carried at the rate mentioned at the present moment. That is the situation at all events in so far as the coking problem at Hamilton is concerned.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What amount of
coke would be available in Hamilton?


Charles A. Stewart: Just the
other day I had a letter from the plant manager in which he stated that they were not running it full time, but I would have to get the figures-I would not like to give them offhand-as to the amount turned out by the plant daily or monthly. I will get them after dinner.


Edward Joseph Garland: What type
of boat and tonnage would the hon. minister suggest would be used to transport the coal from Nova Scotia to Hamilton? What would be the size and the coal capacity?


Charles A. Stewart: All I can say is that cheap transportation on the Great Lakes is possible by the use of whale-back vessels that carry wheat. A vessel adapted to carry wheat successfully lends itself to the carrying of coal, and1 one of the advantages perhaps, if there are advantages in the improvement of the St. Lawrence, is that these large whale-backs could go down the Great Lakes, unload at Montreal or Quebec, bring back coal from Sydney and vicinity, deliver it to the ports along lakes Ontario and Erie and handle it at a very cheap rate. Undoubtedly, by having a cargo both ways, it would lessen the rates, because one of the difficulties always met with in regard to grain rates and stock rates was the fact that empties had to be brought back on every occasion. It was the back haul empty that caused the high rate on one-way haulage, and that condition prevails in reference to our coal in the West. We have to face that difficulty. The tonnage is all eastward instead of westward and that cuts into the rate both ways.
Canada's Coal Supply

In connection with investigating this matter I thought that if the boats laden with grain unloaded1 at Quebec and Montreal, they might very well slip down to the mouth of the river and bring back the coal, which would lessen transportation costs both ways.
With respect to the tolls on railways, the difficulty is with the westward haul. My hon. friend pointed out that one of the difficulties would be the increased freight rates. Another difficulty is the increased rate at the pit mouth for the product itself. At the moment the American mines are selling coal for $2 a ton; this creates terrific competition, and I fear that it would require a much greater increase in duty than suggested by my hon. friend to keep the coal out of the market.
The other matter I wish to speak about is that of our investigation into the peat bogs.


Hance James Logan: Will the hon. gentleman state where they are selling coal for $2 a ton and what the class of coal is?


Charles A. Stewart: Run-of-mine coal at all the central Illinois mines is being sold to-day at $1.75 a ton. That is the lowest rate that has existed for a number of years. They offer to sell large quantities of coal at that rate. That is one reason why we find bituminous coal coming west to Winnipeg for the first time in five or six years. The very low rate for coal at the pit mouth in the United States to-day accounts for that.
One matter I wish to touch upon briefly is our investigation into the utilization of peat for fuel. Prior to my taking office in the Mines department this work was carried to a stage where it was simply a development of machinery, and one of the requests in the report of the committee last year was that the matter be carried to a conclusion. We think we have reached a conclusion and developed machinery that will manufacture peat on a profitable basis at about $3.50 a ton f.o.b. Peat will have to be used within at most, a hundred miles of the vicinity in which it is manufactured, because it is a bulky and light product and entails a high freight rate. But it has been proved that it is good fuel for fall and spring, and the early stages of winter, as a substitute for coal.
Anthracite is the coal which it will replace for these particular seasons. The government of Ontario and the federal government have arranged for a company to take over the plant at Alfred, where we have been manufacturing fuel, and to run it as a commercial enterprise. All the machinery is developed, they know exactly how to go about it, and we expect

they will make a success of the undertaking, and will supply a fairly large quantity of fuel for consumption in eastern Ontario. Needless to say throughout the whole of central Ontario there are adequate peat bogs that can be developed, and a great deal of this fuel can be used as a substitute for coal.
Something was said with respect to power. Let me say, speaking particularly of the Ontario and Quebec regions, that the development of water power will go a long way to assist in solving the fuel problem. It has done so at present, and the development of waterpower will relieve the situation to a large extent throughout this portion of Canada. With that object in view, we have been making, in the Interior department and the Power branch, extensive investigation into the probabilities of power development, so that we will have accurate information for those who are desirous of developing those powers for the manufacture of electricity in order to a large extent to replace fuel that is used for various purposes of manufacture.


Charles Marcil: We have had a very interesting report recently of an investigation carried on by a commission under Mr. R. A. Ross of Montreal, at Bienfait, Saskatchewan, in regard to briquetting the lignite there. I know this gentleman has given a great deal of study to the question, and he seems to indicate in the report of this commission that the matter has now been brought to a point where it can be carried on successfully. Will the minister give us some information on that?


Charles A. Stewart: I am very glad the hon. member has brought that question to my attention. I had forgotten it for the moment. It is not the first time this question has been mentioned in the House. Some years ago a committee was appointed to investigate the possibilities of briquetting the output of the low grade mines at Bienfait. A considerable amount of investigation has been carried on. A very large plant has been built, and experiments have been carried on at this plant up to a certain point, on the basis of what had been learned in the laboratories here at Ottawa. A carbonizer had been installed in the plant there, which seemed to work very successfully. It was placed outdoors, just outside of the buildings at the experimental plant of the laboratories of the Mines branch; but when it was tried on a commercial scale at Bienfait it proved to be a complete failure. Not only that, but the machinery that was selected and adopted for the briquetting fuel there was also a failure.

Canada's Coal Supply
At one time the three governments participating, the federal and the two provincial governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, were on the point of quitting the experiment altogether. But just about that time at the University of Dakota they discovered a car-bonizer known as the Hood-O'Dell, that seemed to work very satisfactorily. It is true they were not taking care of the by-products, -for there are by-products in the manufacture of this material, the same as in others- but it seemed to carbonize very satisfactorily. The officials of the Mines branch and of this committee investigated this carbonizer and they decided to try it out. We built it at the plant at Bienfait, erected it practically of the same dimensions with some changes, experimented with it for a period of six months, and it turned out to be an entire success. It is true that further investigations may create some savings in the by-products, but the carbonizer does the charring of the coal perfectly at a minimum of cost. So far as discoveries go in the United States, or Germany, or Belgium, where experiments are being carried on with these low grade fuels, this carbonizer seems to be the best that has been so far evolved.
After working for this period of time on the charring of the product, they discovered that, their briquetting outfit was not of a character that would lend itself to the briquetting of the fuel. I think there is in the report some indication that the minister and the Mines department have not always been quite in accord with the committee, and if we disagreed about any one thing, it was this: We insisted most emphatically that in the experimental stages all that should be done was to prove the experiment; that we should not attempt in a commercial way to manufacture the product; that we should first endeavour to prove by experiment that the coal could be charred and briquetted before we entered into the purchase of machinery and the construction of a plant on a commercial scale. Outside of that, I think we have been going along very harmoniously. When we discovered that the briquetting machine was not of a character that would lend itself to the briquetting of the fuel, I asked them: Would it not be wise to ship to the university three different grades of our char and have it briquetted in a machine that was patented and set up for the purpose of doing this work? That was done. We have the product back in Canada and the experiment has been a splendid success. The fuel is a free-burning fuel, and the whole experiment, I think, can be said to be successful as regards the briquetting of this low grade lignite fuel. I advocate that it is not the purpose of the government to carry on an experiment to the point where its commercial possibilities are thoroughly proved. If you have the experiment carried out, you know how the thing is done; you have the machinery perfected that will do it. Then private enterprise has all the information required to make the manufacture of this product a success. I am afraid, however, that the cost involved in the manufacture of the briquettes is so great that, at the moment, it will not compete successfully with western lignite coals that are offered on the market at any considerable distance from the plant, but within reasonable distances of the plant, where transportation rates are not too great, there is no doubt that a plant at Bienfait can operate and compete successfully.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister made a mistake. He said that it would not compete with lignite coal that is being offered. He meant American coal?


Charles A. Stewart: No, Alberta coal.


Arthur Meighen: We do not care whether it competes with Alberta coal or not.


Charles A. Stewart: I was merely mentioning, in passing, that the cost of manufacture made it . difficult for it to compete with lignite coal coming from Alberta. I was not raising any question .whether it should compete or not. The cost of manufacture at the moment is somewhere about $11 a ton, and with transportation rates on top of that within 600 miles, say, of the Alberta mines where coal could be delivered for probably about $10 a ton, it would not enter into competition.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister any information as to the quantity of peat that can be manufactured now for burning by the machinery on hand, and as to how many years the supply of that peat will last? I think the estimate was given last year in the- Mines committee that the supply would last for only a very few years.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it is estimated that the Holland Landing deposits alone would last for fifty years, if we compute the ordinary supplies for Ontario, and there are peat bogs in all parts of Ontario, as my hon. friend is aware.


Arthur Edward Ross: The question as to how long the supply will last depends upon the quantity you can manufacture in a year.
Canada's Coal Supply


Charles A. Stewart: It is a little difficult to say what quantity can be manufactured in a year because drying conditions vary. In a wet year a plant would certainly not turn out two-thirds as much peat as it would in a dry year. The peat has to be air-dried. It is spread upon the ground and dried in the sun. Again I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the exact figures; I will get them for him.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister
understand that if a season is very wet, we might have none at all?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think there would be any season when you would not have any supplies at all. One other matter that I wish to speak about, contained in the report, is the suggestion that was made to the committee by an engineer in this city, Mr. Graham, I believe, who has been continuously desirous of getting his scheme tested out by the department. We gave this gentleman an opportunity this year to test out his scheme by the pressure method. I have not had any report from him. We have tried this method out, and we have been unable in the laboratories here to evolve any scheme that one would choose in preference to the air-drying process. Up to date that seems to be the only successful process. I shall be glad to get my hon. friend the information as to the tonnage that it is expected to turn out every twenty-four hours in this plant.	'


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I should like to say a word on the
coal question because I believe in the section of the country from whence I come, there is no subject so prominently in the minds of the people to-day as the question of a supply of Nova Scotia and Alberta coal for domestic and manufacturing purposes in Ontario. I was at home yesterday and Saturday, and I had two or three inquiries as to when we might expect Alberta coal in Guelph. Two weeks ago when I was at home on another occasion, I had the same inquiry from two or three other people. We had just a little taste of Alberta coal in Guelph and other places last fall or early last winter, and I think it has whetted the appetite of the people of Ontario to a great extent. Those who were fortunate enough to get a ton or two, by way of sample, have become very loud in their demands for more of it. They wonder why it is that parliament or the government is not showing more activity towards securing a proper supply of Canadian coal for next winter.
I do not know exactly under what arrange-

ment Alberta coal was brought to Ontario last autumn, but I believe it was under some arrangement made between the Canadian National Railways and the government of the province of Ontario whereby 10,000 tons were brought down to Ontario by way of experiment. I believe that the rate given by the railway on that occasion was something like $7 per ton, and I have heard it stated that this rate was a losing proposition for the railway inasmuch as it cost them more than that to bring the coal from the West to Ontario. So that if the business is to be carried on as a permanent one a much higher rate would have to be charged. I agree with my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) when, in his opening remarks, he stated that the coal problem to-day in Canada was perhaps the most important problem that we had to face. We do not yet seem to realize its importance. We have been threatened on two or three occasions in the last five or six years with a coal famine in central Ontario. Whether as a result of strikes in the United States or of a shortage of supply in that country, from one cause or another the people in central Canada have been face to face on two or three occasions with a very awkward situation. We should find a remedy for that difficulty without delay; but unless we get our representatives, the members of this House, to take an active interest in the question I do not believe that we shall find a solution for it.
When we realize that we pay out approximately $100,000,000 a year to obtain what one might describe as a vanishing asset, it does not seem to me to be good business The United States gets our $100,000,000 ano we get the coal and eventually the heat and the ashes, and there is nothing left to show for the $100,0000,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about the manufactured goods?


Hugh Guthrie: I am speaking more particularly of domestic coal; we get, of course, the power for the manufacture of goods from the coal we use for that purpose. The United States to-day is getting our money, and the employment and the wages that go with that employment are all going across the border. We have in our own country, as we all admit, magnificent coal fields in the Maritime provinces and in the western provinces. Surely we have brains enough, intelligence enough and executive ability enough in this House to solve the question as to how to bring from the East and the West these coal supplies to central Canada where the people have no coal. The last clause of the resolution has not been discussed so far, and to my mind it is

Canada's Coal Supply
an important one. It is stated in these few words:
That whereas coal is a necessity in effect equal to that of food it should therefore be carried on a preferential toll basis by the railways on the same basis as food.
We have heretofore given preferential rates in regard to certain commodities and in regard to certain localities. In doing so I assume we did a right and proper thing. Should we not apply the same reasoning to the fuel question? Coal is an absolute necessity, as we all realise. Are we then to be hindered from using our own coal simply because our great railways will not give us a low enough rate of haulage? Is parliament so tied hand and foot that we cannot dictate to the railway corporations? I submit we can; and it is of the first importance, of the first necessity, that parliament take action in regard to this coal question, and do so at this session.
I was glad to see in the Speech from the Throne a reference to the coal situation. I do not know whether or not, this reference really contemplates some governmental action in regard to the matter, but at any rate the Speech from the Throne makes this announcement :
The Dominion Fuel Board has been created to study and make recommendations in regard to the development of our fuel resources with a view to making Canada independent, so far as possible, of foreign sources of supply. The investigations carried on by this Board have already been productive of important results, and legislation to encourage Canadian production will be submitted for your consideration.
Does that mean that the government is prepared at this session to offer a solution of this coal difficulty so far as regards central Canada? We from Quebec and Ontario will certainly welcome any proposal of that kind which the government may make. Upon economic grounds we should solve the question in the interests of the country. The use of Canadian coal would settle to a very large extent that vexed question of an adverse balance of trade as between Canada and the United States. As my hon. friend from Cumberland has pointed out the use of Canadian coal instead of American coal would in all human probability have kept the Canadian dollar at par because we would not have sent a hundred millions to the United States last year to pay our coal bill. If we could solve this problem it would give jobs in this country to thousands and thousands of Canadian workmen and retain these men in Canada instead of having them drift to the United States to work in the coal mines there. If all that I hear about the quantity and quality of Nova Scotia and Alberta coal, both for domestic and for manufacturing purposes be true, the provinces
could supply the people of central Canada with a fuel as good if not better than that which they are using to-day, and supply it to them at a greatly reduced rate. Surely these are reasons sufficient to cause us to deliberate at some length on the question. I am afraid the government has been rather resting on its oars in regard to this matter; I am afraid we have been depending too much upon dilatory commissions of inquiry of various kinds. There have been inquiries going on in reference to the coal question, in regard to briquetting, and in regard to peat for a great many years, according to my recollection. But these inquiries have not- come to a head nor have they resulted in anything concrete. I am satisfied that this House, at this session, if it so desires can frame a measure which will enable central Canada to get Nova Scotia and Alberta coal in as large quantities as may be required. It need not inflict any injury on our railway companies should we see fit to fix reasonable rates for hauling coal.


