1927-04-05

Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House, I wish to present the following motion from the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization:
That the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization shall have leave to sit while the House is in session.
Three bills were referred to this committee last Friday, and I have not had an opportunity of calling the committee together tc make this recommendation, but perhaps the House will consent to my moving it to-day as the House decided yesterday to sit at eleven o'clock in the morning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. W. EDWARD'S (Frontenac-Adding-ton):	Mr. Speaker, I desire to present petitions from Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario asking that the natural resources of the western provinces be restored to them without restrictions. These petitions are signed by 6,709 names.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 261 (from the Senate) respecting a certain patent of R. T. Vanderbilt Company.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill	No.	262	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of John Henry Fisher.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill	No.	263	(from	the	Senate	for	the
relief of Leo Bruce Burley.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill	No.	284	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Hilda Parker.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill	No.	265	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Gladys Ivy Turner.

Mr. Casselman.
Bill	No.	266	(from	the	Senate	for	the
relief of Rose Ann Hill.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill	No.	267	(from	the	Senate	for	the
relief of Annie Mary Ann McCulloch.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill	No.	26S	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of George Melvil Fleet.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).


[Stage Direction]
' Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure,-
1.	To provide for a Federal District Commission and to repeal the acts respecting the Ottawa Improvement Commission;
2.	To authorize the payment to the commission of the sum of $250,000 a year for a period not exceeding sixteen years from the first day of April, 1927, and to make provision for borrowing powers, the issue of debentures and the repayment thereof.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I would like to inquire from the
Prime Minister if we are likely to receive before the close of the session the report of the judgment of the Supreme court relating to the natural resources of the west.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: 

NATURALIZATION ACTS AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: May I ask the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rin-fret) if he can inform us when the second reading of Bill No. 115, to amend the Naturalization Acts, 1914 and 1920, will be taken up?


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I am sorry I cannot give a definite
reply to my hon. friend. It may still be taken up in the course of the week, but I cannot give my hon. friend any specific date.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES-REVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
a reply to a question put yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) concerning ihe proposed salary increases for the civil service. The hon. member remarked that it had been represented that a number of civil servants in certain classes would not get the benefit of the $120 increase, and he asked if the government would reconsider the revision so that these grades would get consideration.
Perhaps we can go more fully into that matter when the supplementary estimates covering these increases are before the House. I might say, however, that the principle underlying these increases is that every member of the service, outside and inside, should get an increase of $120, but exceptions have been made regarding those civil servants who have already partially or fully received that amount of increase since 1924.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: In connection with the minister's statement, I have before me a telegram and a letter from the Amalgamated Civil Servants protesting against the exception of the classes referred to in paragraph (d) in the minister's statement the other day, which provides for an increase of only $5 a month for the majority of those civil servants. I would ask, first, if the Secretary of State will tell the House what proportion of the civil servants come within that exception (d). The Amalgamated Civil Servants also draw attention to the increase provided for the railway mail clerks. A comparison is quoted which shows
the railway mail clerk as in receipt of a salary of $1,740, with a minimum of $1,080, as compared with the same class in the United States, who receive a maximum of $2,600 and a minimum of $1,800. I mention this comparison because in other classes the comparison between Canada and the United States is equal. For instance, the district superintendents in both countries receive $4,200, the chief clerks receive $3,600, and there is a very great disparity in the lower grades.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The two questions verge on the same subject. The exception (d) in the report as presented to the House the other night, which I have not before me, covers mostly and almost exclusively, I think, the postal clerks and railway mail clerks. These clerks, Mr. Speaker, demanded an increase in 1924, of $240. They have already received since that time $180 increase, and that is the reason why it is proposed this year to grant only the difference-that is to say $60-meeting, as we understand, fully their demands. Representations have been made to me since the time I made my statement to the House, and we are looking into the matter now. In reference to the question of bringing their salaries up to a parity with the salaries in the United States, we will consider that later on, when the full receipts of the service are on a parity with the receipts of the United States.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the minister tell me whether the proposed increase includes letter-carriers? I have had a number of inquiries.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It was the intention to include them. We are going to ask the House to vote an amount covering those increases, but there is nothing final in the proposals so far in regard to these classes.