William Irvine: What would the hon. gentleman suggest in that direction?


Hugh Guthrie: I would frame a measure having regard, first, to railway rates and secondly to financial arrangements, because I believe that money would have to be raised, in the first instance, properly to equip our railways for coal trade for which they have not been equipped hitherto. We should have to provide equipment in engines, in coal cars, in terminal facilities and perhaps in other respects, and it might run into a fairly large sum of money. But in my judgment it would be money well spent. Provide the money first, and then determine what is a fair adequate railway rate. I do not think there would be much subsequent difficulty in solving the problem, for demand and supply and ordinary business enterprise would do the rest. And as a result what would the people have? They would use in Ontario and Quebec coal produced in Canada which would result in keeping a hundred million dollars a year in Canada, which now goes to the United States. The use of Canadian coal would yield a tremendous freight tonnage for our railways and our lake shipping which in itself would furnish greatly increased employment. It would also involve large employment in our mines, far beyond anything we have hitherto enjoyed. It would develop our own resources, which to my mind is worth a great deal to this country.
I see no practical difficulties in the way of a speedy solution of this question. I have read the evidence taken last session. I was impressed by the statement of Mr. M. J.
Canada's Coal Supply

Butler. I used to know Mr. Butler when I was chairman of the Railway committee of this House, and Mr. Butler was always at the table in his capacity of Deputy Minister of Railways. He is a very well informed man on such a question. He sees no practical difficulties. Why should we? I believe all we have to do is to put our heads together, or allow the government-because after all it is their function, they are governing the country-to develop some plan. But do not postpone the solution any longer. Do it now, so that when the next strike takes place in the Pennsylvania coal fields we shall have nothing to fear. There may or may not be an embargo in the United States. The price of coal may soar again. I had the doubtful pleasure of paying $16.50 and $17 a ton for all the coal I used last winter. I.have paid in years past as high as $19 a ton for Pennsylvania anthracite of inferior quality. From all I can learn from coal dealers and others well informed we are at present paying $5, $6 and $7 a ton too much for Pennsylvania coal for domestic purposes in Ontario. Surely this is a question of sufficient interest and magnitude to cause us to deliberate some time on this motion, to discuss it thoroughly, and to gain the views of all sections of the country upon it, in the hope that we may be able to solve the problem this session and enable the people of Canada to have an abundant supply of Canadian coal at reasonable rates next winter.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN PRITCHARD (North Wellington) :: When the House rose at six o'clock
we were discussing the question of a coal supply for the Dominion of Canada, and I thought I would like to venture a few remarks from the fact that last harvest at the request of one of my constituents I looked into the coal situation a little when I was in Alberta, and I saw some things there in connection with the coal industry that in-tersted me very much. I thought that if they were of any value to the members of the House, I would give them in my own way for what they are worth.
I was informed by a man in my constituency who had an interest in the coal mines at Drumheller that if I went there and got in touch with the manager of those mines, and made some inquiries about the possi-
bility of getting coa'l to Ontario, I would get some useful information. From Calgary I went to Drumheller and visited the coal mines there. It was beautiful harvest weather the day I got there, with the binders running and the harvest in full swing. The manager of one of the mines met me at the station, showed me through the workings of the mine and gave me all the information I asked for, and it was very interesting. At that time the men were off work owing to certain troubles, not with their employer, but in connection with their union. That was in the early part of September.
I inquired as to the quality of coal they were putting out at that mine, and the manager showed me letters he had received from different parts of Ontario all expressing satisfaction with the coal they had received and asking for more if they could get it. I also inquired as to the possibility of continuing to ship that coal to Ontario. I had heard some men whose opinion I valued in this matter say that it was impracticable to ship coal from Alberta to Ontario, but in discussing this matter with these gentlemen at Drumheller I was led to believe that at the same rates they got for hauling grain the railways could haul coal to Toronto. If the coal could be carried as the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) suggested this afternoon, during the slack season of the year when the railways were not hauling grain, they could not see any reason why the railways could not carry it for $6 a ton. The railway companies had been claiming that there was no money 'in hauling grain, but on the competing lines running from Drumheller the railways were anxious to get grain to haul at a rate that they had claimed was ruinous. I think our railway returns will show that a large crop of grain gives good returns to the railways where they claim they are hauling it at too low a rate. I am persuaded that that coal can be hauled for $6 a ton.
I also inquired what wages the men were getting who worked in the mjne, and to my surprise I found that they were pretty well paid. They were getting anywhere from $6.85 up to as high as $20 a day in some cases. The average pay for eight hours work in the mine was $7 a day. What struck me rather forcibly at the time was that men who had good crops of grain just a mile and a half from the mines could not get men to shock the grain, and thousands of acres went unshocked while men from the mines in Drumheller were walking the streets

Canada's Coal Supply
for several weeks. These farmers offered the men $5 a day, and the day I came back from Drumheller to Calgary a friend of mine met me at the station and told me that a man had been trying to get men for the harvest fields, but had succeeded in getting only one, although men were around the employment office every day I was there. Looking into the situation a little further I found that the men, women and boys working for the Canadian Pacific were getting on an average $1,500 a year. In Alberta, from Calgary to Edmonton they -had as fine a crop of wheat as I ever saw, going to an average of twenty-eight bushels per acre. At 80 cents a bushel -and they were selling it for 72 cents a bushel when I was there-it would take 320 acres of wheat to pay five men, women and boys the same money they would get if they were in the employ of the railway company. That was the situation-three hundred and twenty acres to pay five men, women and boys the same wages as the Canadian Pacific Railway were paying their help. Now three hundred and twenty acres is a lot of land to have in wheat, and that is what it would take to pay them those wages, to say nothing of overhead, the capital invested in land, stock and implements as well as taxes, hail insurance and all the rest of the items entering into the expense.
One hon. gentleman this afternoon said how very important it would be to save that money from going out of the country. Is it not just as important to increase our agricultural products and to bring into Canada twice the amount of capital that is entering the country at present? To my mind there is the crux of the situation. I am one of those who believe that wages have got to come down to a proper level. I am of the opinion that there is a connection between wages, taxes and the tariff. Organized labour and organized capital have managed to fix a price for their respective services. In what position, however, is the farmer? He has to go on the labour market and compete with those who have been fixing the price of their products, and he has to sell on the open markets of the world. If the government can overcome this handicap, if they can solve this problem, they will be able to solve lots of other problems at present confronting this country. The truth of the matter is that we are trying to arrange things artificially contrary to the natural trend of commerce. The result is that we have trouble all along the line, and that trouble will continue as long as we maintain such a policy. I think that with comparatively little trouble a successful adjustment of matters
could be made. With a very slight drop in the direction I have indicated we should find an improvement. I do not say that the adjustment should be made immediately, but some modification should be carried out at once so as to make the hauling of coal profitable. I believe that could be done and that it ought to be done. That applies not only to the coal situation but to nearly every other industry in the country. A great many of our industries are interlocking in their character and the same handicap affects all. I venture to say that 80 per cent of the amount paid in taxes goes in wages. When there has been a relaxation in that respect an improvement will soon be evident.
Another handicap from which we are suffering is that too many people are what might be called "leaners". One hon. gentleman resented as unparliamentary the term "parasites" which was applied to a certain section of the community. I would not go so far as to use that term with respect to the people to whom I allude but I think it is fair to say that they want to lean on somebody. Upon whom are they going to lean? Are they going to lean upon the man who is growing wheat? Every business ought to stand on its own foundation, and I think that remark is applicable to the coal industry. I am interested in the fuel situation in Ontario to as great an extent as anybody. It is to my interest to buy as cheaply as possible, but I want to pay for my own fuel, I do not want to throw the burden on somebody else. The solution of the problem is possible if we give it a little thought, but there is no use attempting to do it piecemeal. While we are regulating the coal industry we should regulate every other industry in the country and do it on a proper basis.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was grieved when the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) described this motion as something that was intended to benefit one section of the country. The hon. gentleman's remarks sounded to me as though he was looking for a cause for offence, instead of trying to get at the real purpose of the resolution. I think we ought to get away from the practice of pointing out that a certain thing will be advantageous only to a certain section of the country unless it can be substantiated by argument. If that proves to be the case then the proposition ought to be opposed.
I think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), in introducing this resolution, has initiated a discussion that ought to prove of great value to parliament, and to the
Canada's Coal Supply

country. He points out that what is proposed is something for the future. Well, it is not yet in force, so necessarily it must be for the future. If we take action now-and we should have moved long ago-if we start to work out the idea embodied in the resolution, we shall have moved that far toward the solution of this problem with which we must deal. As I view the matter, more should be done to bring about co-operation between the central provinces and the eastern and western provinces of the Dominion. The central provinces of Canada are without an adequate supply of fuel. Without coal, and by reason of their large population, they consume a larger quantity of fuel than both the east and the west put together. As the mover of the resolution said, fuel is almost as great a necessity as food. In our climate it is a primary requirement and if we could bring the west and the east into co-operation, in supplying this great need of the central provinces it seems to me we ought to be pretty well on our way to harmonizing the interests of all the provinces of Canada. We are told by geologists that we have in Alberta about one-sixth of the total coal supply of the world. I see also by the report presented to the Geological Congress that in the pro-. vince of Saskatchewan there are two and a half billion tons of coal. That is the estimate that has been made for that Congress. Alberta has a much larger supply of coal and, I think, a better quality. Then we have in the eastern provinces an almost unlimited quantity of excellent coal. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is a reflection on the initiative and enterprise of the people of Canada if we admit ourselves to be unequal to the task of securing for the people of Canada a supply of fuel mined within the boundaries of this country. The supply is here in abundance, and the only problem to be solved is the cost of distribution. Surely there must be enough ability, in the Canadian people to take measures that will enable Canadian mines to be run on full time and supply the central provinces with the fuel they require so badly. In the Maritime provinces there seems to be a feeling that they are cut off from Quebec and Ontario; there is a lack of, shall I say, that family spirit between these two sections of Canada that ought to exist. Surely we could make good that lack if we found a means of keeping all the mines in the Maritime provinces busy the year round, and maintaining a large industrial population that would help to consume Canadian products. The figures that were given by my hon. friend (Mr. Logan)

ought to carry weight with every hon. member, to say nothing of every person in the country. My hon. friend said that about $3,000,000 was lost to Canada last year in the matter of exchange alone. I have not gone over the figures, but I am prepared to accept his statement. That money, as he says, might as well have been thrown into the lake. It was money that could have been saved and if we are sending out $3,000,000 to the United States in the shape of exchange, I submit it would be better for us to appropriate that amount of money to recoup the National railway for any loss it might incur in the handling of these absolutely necessary supplies of fuel for the central provinces of the country. Especially is that the case, Sir, when the eastern and western provinces would benefit so largely.
But, there is more than that, Mr. Speaker. There has been a good deal of unrest and discontent in the Maritime provinces, particularly in the coal mining districts, and, as far as I have been able to form an opinion as to the cause of that unrest, it is due largely to the fact that the men who have worked in the mines are restricted in the amount of labour they perform. They complain that while they get so much a day they only work three or four days a week. If they were mining coal that could be sent to the province of Ontario, and if their mines could be kept going every day, instead of three or four days a week, the men who work in these mines would get that much more in wages, and would have that much more for the subsistence of their families; and I submit they would, in all probability, be that much more contented. That is a by-product of this proposal, but it is one that has a veiy great weight with me, however it may affect the judgment of the other members of the House. If we can do anything to remove the recurring unrest and dissatisfaction in the Maritime provinces, I think we ought to engage our talents in that direction, and it would be an admirable thing for us to do.
I understand that during the past six months experiments have been made in the city of Hamilton, at the western end of lake Ontario, in coking Nova Scotia coal. The reports are that the experiment is a pronounced success, and that this coal which was brought from the Maritime provinces and coked in Hamilton is as high a class of fuel as the anthracite coal from the mines of Pennsylvania. Some will argue that it is a better fuel for domestic purposes. Is it not worth while for us to endeavour to ascertain if the coking of that coal at the mines would not be a profitable operation? If a ton and a half of coal makes

Canada's Coal Supply
a ton of coke, why not take a ton and a half of coal to Hamilton to have it coked into a ton of coke?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Has the hon. member ever given thought to the question of the sale of the by-products? These by-products have to be manufactured from coal, as I understand it, in a centre where they can be consumed, in order to make it profitable.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am not sufficiently
familiar with what is done with all the byproducts taken from coal to say, but if there are industries that flourish upon the by-products of the coking system, might they not be established in Nova Scotia near the coal mines? Is it not possible for industries of that kind to be located where their raw material is most easily accessible? However, if it is found that it is more profitable to coke the coal in Hamilton, I presume that is what would be done, and it does not affect my argument at all. I believe that we could, even with our present canals take coal from Nova Scotia and sell it in Ontario. If you go up into lake Superior you will find big freighters towing down barges full of iron ore, and sometimes full of wheat. Why could the barge system not be operated from the Nova Scotia dock or mine up the St. Lawrence river and through the canals into lake Ontario? In that way the cost of shipping the coal would be materially reduced. I have understood, and I have been told by those who are in the business, that one of the reasons why Nova Scotia coal is not sent to Ontario was that an arrangement existed between the mine owners in Nova Scotia and the mine owners in Pennsylvania by -which the' Pennsylvania men were to have the Ontario market, in consideration of the Nova Scotia owners being given the New England market. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) tells me there is nothing in that-that it is not the case-and I am glad to have his statement to that effect. That being true, Sir, there is no impediment in the way of supplying the province of Ontario largely, if not entirely, from the coal mines of Nova Scotia. I submit that that would so increase the trade between the central provinces and the Maritime provinces that it would bring about a closer community of interest and do a great deal to strengthen the bonds of this confederation, which at times are strained more than they ought to be, and more, I am sure, than any good Canadian desires that they should be.
With reference to the coal in Alberta, they tell us that it cannot be brought down to the province of Ontario where coal is so badly needed, and where there is a large market, at
a price that would enable it to compete with Pennsylvania coal. I hesitate, Sir, to dispute the views of the experts of the National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to freight rates, but is is a matter of astonishment to me that these railway managers tell us quite firmly that it is impossible to bring coal from the Alberta mines to Ontario for 87 a ton, while at the same time they are bringing wheat from the Calgary zone to the head of the lakes for $5 a ton. Should it cost any more to transport a ton of coal than a ton of wheat? Is there some peculiar circumstance in the hauling of one product that does not apply to the other? I am not discussing the loading or the unloading, but merely discussing the hauling of the coal itself.


George Gibson Coote: Did the hon. gentleman
make the statement that the railways are hauling wheat from the Calgary zone to Ontario for $5 a ton?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is my understanding -25 cents a hundred.


George Gibson Coote: That is to Fort William.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, the head of the
lakes.


George Gibson Coote: I thought the hon. gentleman meant to this part of the country.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, my idea of the handling of Alberta coal would be to take it to the head of the lakes.


Robert James Manion: For the information of my hon. friend in regard to Alberta coal, I may say it is used at the head of the lakes to-day very successfully. It is the eastern part of the country where the difficulty occurs-the long haul-but the Alberta coal is used at the head of the lakes with very good results.


Mr. EVANS:: Does $5 cover the cost to
the head of the lakes, or further east?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I presume that would be
the cost to take it to the head of the lakes. But the cost of taking it from the head of the lakes to St. Catharines, Hamilton or Toronto could not amount to 82 a ton. That would be an excessive rate. If they got one dollar a ton for the waterborne share of the distance, I should think that would be quite sufficient, so that we ought to get at Toronto, in fact as far as Kingston, any port on lake Ontario, this coal at a rate of, at the most, $6. a ton. I am told by a mine owner in Alberta that if the mines were working all the year round, the coal could be sold at the mines for S1.75 a ton. Some of my western friends may have

Canada's Coal Supply

some information on that point. This man who owns 2,000 acres of coal lands, and who was president of a large coal company near the Drumheller mine, is my informant as to those figures. I think the present price is $2.50 a ton. If you allow $8 a ton for bringing the coal to Ontario and add that to the $1.75 a ton, that means $7.75 a ton. That coal ought to be sold in the city of Toronto or at any other lake port at the outside for $12. or less than $12 a ton, and at that price I am satisfied that it would compete with coal from the Pennsylvania mines.
The great trouble in Alberta, as it is in Nova Scotia, is that the miners do not get work all the year round, they work part time, and you must expect to pay men who work half the week a higher rate of wages than if they are working six days a week. They would be better satisfied to work at lower wages for six days a week than to work half the time at a higher rate, and you would have a more contented population. If in Alberta we could build up a mining population of from 50,000 to 100,000 families, we would have a taxpaying, voting population in Alberta that would be of the utmost value to the whole Dominion of Canada. They would be a consuming population for the manufacturers of the East, and the manufacturers of the East would be customers in buying their coal at a fair price. Surely a mutual arrangement of that kind ought to be satisfactory to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). It certainly would be satisfactory to any man whose system is not entirely filled with the virus of free trade.


Mr. GOULD:: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the $12. a ton he quotes as the maximum price that should be charged in Ontario is less than is charged myself, for instance, at the point where I live, a, much shorter haul, five or six hundred miles less?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am not going to explain my hon. friend's financial difficulties in buying his coal. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) says that it sells at $15 a ton at the head of the lakes. If the coal costs $1.75 at the mine, and if it could be brought down for $6, I cannot see why any person should endeavour to profiteer to the extent of selling it for more than $12 a ton. Any person who would do that would be a profiteer, and that is a case where the government ought to take the matter in hand. If there is anything the government would be justified in doing, it is in taking steps, whether the article is food or fuel, to 
prevent anything like profiteering. I am not in favour of attempting this as a national enterprise; I have not got that far in my public ownership view; but I have got so far as to contend that no man handling food or fuel should be allowed an excessive profit upon what he turns over.


Mr. WARD:: Where did the hon. gentleman get that price of $1.75?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I explained before that a man who was president of a coal mine and who owned 2,000 acres of coal lands in the vicinity of the Drumheller mines gave me his word positively that they could sell the coal at a good profit at $1.75 a ton if they were working all the year round. He says that they sell it now at $2.50 a ton and they are working only part time.
When the hon, member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) was speaking about getting proper equipment for the handling of fuel, some person on this side of the House asked him if he had estimated the cost of the equipment. The thought occurred to me at the time that we might spend $50,000,000 on equipment, on coal cars, because you would not have to spend anything for locomotives. We have an equipment of locomotives sufficient to handle trains of grain cars, and I presume they would be available at other seasons of the year to handle coal cars. A sum amounting to $50,000,000 would buy an enormous quantity of coal cars. The interest on $50,000,000 would not be as much as we are now paying in exchange on the $96,000,000 which we are sending to the United States every year for our supply of coal in this country.
What I would like to see is some effort made to get co-operation between the mine owners, both east and west; all the shipping interests, particularly the government marine; and the railways, under some kind of leadership from this government or this House. I should like to see those interests co-operate to study out a plan by which this object that we are talking about to-day could be attained. Surely it is worth while making an effort. The advantages to be derived from working out successfully a plan such as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has proposed are enormous, not only in the saving of money, but in the certainty that we would have in Canada of a fuel supply always, and in the development of the western provinces and the eastern provinces to supply the great needs of the central provinces. I do not

Canada's Coal Supply
think .anything could be suggested .that is better calculated to get us all working together in an effort to use the natural products of the West and the East to supply the great needs of the central provinces. I hope, out of this discussion, there will come a substantial effort on the part of the government to work out some plan, by co-operation of the interests concerned, to accomplish the purpose of the resolution.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is one of sufficient importance to engage the attention of the government to a far greater extent than it has heretofore; but before criticising the government for its, shall I say, masterly inactivity during the past year, let me attempt to answer one or both of the preceding two speakers? My hon. friend on my left (Mr. Pritchard) spent one day in the Drumheller coal fields, and he came away from that mining district convinced that all the difficulties with regard to moving coal from the mines to Ontario could be solved by reducing the wages of labour. May I inform him that recently in the Alberta legislature, one of the members of that assembly introduced a resolution asking the Alberta government to appoint a commission to investigate the entire coal trade, including wages and all other operating costs? In introducing that resolution he gave some startling figures. He gave the average earnings of employees in mines producing domestic coal in Alberta as $7.50 per day. The higher wages-he gave a tabulated list of figures-were for steam coal production.
The value of the daily production per miner in the United States was $34.98i and in Alberta the average daily production per miner was $46.94. Let us deduct the $7.50 from $46.94, and I do not think that anyone will argue that the miner is overpaid. However, these are simply his figures, and they cannot be verified until subsequent to the investigation by the commission for which he has asked. I submit however that a cursory examination of the mining conditions in the province could hardly justify anyone in suggesting that labour wages are responsible for the high cost of the coal. To my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) may I say that I was delighted with his remarks regarding a desire to repair the breach that apparently exists between the eastern and the western provinces and central Canada. It would be quite a simple matter for those who are really sincere in this wish in the central provinces to repair that breach, and it could be done 55i
very readily. The method is so obvious that I need hardly state it; hon. gentlemen around me have already indicated it by their applause.


Robert James Manion: How?


Edward Joseph Garland: By removing the protective duty especially on foodstuffs and implements of production. Let me tell the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) that one of the real factors entering into the production cost is that the department has permitted a great deal of the mining lands to fall into the hands of private speculators who do not operate these mines at all but simply charge the real operators a royalty for so doing. Last session we had an inquiry into this whole question, and a most exhaustive study was made of the situation by a very excellent committee; as my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) is aware that committee was headed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) himself a miner at one time and now an eminent legal light. That committee, after hearing a great deal of evidence and taking testimony not only from mine operators, miners, railwaymen and economists, but also from independent outside sources, submitted an exhaustive report, not one single recommendation in which has to this day been implemented by this government. One statement made by the committee without any hesitation was that it was absolutely necessary that every effort possible should and must be made at once by Canada through its government-, its transportation companies, its coal operators and manufacturers, to make Canada independent of other countries for its fuel supply. Nothing has been done by this government to implement that suggestion. The report goes on to say further, that what is wanted in this connection is propaganda and the advertising throughout Canada of the fuel value of Canadian coal. I quote from the report:
In this connection your committee would like to point out that until two years ago the fuel needs of Winnipeg were supplied to the extent of 85 per cent by United States anthracite, but through the continued efforts of the Alberta government and the coal operators 90 per cent of that city's supply is now supplied by Alberta.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What committee was
that?


Edward Joseph Garland: The Mines and Minerals committee, appointed by this House last year. No educational propaganda has been carried on by this government: the work that has been carried on has been through the Alberta government's trade com-
Canada's Coal Supply

missioner. That provincial government has been conducting a campaign throughout the summer in Ontario, and hon. gentlemen from that province will |remember that experiments were made at Hamilton and all other important points in connection with fuel tests. We shipped coal to this province under a special rate of $7 from the Canadian National Railways, some 15,000 or 16,000 tons were transported. The coal has proved absolutely satisfactory, as all hon. members will agree. The standing committee further suggested that the Department of the Interior through its Intelligence branch should undertake this educational campaign. That has not been done, either; the government is still quiescent in the matter. Again, the committee recommended that an investigation be made immediately by independent experts into the evidence given by transportation witnesses at its hearings. In Alberta, as a previous speaker has stated, we possess 14 per cent of the world's fuel supply.
M|r. STEWART (Argenteuil):	Can the
hon. member name any important point in Ontario where Alberta coal has not been used? What better advertising does he want than that?


Edward Joseph Garland: The shipment of that coal was made at the instance of the Alberta government; we have not had any co-operation from the federal government in that matter.


Charles A. Stewart: The commissioned- from Alberta was here in the field and he received every assistance from the officers of the Mines Department. The important thing was to get the coal to the people, and they are actually using it in their furnaces.


Edward Joseph Garland: The suggestion was made in the report that a campaign should be carried on by the Intelligence branch of the department, and I would ask the minister to show me a single pamphlet oj- any particle of propaganda published by the department in this matter last year.
Mr. STEWAR1 (Argenteuil): The answer to that queAion is quite apparent. The coal is being used by the actual consumers in each of the communities in which coal is required. So far as I am aware, in every important community in the province of Ontario, including this city, Alberta coal has been used. That coal has come from west of Red Deer and from Drumheller, so that we have not been remiss in our duty in getting it to the people. That being the case, is the 
coal not getting the very best kind of advertising possible?


Edward Joseph Garland: My statement still stands, that the department has undertaken no educational propaganda. The coal was sent here by the operators and the provincial government sent two experts along with it, one a fuel expert for testing purposes and the other a trade commissioner who carried on an educational campaign. Now, we have in Alberta 14 per cent of the world's fuel supply. West of a line drawn from Lethbridge to Edmonton we have the finest type of semi-anthracite and domestic fuels in the world. The development of that coal field will depend as much upon the establishment of a Pacific market as on the securing of the Ontario one. That this is the case is indicated by the fact that during the last few years a considerable sale nas been made by the Drumheller and Lethbridge coal producers in Montana, Dakota, [DOT] Oregon and Washington; and at the present time negotiations are about closed for the equipping of the city of Seattle with large bunkering facilities through which we shall be able to sell Alberta coal. Any attempt by this parliament to impose a duty against coal coming into Ontario will inevitably lead to retaliatory measures by the United States. A serious loss to the West and, indeed, I think, to all Canada would certainly result therefrom. Last session I secured from the Minister of Finance a concession with regard to the tariff. I spoke in this House in March last year asking that the duty now imposed against the coals on the n.o.p. list, upon which list our Alberta coal stood at that time, should be removed. There existed then a 53 cent duty on Alberta coal entering the States which prevented the full exploitation of the United States market by Alberta producers. The Minister of Finance lent a sj-mpathetic ear to our suggestion and to the resolutions from the operators and boards of trade in Alberta, with the result that when the tariff came down the duty was removed. We now find hon. gentlemen to our right asking that the duty be re-imposed on Alberta coal. I hope this will not be done.
If I were of a vindictive spirit, there is nothing that would give me greater pleasure than seeing those who have so long supported tariff protection suffering under it for their coal. I am not of a vindictive spirit, therefore I do not wish them any such misfortune. But, frankly, I ask the manufacturers of Ontario, how do they like the possibility under a Conservative resolution of paying from 50 cents to S3 more a ton for the coal they use

Canada's Coal Supply
for industrial as well as for domestic purposes? And by a strange anomaly a resolution is introduced by a Conservative in this House this year asking for protection for coal, yet a request was made to the Mines and Minerals committee last year by another eminent member of the Conservative party, Mr. Mewburn, who asked that the drawback allowed on bituminous coal for manufacturing purposes in Ontario should be extended to include domestic bituminous coal also. I sometimes wonder whether they really know if they want protection or not.
There is no fuel problem in Canada. There is no necessity to establish a tariff duty in order to develop our coal fields. There is nothing that can prevent their natural development in time. Artificial stimulation of any industry in this country can only result in great losses to the consuming public. The whole question simmers down to one of transportation.


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand
the hon. member yet. He stated that the former duty of 53 cents a ton on what was described as n.o.p. coal had prevented the Alberta coal fields from exploiting the American market, and was removed. I do not say that he is wrong, but I have not got it into my head yet. Would he mind helping me?


Edward Joseph Garland: I may perhaps help the right hon. gentleman by reading him a resolution from the operators dealing with the question. It is as follows:
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 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 follow's that the duty levied by our government on this grade of coal under the general clause "Coal N.O.P." of item 588 is 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, Tdaho 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 that we ask for the removal of the 53 cents duty.
At that time we had been attempting to ship in coal to the United States.


Arthur Meighen: I see. The hon. member says that the American duty automatically goes off with the removal of our duty.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: There was really no protection there at all.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a reciprocal arrangement with the American Department of Interior with reference to the definition of coal, and under it we have an accepted definition known as "lignite," which is reciprocally shipped.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has made it quite clear. I will never bother my hon. friend (Mr. Garland) with a question again.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very
grateful to the' right hon. gentleman for his kindly forbearance. Mr. F. W. Gray, an eminent authority on coal, and connected with the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, wrote an article about a year ago in Saturday Night, the concluding paragraph of which is as follows:
Generally, the districts of Canada that contain the most abundant and dependable waterpowers are precisely the districts that are devoid of coal seams. The fullest development of both the coal seams and the waterpowers of Canada cannot relieve us entirely of the necessity to import coal, and both can be encouraged without stint with no fear of either interest suffering, and without the slightest likelihood of meeting the power requirements of the country.
Similarly, the use of peat as a fuel, and the utilization of oil shales, can be encouraged to the limit of their availability without any danger of affecting the production of coal in Canada, and also with but little hope of decreasing the quantity of coal imported into Canada.
He gives some interesting figures of the increasing consumption of coal consonant with increase in population, and suggests that within thirty years Canada may have a population of fifteen million, of whom eight million will live west of Winnipeg and there will be an important concentration of population in Alberta that will not be agrarian in out-
Canada's Coal Supply

look, but distinctly industrial, with all that this implies in a democratic country. Of fifty-two million t-ons of coal estimated as likely to be mined, he is of opinion that about thirty-eight millions, or 73 per cent, will be mined in Alberta, Saskatchewan and eastern British Columbia. It looks as if the forecast of some years ago that the Empire is moving westward may be true. We may hope in the future to see in the province of Alberta the juxtaposition of the two great basic industries, agriculture and mining. It is one of the dreams that people perhaps are justified in expecting to see realized.
As I have said, the whole question boils down to transportation: Can the coal be moved from western and eastern points to central Canada and laid down here at a price to compete with anthracite coal from the United States? The evidence on this point before the parliamentary committee last year was exceedingly conflicting. In practically every case independent outside witnesses, men who had at one time or another
9. p.m. been connected with the railways, men who were experts in an independent sense, testified that the coal could be moved at a rate, of not much over $6 a ton. Some, like Mr. M. J. Butler, even went so far as to suggest that the rate might be materially reduced even below this figure by the establisment of a special type of hundred ton gondola cars, heavy engines, and so forth. But without going into that aspect of the case at the moment, may I take up some of the points raised by the witnesses last year? At that time, with the layman's limited knowledge of the subject, we did not have very much opportunity to effectively criticize the evidence of the railway experts. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to support the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) when he states that one of the most disgraceful things about the evidence was the fact that the Canadian National witnesses did not testify until after they had consulted with the Canadian Pacific officials. Now, the Canadian Pacific authorities were not free from suspicion of being interested against the movement of this coal. When we considered the interlocking-what	shall I call ^-responsibilities of the Canadian Pacific with the Pennsylvania Railway and with some of the Pennsylvania mines, we wonder perhaps if they are not biased in favour of the movement from Pennsylvania rather than from western or eastern Canada to Ontario. Another reason for our suspicion of antagonism would be that the great bulk of the coal to be moved would be by the Canadian National and not by the Canadian Pacific lines. True, there are large coal deposits around Leth-TMr. E. J. Garland.]
bridge and Table on the Canadian Pacific, but by far the greater quantity would be moved over the Canadian National lines. I anticipate that the president of the Canadian National Railways has a pretty hard low to hoe and that he will hardly be in a position to enter into a bitter rate war with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Therefore, it may have been necessary for him through his experts to quote a rate at least not very different from the Canadian Pacific rate, which was S9.80. We suggested, in our report to this House, which was unanimously adopted by this House, that we were not satisfied with the evidence. The report reads;
The views expressed were very divergent and inconsistent,"
And went on to recommend that the government :

"undertake an independent investigation immediately through whatever channels it deems best, to ascertain the actual cost of carrying coal from eastern and western points to central Canada. We believe that our National railway should carry fuel at cost in this crisis, and your committee suggests that the rates quoted are not cost rates but much higher.
Now with regard to those rates may I point out some extraordinary differences that exist at the present time?
We will take an ordinary single car, not tram load lots, moving from Vancouver to let us say Montreal. One of them comes to my mind at this moment. The province of Quebec seems to like Epsom salts. I am not sure just why they like them, but at any rate it is a very easily moved commodity from Vancouver, and a car of Epsom salts from \ ancouver to Montreal, a distance of 3.128 miles is charged $450, By the way, this car moves to any point in Quebec province, not to Montreal alone-a distance of 3,128 miles for $450. And moreover I will ask you to note that Epsom salts must be carried on a really first-class car, free from dampness, and also bearing a heavy rate of insurance. It is a strange thing lhat the railway authorities ask $450, precisely the same amount, for moving one car of coal from Drumheller to Toronto, a distance 1,000 miles less, and coal is a commodity requiring a very different type of car. Putting if on another basis, it costs 15 cents per car mile for the salts, and 23 cents per car mile for the coal. Naturally, one asks why, and Mr. Chard, the railway freight expert of the province of Alberta, suggests that in a trainload lot of 50 cars, moving 40 tons apiece, the rate based on the railway earnings of 1920 would be $6. The railway earnings in 1920 on the Canadian Pacific were $5.26 per train mile, and the freight earnings $5.82 per train mile in the West, and the operating expenses on all traffic $3.88.

Canada's Coal Supply
Other commodities moving to Montreal from the same point, Vancouver, and the rates charged are found in the railway tariffs,
as follows:
Crude rubber	
Bean oil	
Cottonseed oil	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Sago, tapioca flour, tapioca.
Skins and hides, dry	
Sheep skins	
Hardwood	
Packing, such as burlap.. ..
Bulbs	
China ware	
Per car $300 300 300 330 360 375 384 360 350 360
And so on down a long list of articles of very little economic value and of very little necessity to the people. All these can be moved from Vancouver to Montreal for S350 or $400 or less than the railways will move such a necessity as coal for, from Drumheller, a distance of 1,000 miles less. These things have not been explained, and in reply to a query Mr. J. E. Dalrymple, vice-piesident of the railway, following the publication of this table I am quoting from, said that he could not answer the figures given owing to the complex character of the subject. Sir Henry Thornton giving evidence before the Senate committee last year, in answer to a question put to him by Senator Casgrain, if my memory serves me right, as to the basis for railways rates, said in effect that he could assure the Senator that he could give him any rate at any time between any two points and prove it. That roughly is the meat of his statement; I am not sure that they are the exact words he used.
Then we took evidence on freight rates between Coal Spur near Edmonton and Prince Rupert, and found that the rate was $3.40 per ton for a distance of 863 miles, or 39.02 cents per ton mile. The distance from Edmonton to Toronto is 2,102 miles, and the same rate per ton mile rate applied to Toronto from Coal Spur would be $824 per ton.	These figures, I think, deserve further investigation and consideration. I do not think my friends to the extreme right are justified in taking the very timorous attitude they do in regard to the position Canada is in in connection with her coal supply. I do not think that such a grave situation exists that there is dangei of a sudden closing down of industry and the entire destruction of the Canadian nation. I can hardly conceive that those who live on the other side of the border have any such extraordinary malicious intent towards this country. As a matter of fact, the residents in some of the states, particularly in Massachusetts, are extremely bitter against the
importation of anthracite into Canada because they are not getting enough of it down there, and they took the opportunity of warning us in plenty of time two years ago or more that it might be necessary for us to look to ourselves or to some other source for our coal supply. I think if our friends will leave the tariff out of this question the people of the United States and the people of Canada can solve this question themselves in their own way. I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman:
That the resolution be amended by striking out paragraphs 3 and i and substituting therefor the following:	.
That the government undertake immediately an independent investigation to ascertain the coal cost of carrying coal from eastern and western coal exporting points to central Canada with a view to having a cost rate fixed for such carriage.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am reminded that the amendment contemplates an expenditure of money. However, I am not prepared to render a decision immediately, so the debate may proceed and I will inform the House later on what decision I have reached.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before you pass on the master Mr. Speaker, may ^suggest that the amendment is simply carrying out word for word the recommendation of the Mines and Minerals committee passed unanimously by this House last year.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: I think we ought to agree that the matter we are discussing to-day is of national importance. The question has been fairly discussed by hon. gentlemen on both sides and expression has been given to various ideas with respect to the tariff, and otherwise. Notwithstanding that, I believe we are all highly interested in the question of Canada having a fuel supply of her own. The question is, of course, and always has been, how the Dominion is going to accomplish that. The hon. gentleman who moved this resolution has performed a good day's work by bringing this question once more before the House. Last session he moved a somewhat similar resolution into which, however, I think the question of duty did not enter. On that occasion I moved an amendment that the whole matter should be turned over to the select standing committee on Mines and Minerals for investigation and report. That amendment was accepted by the hon. member and the committee went to work. I think that committee performed an excellent service in bringing to the attention of parliam -nt and the country the condition of our coal resources, the condition of transportation as it re-

Canada's Coal Supply
lates to coal, and the condition that our people may some day be in owing to failure on the part of parliament to deal with this question at an earlier date. My hon. friend the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was a very active member of the committee, in fact the most active member on it, and assisted it very greatly during the investigation. He, of course, comes from that part of the West where the coal resources are practically inexhaustible. Due to his efforts, information was brought before us respecting the coal situation, particularly as it referred to the n est, that we had not heard before. We had much valuable information given to us by a gentleman named Stutchbury, a commissioner trom Alberta with respect to the coal resources of that province. As pointed out by my hen friend from Bow River, I think it was through his efforts, backed by those of the provincial government, that it became possible for the coal operators of Alberta to replace American anthracite in the Canadian western market as far east as Winnipeg, to the extent of at least 90 per cent.
I do not know whether I can follow my hon. friend from Bow River in what he said as to whether or not the government have put into effect the recommendations of the committee referred to. I am not prepared to say they have done no advertising, I do not know. Nor am I prepared to say that the government have carried out the recommendation which we made to ascertain the actual cost of carrying coal from western to central Canada. They may have done so, but as to that I cannot speak with any definiteness. But there was one recommendation the government have not undertaken to implement and it is one I think my hon. friend dad not touch upon. It was that there should be immediately called at some central point in Canada a conference of coal operators, of representatives of transportation companies, of representatives of the various governments Dominion and provincial, with a few members of the House of Commons committee and of the Senate, to consider the whole question.


Edward Joseph Garland: A conference was called in Winnipeg, not such a conference as was recommended but a conference that supplied all that the other would have accomplished.


William F. Carroll: It is said that two heads are better than one. The idea the committee had in recommending such a conference was that it should be representative of the federal government, of all the provinces of Canada, of the coal operators, of the transportation companies, and of parliament. I

understand my hon. friend is right in saying that a conference was called by the province ^ I , rta.	conference met in Winnipeg
ana I have no doubt did excellent work, but it was not such a conference as the committee had m mind when they made their repre-sentatiom to parliament. The government may have considered such a conference would have been too unwieldy. My own idea was that it would be an educational conference composed of representatives from the East, from the Centre, and from the West, at which something could be done. There might be some give and take on the question of the tariff, or any other question affecting the coal industry of Canada. There might be some give and ta.ke in so far as the transportation companies of the Dominion are concerned. The conference might have demonstrated that our transportation companies, especially our railway companies, might be able-with great benefit to the country-to carry coal from Alberta into central Canada at no profit but at absolute cost. However, I am not criticizing the government for not having made this legislation effective.
During the committee investigation to which I have referred there is no doubt in the world that the evidence of the transportation magnates was in very many cases contradictory and most inconsistent, I took the trouble last summer to go into the evidence very carefully. Let me say that I know nothing about freight rates or transportation problems from the business standpoint, but having had occasion to go into the evidence in question I came to the conclusion that, with a fair amount of new equipment, coal may be carried from the Drumheller mines in Alberta to the city of Toronto for $5.50 a ton. That is only an opinion of one who has had no training in freight rates, and knows very little or nothing about transportation questions.
I was simply weighing the evidence of the three parties who gave evidence before that committee, the gentlemen from the Canadian Pacific Railway, the freight men from the Canadian National Railways and the independent men who appeared before that committee, who know something about freight rates in this country. However, the best that they would do, so far as the committee was concerned, I think, was $9 a ton, and that in long trains and for only a few months of the year. I think that our Canadian National Railways at least should be forced to carry this coal to central Canada as a national proposition at actual cost, and that is the reason why the committee suggested that we should make that recommendation, that the govern-

Canada's Coal Supply
ment should further investigate the cost of carrying this coal to whatever places they deemed sufficient, and ascertain what was the actual cost. Why should not the National Railways carry our coal at cost? I am glad to see that our National system of railways is doing very well now. Last year they surpassed all other years in the money which they took in and in the matter of running the National Railways at a minimum cost. I say it is a great national question. We do not ask the Canadian National Railways to carry coal at less than cost. That would be wrong, but we do say-and I for one will always insist-that we in this country who own those roads, have a right on behalf of the Canadian nation to insist on our National Railways carrying that coal to central Canada at cost.
So far as the transportation of coal in eastern Canada is concerned it is not the difficult problem which western Canada has to struggle with. For example from the mines of Cape Breton to Montreal coal may be transported for, I understand, $1 a ton, which is water transportation, and even at that rate, I am given to understand by men in the industry, they are not able to compete with the American bituminous coal on the markets of Montreal and while last year the mines of Cape Breton were not working at full time,-and they have some of the best day labour in Canada,-while we had a surplus of some hundred thousand tons of coal, notwithstanding the fact that the British Empire Steel Corporation have splendid facilities for transporting coal from Sydney and Roseburn to Montreal, and splendid facilities at Montreal for handling it, only 30 per cent of the bituminous demand of Quebec was met by eastern coal, which goes to show most conclusively that those who say that Nova Scotia coal cannot successfully compete with American bituminous in the markets of Montreal are absolutely correct.
I am not at this stage going into the question of tariff. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has gone into that question very much in detail. I must confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that generally I am a low tariff man. I think if we get revenue sufficient for our needs we are going far enough. I am not going to say very much to-night on the question of tariff, except to point out an inconsistency which obtains, in so far as the tariff on coal is concerned. That inconsistency is that while bituminous coal, run-of-mine coal or screen coal coming from the United States to Canada, carries a duty of 53 cents, slack coal is allowed in at 14 cents per ton duty.
I think that is an inconsistency in our tariff, and I say that tariff in respect to bituminous coal should be raised, and why? The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) said this afternoon-and it is absolutely correct- that the American operators will bring coal in, say, to Montreal, where they too have splendid facilities so far as handling the coal is concerned; they will bring in run-of-mine and screen coal, but mostly run-of-mine-coal. They will pay 53 cents per ton duty on the run-of-mine coal. They will bring in slack coal to Montreal, on which they pay 14 cents duty, and will mix the two coals together, sell them as run-of-mine, and they are simply splitting the duty so far as that is concerned. Slacl; coal is not good for domestic fuel, but is excellent for manufacturing purposes. It is brought into Montreal by the American operators and dumped in with the run-of-mine coal; the two are mixed together and sold as domestic coal. I would like to see that duty levelled up in some way or other, and I am bringing that to the attention of the government, and especially to the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr.Robb).
I do not think the people of Ontario would stand for the extra duty, or a duty at all, on anthracite coal. I do not blame them. There is, however, an anthracite dust-and this point I would like to bring to the attention of the minister-which is used first of all for steam purposes and is used also in the manufacture of certain small articles, pipes and the like of that. I would like to bring to the attention cl the Acting Minister of Finance the fact that 50 per cent of that anthracite dust which is imported into this country is not used for manufacturing purposes as a fuel at all or as a steam coal.
I have said all that I intend to say on the tariff in regard to coal, except that I d-o not think the people of central Canada at this stage, without a proper substitute for anthracite, will stand for a duty on anthracite coal. If the coking business becomes in Canada the success *which I hope it will be some day, then there may be a reason why they should place a duty on anthracite coal, for the purpose, if for nothing else, of raising a revenue. They have a splendid substitute in the West, and I am hoping the day will come when the operators of Alberta will be able to send their anthracite into central Canada. If that day comes, that will be the time when we should discuss the duty on anthracite coal; but I do not think it is fair to the people of this country at this stage to ask for a duty on anthracite coal when we have nothing to give them in return. I come from the centre of the great coal in-
Canada's Coal Supply

dustry of Nova Scotia, and I have no doubt that my words in this regard to-night, when I say that the time has not yet arrived when we should place a duty on anthracite coal, will not be very kindly received by all the people in my province especially by the operators.
I am coming now to another question. I am hoping the day will come when we will be able to get Alberta coal into the province of Ontario and further east, if you will, as a substitute for anthracite coal. I say, Mr. Speaker, there is one way, and in my humble opinion one way only, by which that can be accomplished, and it is that this government should undertake to so equip our National railways in the matter of carrying coal that they will be able to bring the cost down to three or four, or, at most five dollars a ton. That can be done at a very small outlay. I again bring to the attention of the government the great necessity for giving this matter their utmost consideration and care, and I hope in a short time we shall have our National railways equipped as regards the coal carrying trade as well as some of the American roads are equipped.
I have another proposition to make regarding eastern Canada, and it is a proposition which will not add one cent or one dollar to the cost of coal or coke to the consumer of this country. We heard something to-day about coke ovens which were established some time ago at Hamilton. That is all very well. Those coke ovens are established there, and I understand the government has given them no encouragement by way of subsidy or otherwise. But what good, may I ask, will the coke ovens of Hamilton be to the coal industry of Nova Scotia? I am afraid we cannot at this stage compete with the Americans in the Hamilton market, and the result will be that the coke ovens in Hamilton will be used to coke American bituminous coal which will be sent there to be coked. May I say that I made this suggestion this last year in the committee; but the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and others who are against subsidies and bonuses of all kinds refused to sign the report if my proposition was included, and good fellow that I was, I wanted to have a report that was unanimous, so I did not insist on my proposition being included. We can, however, discuss it tonight. I think I have been fair to the Alberta coal fields when I say that the government Should undertake to equip the National railways to such an extent that they will be able to land Alberta coal in Ontario with freight rates of not over $5 a ton. May I ask my

lion, friends from Alberta then to give some consideration at least to a proposition that I am going to make as regards eastern coal? I understand Alberta coal is not good for making coke. Much of it is a good substitute for anthracite coal. The government having undertaken to equip our National railways with the proper facilities for carrying coal from Alberta to the East, my proposition to the government as regards the coal trade in the East is this, that they should bonus every ton of coke which is manufactured from Canadian bituminous coal. The cost to the consumer will not be one dollar more. This may cost the government, the people of this country, a little in the way of money, but what an enormous benefit it will be if we in the East can replace in the markets of Canada American coal with a proper substitute, namely, coke which will be manufactured from Canadian bituminous coal? I venture to say that, if that is done, and with the proper facilities by eastern companies for carrying coal from Montreal to Hamilton, every ton of coke which will be manufactured in the coke ovens of Hamilton will be Canadian coal. I submit this proposition to the government, and I think it is something they should take into serious consideration as regards both the East and the West.
This afternoon, I noticed a letter in the Ottawa Evening Journal. It was a surprising thing to me to ascertain the enormous spread between the cost of coal landed at the international boundary and the cost of coal to the householder in the city of Ottawa. There is something wrong. May I quote some figures which are given in this paper, and these figures are absolutely right, because in answer to some questions asked by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), the government replied by giving the quantity of coal brought in and the price of that coal. From these figures it is ascertained that anthracite coal cost at the border for the last three years, S8,85, $8.74 and- $8.99, respectively. The freight rate from the international boundary through which this coal comes, is $1.76 a ton, and this makes the actual cost of coal in Ottawa around $10. Is it not a marvellous thing that the coal is sold in Ottawa for $17 a ton? The people of Ottawa and of other Ontario cities are being, I was going to use a stronger word, but I will say fleeced, not by the coal operators as much as by the coal dealers. This is another question which, I. think, the government should undertake to investigate on behalf, especially of the people of Ontario. The whole question is an important one and one that should be considered. The government should at the

Canada's Coal Supply
earliest possible moment take into consideration the two propositions which I have made, the one regarding proper equipment for our National railways, and the other regarding the question of a bonus on coke manufactured from Canadian bituminous coal. All these things are important, and I hope the govern-men will give them their best consideration. If they sit around their round table and give the whole matter their consideration, I am sure they will make both those suggestions of mine effective in a short time.
I wish to make a few observations as regards the coal industry in Nova Scotia. I am glad to say that at the present time the industry in Nova Scotia is in a flourishing state. Unfortunately, if they keep on at the present rate of production, before the 1st June, they will likely have on their hands a surplus of one million' tons of coal for which they have not got at the present time a market. The mines are running six days a week in order to give the employees employment; but in doing that they are banking a surplus of a million tons for which they have no prospective market at the present time. This is unfortunate, and if something is not done to enable the coal operators of Nova Scotia to compete more successfully with the coal operators of the United States, I am afraid that the million tons of coal, which the operators of Nova Scotia will have on hand on the 1st June and for which they have no market at present, will be on their hands, at least for the remainder of the season. There is no doubt in the world that a basic industry like coal, steel-making, farming or the rest, is the life of Canada, and if there is no financial success attending those basic industries, if I may call them so, then I have some fear for the future of Canada. If we are not able to give the manufacturing industry in this country which uses coal as a fuel in its factories, five dollar coal, then I have some fear for the future of manufacturing in Canada. The whole question of coal is so interwoven with farming, steel-making and every other industry in this country, that it is most important that we should give our whole minds to this coal question in order, first, to give Canada a cheap supply of coal and, second, to ensure the Canadian people always a supply of coal of which we have inexhaustible quantities in both the East and the West. Why should we send $100,000,000 year after year to the American people when we have at our doors the very product which we are buying from them? Why should the people of Canada give to American workmen $25,000,000 of that money which might be spent in Canada, *which ought to be spent in
Canada, and which I trust in a short time will be spent in Canada by Canadian operators for the benefit of Canadian labour. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have ruled upon the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).
If you rule the hon. member's amendment out of order I beg to submit a motion in amendment thereto.
Mr.-SPEAKER:	The amendment of the
hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is in the following terms:
That paragraphs 3 and 4 be struck out and that the following be subtituted therefor:
That the government undertake an independent investigation immediately to ascertain the actual cost of carrying coal from eastern and western coal exporting points to central Canada with a view to having a cost rate fixed for such carriage.
If this amendment were adopted by the House if would bind the government to undertake immediately an independent investigation. This of necessity would entail the expenditure of money by reason of the taking of evidence, the summoning of witnesses and the appointment of investigators. If such investigators were judges of the land, there is of course a provision in the statutes which would compel them to act without expense to the government. As the amendment stands, however, it would involve in any case, if adopted by the House, a charge upon the public treasuiy, and upon that ground it is out of order. In this connection I may cite certain authorities. First of all there is the English rule. No. 71 which is quoted in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. This rule provides:
If any motion be made in the House for any aid, grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole House before a resolution or vote of the House do pass thereon.
There is a well established form of procedure which is always followed when any expenditure is involved in any of the measures that are submitted to the House. The precedents are numerous and on many occasions I have quoted the rules. I shall refer now to section 626 of Beauchesne:
This House will not proceed upon any petition, motion or bill for granting any money ,or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown but in a committee of the whole House.
And section 629 reads:
The recommendation of the Crown is needed for such measures as bills relating to the extension of time for the repayment of the deposit which has become liable
Canada's Coal Supply

to forfeiture in the ease of a private bill; the release or compounding of sums due to the Crown; the repeal of an exemption from an existing duty, as the burthen of the duty is thereby augmented; a proposal to repeal an existing drawback on export of sugar as it effects an increase of charge upon the importers who desired to export sugar.
This applies to any question involving an expenditude or an alienation of the funds of the Crown. There must be a resolution in due form preceded by consent of the Crown. Of course, there is an exception in cases where an abstract resolution is considered by the House. Bourinot refers to this exception in the following words:
A practice has grown up in the House of allowing the introduction of resolutions by private members, when they do not directly involve the expenditure of public money, but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant. As this is a question not always understood, it may be explained that such resolutions, being framed in general terms, do not bind the House to future legislation on the subject, and are merely intended to point out to the government the importance and necessity of such expenditure.
Had the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Bow River been drafted in abstract terms it would not have been open to objection upon the grounds I have stated. If, for example, the hon. member had suggested therein that it was desirable that the government should consider the advisability of undertaking an independent investigation to ascertain the actual cost of carrying coal, then, according to Bourinot and May and other authorities upon this particular point, the amendment would be admissible, in view of the fact that it would only be a pious expression of opinion, not necessarily committing the government to any public expenditures. Should the House be prepared to consent unanimously to the course I have suggested, the hon. member may be allowed to re-draft his amendment in the qualifying terms I have indicated. Such an amendment would b.e in order; otherwise, as the amendment is at present drafted, I shall have no other course open than to rule it out of order for the reasons I have stated.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think it
is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of my amendment is to serve the purpose you have suggested. It would be of no advantage to me to have my amendment ruled out of order, and for that reason I ask the indulgence of the House to be allowed to substitute the following modified amendment, in keeping with the suggestion you have made:
That paragraphs 3 and 4 be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
That this House urges upon the government the desirability of undertaking an investigation to ascertain 
the actual cost of carrying coal from eastern and western exporting points to central Canada, with a view to having a cost rate fixed for such carriage.
I trust that the resolution in this amended form will meet with the approval of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment as
modified by the hon. member is in order and may be voted upon if the unanimous consent of the House can be obtained for its submission. The original amendment is of course out of order on the grounds I have stated. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to submit the amendment in its present modified form?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): I do not know that I shall object to the revised amendment, which, as you suggest, Mr. Speaker, is after all but the expression of a pious opinion. However, I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that there is now in the hands of the Interior department, in the Mines and Minerals branch, all the information which such an investigation as is proposed could secure. At any rate, the department has the bulk of that information. But above and beyond that the Board of Railway Commissioners has in its traffic experts the best machinery on this continent for finding out that very thing. Therefore I really cannot understand why we should establish another body to make a similar investigation. If any person believes that the rates quoted by the railways for the transportation of coal from eastern and western Canada to Ontario and Quebec are not low enough he can have access to the Board of Railway Commissioners and their experts. I venture to say that the experience and ability of these men is far wader than and superior to that of any layman. The government is anxious to evolve some policy which will enable Canadians to use their own coal to the utmost, and if transportation rates stand in the way of this being done, I would submit that the Board of Railway Commissioners be asked to investigate the matter, it being the body which parliament has created for ascertaining the very information that is called for by this amendment.


William F. Carroll: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not be ruled out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: No. I want the opinion of the House, because the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) could not amend his amendment without unanimous consent. Am I to construe the remarks made by the

Canada's Coal Supply
hon. Minister of Railways and Canals as an objection to the amendment?


George Perry Graham: I did not offer any objection Mr. Speaker. I would not care to leave the hon. member in a position that his amendment could not be put to the House, but I was pointing out that we already have the necessary machinery to effect the purpose which his amendment calls for.


Hewitt Bostock: Then I take it that by unanimous consent the hon. member is allowed to substitute for his first amendment the one which I have just read?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, last year, as I pointed out at the beginning of my address, an amendment was moved by myself to a similar resolution sponsored by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). My amendment on that occasion was to refer the matter to the committee on Mines and Minerals for investigation. I am bound to say that the resolution having come on rather late in the session, the committee on Mines and Minerals did not investigate the matter as thoroughly as we should like them to have done. For example, many members of the committee wanted the chairman to ask leave to continue the investigation after the House had risen. I purpose in a few moments to move an amendment to the amendment to the effect that the resolution be referred to the committee on Mines, Forests and Waters. I shall try to show the House why it should support my amendment in preference to that of my hon. friend from Bow River. Suppose that the House tonight pass the hon. member's amendment, it would not bind the government to anything. There may or may not be any further investigation. On the contrary, if the matter goes before the committee on Mines, Forests and Waters, there will be some action taken this session, and we will be hopeful of continuing our investigation of last year with some prospect of bringing it to a conclusion.
With regard to some of the comments made by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), I was one of those last year who wanted to recommend to the House that the whole question of freight rates on <^>al should be submitted to the Railway Commission. I am not going to say why that was not done. Many members of the committee did object that the Railway Commis-cion was not in a position at that time to
say what a rate on coal from Alberta to Ontario should be over newly equipped Canadian National lines. I believe that the committee will be able to make a recommendation along these lines this year, because further information will be available with regard to the equipment of the American coal carrying roads. I am saying this for the benefit of the hon. member for Bow River because I know he is deeply interested in this question and wishes to take an attitude which will be for the general benefit of Canada with respect to our coal supply. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, as an amendment to the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte):
That the following words be inserted after the word "House" in the second line of the resolution: "the select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Waters be instructed to consider the question as to whether."
I may say that the hon. member who moved the resolution (Mr. Church) is willing to support this amendment. As a matter of fact, he suggested it to me during the recess.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Carroll moves,
seconded by Mr. Kyte:
That the following words be inserted after the word "House" in the second line of the resolution: "the select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Waters be instructed to consider the question as to whether"
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker, I think we can all support the motion of the hon. member for North Toronto Mr. Church) without any risk of disadvantage resulting to any part of Canada.
10 p.m. The amendment to the amendment we can also support. But what I cannot understand is the disposition of the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), who having spoken of the splendid inactivity of the government in this particular, now proposes to refer the matter to them again by an amendment which means just the same as that presented to them last year. Neither can I understand his attitude towards this whole question. The people of Ontario are not so much interested in the matter of tariffs on coal as they are in the matter of supply to the people, and of benefit to our western and our eastern industries. We had an idea that this might benefit the people of the West, but the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is perfectly indifferent to the
Canadas Coal Supply

immediate active development of the coal industry in- the West. In fact, he believes that a normal development such as is going on at the present time is quite sufficient.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I be permitted to correct the hon. member? I suggested that a normal development was preferable to an artificial one.


Arthur Edward Ross: 
John Evans: I have
listened with some interest to this debate on the fuel question in this country. The idea of the resolution is that a national policy in relation to our coal supply should be adopted. According to the debate the idea of a national policy seems to be one that is not so much for the safety of the people's fuel supply, but one that would keep in this country the $100,000,000 which goes annually to the United States for coal. Now in 1878 we established a National Policy which was to corral the home market for the manufacturers of Canada, That National Policy has proved a detriment to this country, and this national policy which is being advocated to-day regarding coal is not unlike its predecessor of 1878. The idea at that time was to keep the trade of this country moving east and west. This was largely accomplished as far as goods were concerned, but instead of the population going east and west they have gone south. This is due to the fact that the construction of an unnatural dam, designed to turn trade out of its natural course, was bound to result either in the dam giving way or in its overflowing. The National Policy of 1878 has proved futile as regards the trade of this country. The national policy for fuel is bound to prove equally futile if the workers of this country will have to pay an excessive price for the commodities they need. Sir, it is unreasonable to think that the coal of Alberta or Nova Scotia can be brought to Hamilton, Guelph, or other Ontario points at a pjrice to compete with American anthracite even with a duty in its favour. To shut out American coal by a duty so that the price of coal would not be based on competition would be disastrous even if we could keep at home the hundred million dollars now spent for outside coal. It would be a much better national policy ]for this country to have industries established and centres of population created at the coal fields themselves. The old National Policy of 1878 has resulted in the concentration of wealth and industry in centres like Montreal and Toronto, while the Maritime provinces and the prairies, where the coal fields are, are starved because even the very earnings of agriculture are concentrated in these great centres. The same thing is true even of the small industries that at one time dotted the rural parts of Ontario, and this province itself is suffering on that account. If we wanted
to tighten up the National Policy of 1878, which was designed to keep our money at home, there are many ways in which it could be done. Indeed some of the gentlemen who are advocating a national policy regarding fuel are careful only to buy Havana cigars when they wish to smoke. They would not think of buying a cigar made of Canadian tobacco, although that would be a patriotic thing to do for a Canadian who indulges in the habit of smoking. Indeed, when we examine the sources of the supplies that are used in this House we do not buy our lead pencils, pens or pen holders in this country. We send to the United States for such articles. Why is that done?


Arthur Meighen: Because we have the
wrong government.


George Perry Graham: I think the hon. member is talking of supplies that were on hand from the last government.


John Evans: I was thinking that we have had a wrong government ever since 1878. Why turn our attention particularly to coal. If we want to carry out the National Policy of 1878 why do we everlastingly grant drawbacks on the imports of raw materials which could vejry well be supplied by our own country? Why, Sir, I have it on the authority of the manager of one of our large implement factories that he depends to-day on the United States for about 70 per cent of his steel. Why should that be the case after having had in Canada for so many years a tariff policy, and a system of bounties and bonuses? Perhaps some hon. gentleman to my right can answe|r the question. The leader of the opposition is smiling, I have no doubt he has an answer ready.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


John Evans: Reverting again to the question of coal. Seven dollars a ton was mentioned as the price at which a ton of coal could be hauled from Drumheller to Guelph or Hamilton. I think that a most exorbitant price. This would represent for a train hauling 2,000 tons a sum of $14,000 which surely is an extravagant figure for hauling a train of coal from Alberta to Ontario. Here again the fact remains that the National Policy of 1878 has, by artificial means, raised the price of everything to such a high figure that we cannot profitably work our own natural resources. One of the members for Nova Scotia who spoke desires to build up the coal industry in his own province by granting a bonus. Sir, a bonus is equally as pernicious as a protective duty. We granted bonuses last year to several
Canada's Coal Supply

industries and this policy will yet prove a boomerang to the trade of Canada. If the proposed national policy for fuel is to be based on a price to be charged for some other commodity I would warn the government to be careful against identifying themselves with it in any way whatever. If the trade of the country is allowed to follow its natural channels there will be no need for tariffs, or bonuses, or bounties. It is time the trade and commerce of Canada was released from the paternalism in which it has been enmeshed by different governments. Anything likely to divert trade from its natural channels is to be avoided at all times. It might even be disastrous to Ontario if the present system of trading in coal became disrupted. We can yet solve our coal problem by foregoing government paternalism, with its price fixing privileges of which we have had too much. The government of Canada has interfered too much in industry and commerce. A lessening of that interference rather than an increase is needed.


Hance James Logan: I have listened to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and also to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), the latter proposing that this matter be referred to the committee on Mines and Minerals. I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at the last session a very exhaustive inquiry was made into this question by that very committee. In the Journals of the House for 1923, on pages 584 and 585, is to be found the report of the committee which contains the following paragraph :
Your committee further recommend that the government undertake an independent investigation immediately through whatever channels it deems best to ascertain the actual cost of carrying coal from eastern and western points to central Canada. We believe that our national railways should carry fuel at cost. In this instance your committee suggests that the rates quoted are not cost but much higher.
Now the Mines and Minerals committee laving made the report last year that there should be an independent investigation held,
I am bound to say that so far as I am concerned, I cannot vote for the motion to refer it back to that committee, but I will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland;.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) who is leading the House to-night suggests that this matter be sent to the Board of Railway Commissioners. That is about the last place I want to see this matter considered. The Minister of Railways was not here this afternoon, and I do not know that what 
I had to say would have changed his mind or interested him, but I pointed out this afternoon that we had gone into the matter most exhaustively last year and called railway officials from all railways, freight managers and officials, and we found that they would give us a rate, but we found no official connected with the government who could tell us what was the cost. We do not want the Railway Commission to establish a rate in this matter. We are trying to point out that this is a national question. What we want first is an independent commission, if you like, or an independent committee, I care not what the name may be, to investigate the cost of carrying coal where proper equipment is provided. I think it is admitted by everybody that the question of how much it will cost to carry coal from western and eastern Canada to central Canada is practically a matter of equipment. How much will it cost to provide a solid train to carry coal from distant points to central Canada? The Virginia railway of the United States carries coal in solid trains, the same as we carry wheat in this country in solid trains. The Chesapeake and Ohio has adopted the same rule to a certain extent. Some other railroads in the United States have also adopted this manner of conveying coal. Suppose we refer this back to the Mines and Minerals committee, we get to the same point we got last year. We have no power to call the president of the Virginia Railway before the Mines and Minerals Committee of Canada. We have no power to call any official from any of these railways to give evidence before this committee, but if we could appoint a commission, even if it be a commission of only one, let it be Mr. Butler, if you like, and let him be sent to the offices of the Virginia and other railways, and I have no doubt they will have great pleasure in giving him the evidence. Mr. Butler had some of the evidence last year in a letter from the president of one of these companies to himself. But we cannot get any further with the Mines and Minerals committee, and I submit when we have secured the actual cost of equipment and on top of that the real and actual cost of carrying coal in solid trains, then it is not up to the Railway Commission of Canada to establish a rate. It is up to the government of Canada to adopt a policy in this regard as to whether we are going to make this country independent of the United States of America, so far as coal is concerned.
I therefore will have to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), because I believe it is a step

Canada's Coal Supply
in the right direction, and if I vote for the amendment to the amendment I only get back to where we ended last year, to a point where we cannot proceed very much further.


Thomas Langton Church: I may say that I cannot support the amendment to the amendment nor can I support the amendment. For the last session of parliament I was requested by the Prime Minister to accept the amendment to refer this matter to a committee on the understanding as I understood it, that they would consider the whole question and get the Railway Commission to hold a hearing. I wrote the Railway Commission asking them to hold a meeting and fix a rate. In the month of August the Hon. F. B. Carvell wrote me to make an application to the board, myself. I went to the Ontario government and to the city of Toronto, and an application is now pending by the Ontario government to the Railway Commission in regard to it. Last year the matter went to the committee on Mines and Minerals and the chairman of the committee tried to do what he could. He got his report prepared after twenty-five meetings, and that report was brought into the House three hours before parliament prorogued, and no opportunity given to members to discuss it.
Under the railway Act the commission should act of its own volition or the government can direct them to hold an inquiry and fix rates for all localities with equality of treatment for East and West and Alberta and the Maritime provinces. The people got tired of the Railway Commission's delays. I think it is not the duty of the individual to secure a supply of coal, it is the duty of the government of Canada to get a coal supply all Canadian. President Coolidge of the United States was not in the office three days before he summoned the Interstate Commerce Commission, the coal miners, and the railway barons before him, and he told them to regulate these rates. It was the duty of his government to see that it was done forthwith, and it was done. The Railway Commission has fallen down for three years, and it should now be referred to them with instructions to act. If this matter was referred to the committee tonight, we would not get a report until the dying days of the session. If it were referred to the Railway Commission they should act. They would examine witnesses, and ask the officials of the railroads to file tariffs and to go into the whole rate case east and west. I contend that the people of Canada want something done. Here we have an amendment to an amendment, and I cannot vote for either of them. The motion speaks for itself and I am
for the whole motion. We will never get anything done in Canada if we adopt some policy like that- the old National Policy that made this country what it is to-day. We have a Railway Commission, but it has fallen down. The Railway Act is ignored by both railways. The president of one of the railways says he is in charge of fixing rates in this country and I would like to see the Railway Commission get busy and do something. I agree with the four clauses of this resolution. We should accept this resolution, as it is the only way we will ever get anything done in Canada, because sooner or later they will take action across the border and put an embargo on, and you will have to adopt some drastic policy. We will have another sample of them acting first as they did in the Fordney-McCumber tariff. It will be the same thing in reference to coal. There may be a strike. If we wait the coal barons will get in their work and we will get less coal every year, and by and bye we will be shut off from the supply altogether through an embargo. If this matter is referred to a committee parliament may close before we get any report. The time has passed for playing with motions and moving amendments. The time has come for this parliament to do something. It is for the government to take action and to direct the Railway Commission to act and fix a tariff. The last two or three clauses of the resolution are controversial, no doubt, but you will never get anything done unless you adopt measures such as this. Coal should be on a preferential basis. It is a food necessity. Every article of food requires the consumption of coal in preparation for the table. Electric light and every form of electric generation require the consumption of coal, and we must see to it that we are supplied with coal. The people can do without food for a meal or two, but they cannot do without fuel with a temperature of twenty or forty degrees below zero as we had the winter before last and last winter. As regards the third paragraph about duty and adequate protection, if the United States put an embargo on coal, Canada will have to depend on her own coal supplies. The first two paragraphs, I think, were pretty well agreed on last session, and Sir Henry Thornton, Sir Clifford Sifton, Dr. Camsell of the Mines department and others are all in favour of the first two clauses of the resolution. Something should be done in order to get a reasonable rate, because, I think, it has been proved that the coal can be transported at a reasonable rate without loss to the railways. I am anxious to get something done so that thg country may get some benefit from the



Canada's Coal Supply
steam roads of Canada. After our country ' has spent $900,000,000 in direct and indirect aid to railways, are we to say that we cannot get any of the resources out of the provinces? The government of Canada owns 20,000 miles of railway and a merchant marine, and it should be able to assist in this matter. If, as I pointed out this afternoon, a private company was able to make money by buying a government merchanJt vessel and (shipping freight to the head of the lakes, surely the government merchant marine can be utilized for the purpose of bringing coal from Wales or the Maritime provinces to central Canada. What has been done by private enterprise surely can be done by the government merchant marine in carrying coal from the Maritime provinces. For these reasons I should like to see something done here to-night. I am not in favour of having this matter referred to a committee, in which case nothing will be done at all. If this matter is allowed to stand over, you will find that the railways will continue to do nothing as they have been doing in the last two years. I would, therefore, like to see some definite action taken tonight on this important question.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to the resolution, because it contains one inaccuracy and one or two implied inaccuracies. It tries to establish in the minds of the people of this country a situation that does not exist. The opening paragraph reads:
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 United States for such supply.
In my opinion, no part of Canada is dependent on the United States at the present time for its coal supply in the proper sense of that term. With the enormous coal fields in eastern and western Canada, we cannot be dependent on the United States for our coal supply even in central Ontario to any permanent extent, because if such a situation as that stated by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) should arise, if the United States should be so insane as to put an embargo or an excessive export duty on coal, they would know immediately that with the immense coal supplies of this country, we could take care of ourselves. We might be temporarily inconvenienced, but the inconvenience would be only temporary.
With regard to hard coal, the situation is this, that within the last two or three years we have been getting a large quantity of anthracite coal from the British Islands, and 
every year the quantity is increasing. I have been informed by a man in the wholesale business in Montreal that next year one-half or, perhaps, two-thirds of the hard coal consumed in that city will come from the British Islands; that the quality will be fully equal to United States' coal, and the price lower. Therefore, we are not dependent on the United States for even our hard coal supplies.


William F. Carroll: I agree with the hon.
gentleman to a certain extent. The whole question is one of cost; but if we are getting so much of a substitute for hard coal from the British Islands, how does it happen that we imported 400,000 tons more anthracite coal from .the United States this year than we did three years ago?


James Joseph Hughes: I cannot answer that
question. The country needs the coal, I suppose; the country is demanding it; but as a matter of fact, our coal importations from the British Islands are increasing very fast, and the supply there is equal to the demand, in fact, it is far greater than the supply in the United States. In addition to that, we are providing a substitute for hard coal that will take care of a large proportion of the slack coal mined in eastern and western Canada. I have been informed by some of the mine officials at Sydney that a very large proportion of slack coal is used for that purpose and, therefore, they are able to manufacture it cheaply. We have been told this afternoon by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who seems to understand the question fairly well, that this coke is just as good as the hard coal imported from the United States.
I want to refer to that to show that, contrary to the language of this resolution, we are not dependent on the United States for our coal supply, and that we need not worry so much about any alarming conditions arising in the immediate future.
The second paragraph of the resolution reads:
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.
I have already answered that paragraph, I think, by my remarks in regard to the coal supplies.
The third paragraph states:
That a duty should be placed on coal from the United States to ensure an all British supply for Canada and thus afford adequate protection to coal mined and coked under the British flag.
Of course the flag would have to be brought in. Anything originating in Toronto would have to mention the flag. The situation is

Canada's Coal Supply
this:	The' duty at the present time on
bituminous coal coming from the United States is 53 cents a ton. The same duty is imposed on coal from Canada entering the United States. I do not know the quantity, but I know that, as a matter of fact, the coal mines of Nova Scotia ship coal to the United States.


William F. Carroll: Not this year.


James Joseph Hughes: They have been doing so in the past.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: When there was no duty .


James Joseph Hughes: All right. Take the duty off. There is an arrangement between the United States and Canada that the moment we take the duty off our coal, they will take it off theirs. Then there is a market with cheap water transportation right at the door almost of the eastern Canadian coal producers. We have been told by the Minister of the Interior this afternoon that the mines of Alberta are shipping coal into the United States. If you remove the duty, would that industry not increase? Would those exportations not increase? Would it not be just as well for the miners and the people of Alberta to ship their coal to the United States as it would be to send it to Ontario? Would it not be better for the people and the industries of Ontario to get their coal from across the border where they could get it cheaper? We have been told by the Minister of the Interior that the price of coal at the pit mouth, just south of the boundary line in Illinois, is $1.75 a ton. In Nova Scotia, coal cannot be mined for any figure like that at the pit mouth. It would be at least $3 or $4 a' ton. or twice as much as the price of coal in Illinois. What duty could be imposed upon it that would compel the people of Ontario to buy our coal? My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) to-day suggested that 20 per cent would be sufficient. Twenty per cent on $1.75 or $2,001 Why, 100 per cent, would not be sufficient because there is 100 per cent of a difference in the price. No duty that the Canadian people would stand would be sufficient to take the coal of Nova Scotia into Ontario, or at least into the western part of that province. According to my view of the matter, the proper solution of this problem is to meet the people of the United States on equal terms. It would be to the advantage of Nova Scotia, to the advantage of Alberta, to the advantage of Ontario and to the advantage of the whole Dominion. That is the proper solution. I 56J
should like to have the privilege of voting against the resolution, but as the amendment disposes of it I will vote for that amendment. When the time comes, however, for a further consideration of this subject I shall certainly implement by proper action the views I hold in this matter, unless something is done to cause me to change them. I see that my hon. friend from Cumberland smiles. Well, I am not above changing my opinions, but I must have substantial reasons for doing so. I submit however that I am stating facts that cannot be controverted, and in my judgment this resolution is just a scheme to inveigle the members of the Maritime provinces and those of Alberta, if not indeed of the three western provinces, and to tie them up to a policy of protection, so that when that question comes before the House in its true form they may not be able to vote against it. That in my opinion is the object behind this resolution and I am therefore going to vote against anything of the kind.
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):	I wish to say just a few words before the vote is taken upon this question. The hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) apparently is anxious to grant further concessions to the United Statps coal operators so that they may be enabled to further their sales of bituminous coal in Canadian territory notwithstanding the fact that our coal mining industry in the Maritime provinces and in Alberta-although I do not speak with any authority in reference to the latter province-is to-day in a very serious condition owing to competition from the American product. My hon. friend from King's cannot support the resolution, because he thinks there is a suggestion of protection in it. Protection is a bugbear to many members of this House; and because the words "national policy" are embodied in the first paragraph of the resolution, in the minds of hon. gentlemen there is at once aroused an antagonism to the motion, irrespective of its merits; as though a national policy in regard to coal had any reference to the great National Policy introduced in 1878. I say great in this instance because that policy has been shown to be so by the mere fact that it has been upheld by every great statesman since that time. The coal industry of Nova Scotia to-day stands in need of immediate relief, and as the hon. member for Cumberland has pointed out, when the question was first brought up during the present session it was introduced by the hon. mem-
Canada's Coal Supply

ber for North Toronto (Mr. Church) supported by the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken); so that at all events we of the Maritime provinces cannot be charged with taking a parochial view of this question or of advancing arguments to further sectional interests in the Maritime provinces. This question, Mr. Speaker, affects the whole Dominion, and for the life of me I cannot see what advantage we are to gain by shelving the resolution or sending it to the committee on Mines and Minerals, or to the Railway Commission, or to any other special body. Speaking of immediate relief in this matter, I want to endorse the words of the hon. member for Cumberland. We want to see Canadian coal consumed on the National railways, and we want preferential rates on the railways to enable us to send our coal to the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the rates at the present time being impossible. The increase in coal transportation rates between 1914 and 1922 from $2.50 per ton to $4.70 as between Sydney and Montreal represents an advance of 88 per cent, which is unjustifiable. In my opinion it could stand a reduction. The rates were increased in 1918 by 40 per cent, and I venture to say that if there were a reduction of 30 per tent in the rates for the transportation of our coal the railways would suffer no serious loss.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does the hon. gentleman think that the government or parliament could force the railways to carry coal at a great loss and then compel the taxpayers to make up the deficit, any more than they could force the railways to carry apples and other produce of Nova Scotia at a reduced rate?


Mr. DOUCET:: I would want to have it
established first that there would be any serious loss in carrying coal from Jlova Scotia to central Canada at a rate 30 per cent lower than that at present charged. It has not been demonstrated that such a reduction would mean any serious loss to the railways, and until that is shown I shall maintain that a reduction of 30 per cent on existing rates would be justified. If the mines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-because we have coal in that province-and in Alberta could supply the 16,000,000 tons of bituminous coal which is imported to-day from the United States, providing that transportation rates from Alberta to Toronto would not exceed $6 a ton, this country would benefit to the extent of something like $96,000,000 in this

respect. If it is admitted that' between 70 and 75 per cent of all transportation costs remain in the country through which the trade is transported, then I submit it is an item of such magnitude as requires the immediate consideration of this House. Therefore I urge that the coal situation calls for relief without further delay, and that we can all adopt the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church).


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) this afternoon raised a question, in which I am particularly interested, with regard to the briquetting plant at Bienfait. I had intended to raise the question myself, and was very pleased with the information given by the hon. minister (Mr. Stewart). I would direct the attention of the House to an order in council which was passed in August, 1918, directing the Lignite Utilization Board to find out two things: One, if the lignite located in those coal fields could be carbonized; two, if it would be a commercial proposition. The report recently issued by the board demonstrates beyond question, I believe, that the feasibility of carbonization may be considered established. It is within the knowledge of the House that the government of Manitoba withdrew from further participation in the experimental work, leaving the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government to carry on. I should like to know if the government proposes to instruct the board, or some other body, to continue the experiments to demonstrate the commercial possibilities of briquetting lignite at Bienfait.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to the hon. gentleman I have already mentioned that the experiment in carbonization of lignite at Bienfait has proven successful. The Manitoba government having withdrawn, if the experimental work is to be continued, some other arrangement will have to be made between the Saskatchewan government and ourselves.


Arthur Meighen: (Leader of the Opposition): Before the House comes to a decision, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement on the original motion and the various amendments that have been moved since. I do not want to be content with a mere hackneyed repetition of the assertion that the resolution itself touches an important subject. To my mind the question is so transcendently important that it demands an even more radical assertion of principle at the hands of the House than is

Canada's Coal Supply
embodied in any of the motions now before us. It has engaged the minds of the Canadian people for some years, and in increasing degree it has, up to some time ago at least, engaged the attention of the Canadian government. The attention given to the problem has been intensified of late because of events that have transpired, events that have seemed to threaten at times our supply of fuel altogether, and as well because of economic tendencies which have made all the more aggravated the suffering we endure because of the withdrawal from domestic circulation of so much of our money for the purchase of American coal.
I deplore for several reasons the continued purchase of American coal in the quantities which we have been importing. First of all, it surely is axiomatic to say that government policy should always tend to minimize to the utmost the import requirements of a country relative to its consumption. I know there are some who will still argue the contrary, but really it staggers my comprehension how any one can possibly take another view. And I observe that no government ever takes any other view. I venture to say that if a new government should be formed of any party now in this House, however incipient, it would not take another view when it faced the responsibilities of power. To argue that it is not at all to our injury that we should send $100,000,000 to another country for coal instead of producing it here because we have to buy something from that other country or we cannot sell to it-how impotent is the contention! Cannot they pay us? Have they not three-quarters of the gold of the world? What is to hinder them paying us? As long as we continue in the course we are now pursuing, we are going to exhibit a limping, halting gait-simply for the reason that we are leaving others to do what it is within our power to do ourselves. One hundred million dollars, if spent within Canada, would not only be used within its own limits for the production of coal, but because of the people being here to use it the money would be turned over and over, and benefits multiplied would accrue therefrom.
But besides-and this is what I want to emphasize more because it has not been much referred to this afternoon-this country is not in a desirable, I had almost said dignified, position, in being dependent in the sense we are now upon the United1 States for our fuel supply. We are not, it is true, wholly dependent. If the worst come to the worst, we could at a great cost, probably at great
sacrifice to our trade, entirely supply ourselves. We have the material, we have the transportation. But under the conditions of today the provision of the coal for ourselves from our own resources would be at such a cost that probably the productive energies of our country would be severely strained To a great degree at least we would suffer. We have not yet advanced to the position where we could meet an emergency 11 p.m. of that kind without certain and very grave anxiety. This situation I said was undesirable. It is unenviable. It is true in our relations with the United States we have got along without recourse to anything in the nature of force for over a century. For the most part we have got along without recourse to anything in the way of threatening pressure. We have got along better, I think it may be said, than any two nations wholly distinct ever got along in the world's history before. Nevertheless, there have always been, and perhaps never so many as now, differences between us. There have been matters of contention, there have been matters -in the settlement of which that nation won which had the heaviest lever to wield against the other. That those questions exist to-day no one with any knowledge of Canadian affairs disputes. In fact, in my judgment, and at the moment I refer only to the debate of last week, the necessity of being immediately independent in vital requirements of the United States never was so great, never was so imminent as it is at this very hour. I do not like to be in a position with respect to the Chicago drainage canal or any other question where I am liable to be answered, by implication, if not expressly: Unless you yield, look out for your coal. If that answer lies in the mouths of American statesmen, whether they express it or not, it is going to be reflected in the results of any discussion we have on the Chicago drainage canal or any other subject of controversy. Consequently, this country owes it to itself to be in a position that no matter what step the United States may take, no matter what course they may point out to us as open to them, we are able to take care of ourselves in all eventualities, and when we are in such position we will get a better settlement of the various matters that from time to time stand between us.
I said that we could even now meet an emergency, but at great cost. If we were denied American coal, though certainly American coal interests would be very strongly against it, if we were for any reason in that position, we could bring coal from Alberta, we could bring coal from Nova Scotia; but
Canada's Coal Supply

with the. facilities we have and with the instruments for its use in this province, particularly in our manufacturing centres, we undoubtedly would imperil at least some of our industries in competition with other corresponding industries, and perhaps would put many of them out of business entirely.
Thus we have got to the point where it behooves us to put ourselves in a position that no matter what may come, the loss to us by the change would not be so great as to be' serious. There are several ways by which this can be done. I am not in a position to argue which is the best, but I think there are more . than one which could be applied and which would be better than the present position of affairs. Some of them have been suggested this afternoon. One or two are suggested in the main motion. There is nothing on earth suggested in either amendment; but one or two are suggested in the main motion.
It has been said that we could develop our own resources by an increase in the protective duty, a duty that has remained very low for many years, that some have argued should be higher, that some on the contrary have argued should be wiped' out altogether. I am not prepared myself to say, I do not claim to be in a position to say, that we could substantially increase the duty that now applies and not raise productive costs in our central provinces to a degree that would make it impossible for them to compete and hold their position in the industrial world. It might be possible; it might not. However, that is one route that is open to us, and a route that should be explored.
Another is suggested in the last clause of the amendment, that we should through this parliament legislate placing the transportation of coal in a special category and compelling our railways to levy very low rates in accordance with that category. I do not like this principle. I think it is open to the objections urged by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) this evening. I do not see any consistency, any common sense in appointing a Railway Commission with specific powers, _ with specific duties, and then after appointing it and empowering it to exercise such duties immediately stepping in and exercising some of these duties ourselves. If we intend to perform this function, for goodness sake let us remove the duplication and wipe the Railway Commission off the slate.
But there are still other methods. We might, for example, leave the Railway Commission in full possession of its powers, leave it and it alone commissioned to say what the right and fair rate is having regard to the rail-
ways, having regard to the producer, and having regard to the consumer; and ourselves, while the rate remained as fixed by the commission, contribute from the national treasury a share of that rate, or perhaps in co-operation with certain provinces so contribute. This is another method well worthy of exploration.
There is a fourth that has come from the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), namely, that some system of bounty should be devised especially applicable to coking, and consequently, as he says only for the benefit of Nova Scotia coal. Possibly some corresponding help might be given to coal from the other direction. At any rate, while I do not like bounties in general, it is something worthy of consideration too. I would be ready to consider almost any course to get ourselves out of the position we are in to-day, any course save that suggested by the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes), which would undoubtedly and inevitably have the effect of only getting us farther in.
The amendment to the amendment is first before us. This motion suggests to the House that we refer to the committee on Mines and Minerals to consider whether or not the time has arrived for Canada to have a national policy in relation to coal. Think of the position of this House, serious, grownup men, referring at this stage of the country's history to the Mines and Minerals committee to decide whether we should have a national policy in relation to coal! Have we not decided it over and over again? Are we not all agreed on the. necessity? Is it not our duty, led by the government of the day to propound that policy and propound it now? Has not this very same subject, as the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr.. Logan) says been before that vqry same committee just last session, and did not the committee deal* with it and report to this House? Why insult the committee by sending the same subject back again? As a matter of fact, is not this amendment just the old habit of shunting the question out of parliament? Is it not just another way of saying "forget it", until perhaps next session we will come again and have upon it another academic discussion? For that reason I oppose the amendment to the amendment.
The hon. member for Bow' River (Mr. Garland) moves the main amendment, which adopts the first two clauses of the resolution, but which afterwards calls upon the government to investigate as to what would be the proper rates on coal to be applied by our

Canada's Coal Supply
railways. Exactly for the reasons stated by the Minister of Railways I oppose this amendment. What is the Railway Commission for?
If we are better than the Railway Commission, had not we better get rid of the commission? It costs us hundreds of thousands a year. Why spend hundreds of thousands and then do the work ourselves? I do not need to go farther. To adopt the amendment is simply to instal a precedent which will land us in endless trouble, indeed, it will land us back in the position we were in twenty-three years ago.
Then I come to the main motion. The main motion in its first two paragraphs is to my mind unobjectionable. It places up to the government squarely the necessity, the imperative immediate necessity of bringing down to parliament a national coal policy to achieve the object set out in those two clauses, and to do it at this session.
The second two clauses though are different. I have already alluded to the third, namely, that which calls now for an immediate increase in the coal duty. Even if I were of opinion that this increase should be'made I do not think it would be a wise thing for parliament, in advance of the budget, to declare now that it should be done. It would simply be repeating the grave error which the government made in the Speech from the Throne, an error, which I know, in the silence of their tents in the quiet of their bed chambers they have since in tears repented; it would only repeat that error to the disturbance of Canadian industry. I am convinced that we have not the information as to whether it could be done even were this the time to do it. Consequently I could not support the third clause.
May I diverge for a moment to make a reference to some words spoken by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans). He, of course, is an ardent free trader in all things, and he has persuaded me that he is absolutely honest in his convictions, that his mind is thoroughly true. Nay, sometimes I think if we had caught him young enough we could have led him into saner and more practical policies. Nevertheless, as a free trader, he wants to know why we do not apply our protective policies more generally if we believe in them at all. "Why is it", he asks "that you take your duties off, or make them very light, upon certain raw materials which we can produce in this country instead of applying really protective duties thereby encouraging the production of those materials within our own domain." There is much in his contention but sometimes even the best of policies have to yield to exigency. I will tell him just what
the exigency was which brought about this condition and which now maintains it even at the hands of this administration. Western Canada, not receiving in the same degree that the rest of the Dominion does, the benefits of a protective policy, not being as yet a highly developed industrial country, has insistently demanded all through these years that the special instruments they use themselves should enjoy a specially low rate of duty. Eastern Canada, in fact the whole Dominion, in honest endeavour to meet the views of our friends from the West brought down step by step the duties on agricultural implements, and brought them down so low that in order to enable these implements to be manufactured at all concessions were given to the producers of such implements in the way of the importations of these very articles.


John Evans: For the sake of the western farmer?


Arthur Meighen: For the sake of the western farmer, and to the applause of the western farmer at the time.


John Evans: Never.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend was not a member of this House at that time. He may think it was not for the benefit of the western farmer but that was the intention. The production of the goods was supposed to be made somewhat cheaper on that account. Therefore this concession was made to members from the West, made in response to western demand. It is not because we have any less faith in the general principle as the right policy for our country; it is merely because in the application of that principle we want to meet, so far as we can, the desire of special sections of the Dominion who believe they are not benefited in the average degree thereby.
Now in respect of the contention that we ought as a means to the goal to wipe out our tariff duties altogther I certainly could not agree with this even though it has the authority of the hon. member from Prince Edward Island. (Mr. Hughes) or was it some one else? That hon. gentleman declared protection was a word which had a baneful sound in this assembly, and he said it to the applause of a number of hon. gentlemen to my left. But I noticed that across the way there was a very distinct cleavage in the applause given. Did the hon. gentleman notice that not a member of the government pounded his desk? Did he notice that even the Minister of Agriculture was silent? The Minister of the Interior received the utterance with cold dis-
Canada's Coal Supply

may; and as for the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) he had a moving picture right before his eyes of the duty being wiped off coal. The hon. member who made the suggestion had to be satisfied with the vociferous pounding of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) and a few others scattered m the rear benches, with the notable exception of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). But I venture to say that if in the fulness of time even the hon. member for Hants comes within the serene circle of the government he too will be dumb as the oysters which cling to the shores of his constituency, There will not even be a breath from him in protest against protection. Oh I I have often wished that hon. gentlemen to my left, who now look across longingly to hon. gentlemen opposite for encouragement whenever they express their sentiments for free or freer trade, had been here just three or four sessions ago. Then they would have heard not a single note of dissent. All that would have ravished their ears would have been resounding applause- there would have been cheers from hon. gentlemen opposite and from the whole Liberal party in this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why the change?


Arthur Meighen: Why the change? They are saddled with responsibility. To-day they are in the seats of power; and from some observations I have heard from some hon. gentlemen to my left I am disposed to suggest that if when a change comes-


An hon. MEMBER:: Heaven forbid.


Arthur Meighen: Heaven will not need to forbid, the people will look after that. I say when the time comes that they are stationed on the right side of this chamber there will be the same change in their demeanour, the same subsidence of their enthusiasm which we have noticed on the part of those hon. gentlemen who sit over there to-night.
The solution to this question, is not to be found along the route of a free entry of bituminous coal into Canada, not so long as representatives of the Maritime provinces remain in the administration. At' this time I would be in favour of the striking out of the last two paragraphs of the main motion, and supporting the paragraphs that remain but it is not open to me now so to move. The House will first vote upon this shelving, shifting, postponing, forgetting proposition of the hon ' member (Mr. Carroll) and for my part I shall vote with very great pleasure against it.
The House divided on the amendment to the amendment. (Mr. Carroll.)
fMr. Meighen.]
Archambault,
Baldwin,
Beland,
Benoit,
Boivin,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Cahill,
Cardin %
Carroll,
Casgrain,
Chevrier,
Copp, d'Anjou,
Dechene,
Delisle,
Denis (St. Denis),
Desaulniers,
Descoteaux,
Deslauriers,
Desrochers,
Fafard,
Finn,
Fontaine,
Forke,
Forrester^
Fortier,
Fournier,
Gauvreau,
Gendron,
Gervais,
Gordon,
Graham,
Hammell,
Hatfield,
Healy,
Hughes,
Hunt,
Irvine,
Kelly
King (Kootenay),
Anderson,
Bancroft^
Beaubien,
Bird,
Black (Huron),
Black (Yukon), Bowen,
Brethen,
Brown,
Caldwell,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Church,
Clark,
Coote,
Davies
Doucet,
Drummond,
Elliott (Dundas), Evans,
Fansher,
Findlay,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Garland (Carleton), Good,
Gould,
Grimmer,
++YEAS
Messrs.
King, Mackenzie (York), Lanctot,
La pierre,
Lapointe,
Lovett,
Macdonald (Pictou), MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.), McBride,
McGiverin,
Mclsaac,
McKay,
Me Master,
McMurray^
Marcile (Bagot),
Martell,
Mercier,
Michaud,
Motherwell,
Munro,
Murdock,
Ouimet,
Parent,
Pelletier,
Prevost,
Putnam,
Rankin,
Raymond,
Reed>
Rheaume,
Rinfret,
Roberge,
Robichaud,
Robinson,
St. Pere,
Savard,
Seguin,
Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.), Stewart (Argenteuil),
Stork,
Tobin,
Woodsworth,-82.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Halbert,
Hodgins,
Hoey,
Hubbs,
Humphrey
Jelliff, '	.
Johnston,
Jones,
Kellner,
Kennedy (Edmonton), Kennedy (Glengarry & Stormont),
Kennedy (Port Arthur & Kenora),
King (Huron),
Knox,
Leader,
Lewis,
Logan,
Lovie,
Lucas,
MacKelvie,
MacLaren McConica,
McDonald (Timiskaming), McKillop,
McTaggart,
Meighen,
Milne,
Neill,

Canada's Coal Sup-ply
Porter,
Preston, Pritchard,
Ross (Kingston), Ross (Simcoe), Ryckman,
Sales,
Senn,
Sexsmith^
Shaw,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Stansell,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Humboldt), Stewart (Leeds), Thompson,
Thurston,
Tolmie,
Wallace,
Ward,
Warner,
White,
Woods,-82.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) has an explanation to give about his vote.


An hon. MEMBER:: He cannot do it.


Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand his
vote has been cast according to his wish?


Mr. FORKE:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: 
Arthur Meighen: Before you do that, Mr. Speaker, I believe the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) is recorded in favour of the amendment to the amendment, and my information is he came into the chamber after the question was put.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is not the time to discuss that now.


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, it is the time.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The objection must be
taken before the vote is recorded.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed the hon.
gentleman came in when the vote was being taken. If that is the case his vote does not count. I would ask the hon. the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) if he heard the question put.


Mr. FINN:: I was behind the curtain, and I heard the question put.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is that each
member should be in his seat. The hon. gentleman did not, from a parliamentary point of view, hear the question put . Therefore the vote of the hon. gentleman should be eliminated from the division.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member for
Strathcona (Mr. Warner) came in while the vote was being taken.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course we have to
trust the honour of the members. I would ask the hon. member for Strathcona if he was in the House and if he heard the question put.


Mr. WARNER:: Yes, I was in the House and I heard the question put.


Hewitt Bostock: Was the hon. gentleman
in his seat when the question was put?


Daniel Webster Warner: I would not be sure. I
might have been over there. I do not remember.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
[The division list as revised is as follows:
Archambaultf	YEAS Messrs. Lanctot,
Baldwin,	Lapierre,
B6Iand,	Lapointe,
Benoit,	Lovett,
Boivin,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Bouchard,	MacLean (Prince^ P.E.I.)
Boucher,	McBride,
Cahill,	McGiverin,
Cardin,	Mclsaac,
Carroll,	McKay,
Casgrain,	McMaster,
Chevrier,	McMurray,
Copp,	Marcile (Bagot),
d' Anjou,	Martell,
Dechene,	Mercier,
Delisle,	Michaud,
Denis (St. Denis) t	Motherwell,
Desaulniers,	Munro,
Descoteaux,	Murdock,
Deslauriers,	Ouimet,
Desrochers,	Parent,
Fafard,	Pelletier^
Fontaine,	Prevost,
Forke,	Putnam,
Forrester,	Rankin,
Fortier,	Raymond,
Fournier,	Reed,
Gauvreau,	Rheaume,
Gendron,	Rinfret,
Gervais,	Roberge,
Gordon,	Robichaud,
Graham,	Robinson,
Hammell	St. Pere,
Hatfield,'	Savard,
Healy,	Seguin,
Hughes,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.).
Hunt,	Stewart (Argenteut!)t
Irvine,	Stork,
Kelly,	Tobin,
King (Kootenay),	Woodsworth,-81.
King, Mackenzie (York),	
Anderson,	NAYS Messrs. Bowen,
Bancroft,	Brethen,
Bcaubien,	Brown,
Bird,	Caldwell,
Black (Huron),	Campbell,
Black (Yukon),	Carmichael,
Canada's Coal Supply

Chaplint	Logan,
Charters,	Lovie,
Church,	Lucas,
Clark,	MacKelvie,
Coote,	MacLaren,
Davies,	McConica,
Doucet,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Drummond,	McKillop,
Elliott (Dundas),	McTaggart,
Evans,	Meighen,
Fansher,	Milne,
Findlay,	Neill,
Gardiner,	Porter,
Garland (Bow River),	Preston.
Garland (Carleton),	Pritchard^
Good,	Ross (Kingston),
Gould	Rcss (Simcoe),
Grimmer,	Ryckman,
Halbert,	Sales,
Hodgins,	Senn,
Hoey,	Sexsmith,
Hubbs,	Shaw,
Humphrey,	Speakman,
Jelliff,	Spencer,
Johnston,	Stansell,
Jones,	Steedsman,
Kellner,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Stewart (Leeds),
Kennedy (Glengarry &	: Thompson,
Stormont),	Thurston,
Kennedy (Port Arthur	& Tolmie^
Kenora),	Wallace,
King (Huron),	Ward,
Knox,	Warner,
Leader	White
Lewis,	Wood- -82. PAIRS Messrs.
(The list of Pairs as	furnished by the Chief Whips.)
Murphy,	Simpson,
Power,	Mewburn,
McKinnon,	McQuarrie^
Low,	Morrison,
Duff,	Dickie,
Kay,	Wilson,
Malcolm,	Duncan,
Lavigueur,	McLean,
Cannon,	Manion,
Walsh,	Drayton,
Laflamme,	Guthrie,
Kyte,	Harris,
Clifford,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Fielding,	Boys,
Robb,	Stevens,
Mitchell,	Black (Halifax),
Bourassa,	Bristol,
Chisholm,	Hanson,
Robitaille,	Sheard^
Morin,	Sutherland,
Papineau,	Maybee,
Marcil (Bonaventure),	Spence,
Ethier,	Millar.
Bureau,	Lesueur.
Binette,	Ladner.]
The House divided on the amendment as	
amended (Mr. Garland, Bow River) which	
was negatived on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs.	
Bancroft,	Brown,
Beaubien,	Caldwell,
Bird,	Campbell,
Black (Huron),	Carmichael,
Coote,	Leader,
Davies,	Lewis,
Drummond,	Logan,
Elliott (Dundas),	Lovie,
Findlay,	Lucas,
Forke,	McConica,
Gardiner,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Garland (Bow River),	Milne,
Good,	Neill,
Gould,	Pritchard,
Halbert,	Ross (Simcoe),
Hoey,	Sales,
Hughes,	Sexsmith,
Humphrey,	Shaw,
Johnston,	Speakman,
Kellner,	Spencer,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Steedsman,
Kennedy (Glengarry &	Stewart (Humboldt),
Stormont),	Thurston,
Kennedy (Port Arthur	& Wallace,
Kenora),	Ward,
King (Huron),	Warner, [DOT]
Knox,	Woods.-52.
 NAYS Messrs.
Anderson,	Hunt,
Archambault,	Irvine,
Baldwin,	Jelliff,
Beland,	Jones,
Benoit,	Kelly,
Black (Yukon),	King (Kootenay),
Boivin,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Bouchard,	Lanctot,
Boucher,	Lapierre,
Bowen,	Lapointe,
Brethen,	Lovett,
Cahill,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Qardin,	MacKelvie,
Carroll,	MacLaren,
Casgrain.	MacLean (Pince, P.E.I.),
Chaplin,	McBride,
Charters,	McGiverin,
Chevrier,	Mclsaac,
Church,	McKay,
Clark,	McKillop,
Copp,	McMaster,
d'Anjou,	McMurray,
Deehene,	McTaggart,
Delisle,	Marcile (Bagot),
Denis (St.Denis),	Martell,
Desaulniers,	Meighen,
Descoteaux,	Mercier,
Deslauriers,	Michaud,
Desrochers,	Motherwell,
Doucet,	Munro,
Evans,	Murdock,
Fafard,	Ouimet,
Fansher,	Parent,
Finn.	Pelletier,
Fontaine,	Porter,
Forrester,	Preston,
Fortier,	Prevost,
Fournier,	Putnam,
Garland (Carleton),	Rankin,
Gauvreau,	Raymond,
Gendron,	Reed,
Gervais,	Rheaume,
Gordon,	Rinfret,
Graham,	Roberge,
Grimmer,	Robichaud,
Hammell,	Robinson.
Hatfield,	Ross (Kingston),
Healy,	Ryckman,
Hodgins,	St. Pere,
Hubbs,	Savard,

Exportation of Electric Power
Seguin,	Stork,
Senn,	Thompson,
Sinclair	(Queens, P.E.I.), Tobin,
Stansell,	Tolmie,
Stewart	(Argenteuil),	White,Stewart	(Leeds),	Woodsworth.-112.Mr.	CAHILL:	I move, seconded by the
hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau), that the resolution be amended by striking out the last two clauses.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the ayes have it; I declare the amendment carried.
Main motion as amended agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, April 1, 1924