Mr. KAISER:: Are the rural mail carriers included in that?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It all depends whether they come under the Civil Service Commission or not. If they are under contract, of course they would not come under it.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 31, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: At this late hour of the session, Mr. Speaker, and at this late stage in the debate I do not
1884	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion
intend to take up very much time. I shall endeavour to confine my remarks within the space we are allotting next year to speakers in the House of Commons. Before commencing my remarks dealing with this question, I desire to express my very great regret, which I know is shared by the whole House, that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), on account of illness, is unable to take his place to-day and resume the debate, as was his intention. The hon. member for West Calgary deals with such questions so brilliantly and ably that his speeches, even when hon. members on the other side do not agree with his view, are always listened to with great interest and attention; so that it is really the loss to the House if the hon. member is not able to come here at some time and take part in the debate on a question which he is so pre-eminently qualified to discuss.
The fact that a large proportion of those who have spoken on this question are constitutional lawyers, and that I am not, may possibly bring to this debate something from me that represents the viewpoint of the layman rather than the viewpoint of the constitutional lawyer. We have heard some very able disquisitions upon the question from the standpoint of constitutional law. I intend in my brief remarks to deal with the matter from the standpoint of the man on the street, rather than from the viewpoint of legality. There is no more fascinating study probably in the whole range of politics, at least for a Canadian, than the study of the gradual constitutional development of the British Empire, and many citizens of Canada, in fact perhaps all reading citizens of Canada, have given a great deal of attention and thought to that question. When one remembers that the British Empire comprises a quarter of the people, and a quarter of the area of the globe, that it takes in all races, creeds and nationalities, that it touches all the continents of the world, and that it comprises practically all the various forms of government from the most democratic constitutional monarchy to the government which is perhaps undemocratic because of the backwardness of the people governed, it is easily understood why the question is so interesting.
Never before in the history of the world have we had an empire such as the British Empire. The Roman Empire, the Turkish Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire, and any of the empires which have existed in the past have borne only a slight resemblance to the British Empire as it is to-day, and that is why the hon. member for
[Mr. Manion.1
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), when he was speaking, mentioned that the word "empire" as he understood it, and the word "commonwealth" as he understood it, were not properly applied as they are applied to-day to the British Empire and the British commonwealth of nations. I admit that from the dictionary standpoint if you will, the words "empire" and "commonwealth" do not apply as they are used to-day, but it simply means that the words "empire'' and "commonwealth" are given a broader meaning and a wider significance than they have received in the past, and I believe they are, like many new words which are getting into the dictionary from time to time, and will be interpreted in the future as properly used when used as they are at present. It is apparent to the most superficial reader that the constitution of Canada has been growing as the years go by, just as the British constitution has been growing in the same way. In fact I think it is apparent even to superficial readers that the actual growth has been faster than the legal growth; in other words, that there are clauses in the British North America Act which apparently are still in force, but which are really obsolete, so far as we are concerned. The spirit of the constitution and the letter of the constitution are not exactly the same. There has been an actual evolution towards complete autonomy which has not been recorded at all times in the British North America Act. One author expresses it in this way: that changes have been taking place in inter-imperial relations without resort to imperial legislation, simply by the creating of new conventions of the constitution; and it seems to me that since we may change our constitution without recording such change in the British North America Act, or since the British may change their constitution by new conventions, there is danger of a report of an Imperial conference such as this being accepted by the House without such an amendment as has been moved by my hon. leader. If we accept the report of this Imperial conference without discussion and without making it clear that it is not a legal, binding document upon this House, some day we are likely to find that one of the conventions-and I use the term rather broadly -mentioned in the report may have upon some of the parties to the compact an effect which it was not the intention of this House or of the parties to the compact to permit to happen. I think it was Sir Robert Borden who used the phrase "legal power" as opposed to "constitutional right." For example some of the speakers mentioned the power of

Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion
disallowance by the British parliament of some Canadian legislation, a power which still technically exists, but which has not been exercised for about half a century, and which for that reason is obsolete. Therefore the constitutional right to-day would not permit the British parliament to change or veto our legislation, but the legal power is still existent in the constitutional act.
The same thing is true in regard to the constitution of Great Britain. The king is empowered to veto legislation passed in Great Britain but his practice of doing so is virtually obsolete. In other words, we are gradually becoming a completely autonomous state.
I may be quarrelled with for making that statement, but I shall deal with it in a moment. We are part of an alliance of nation states acknowledging a common allegiance to the crown. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) used the term " unity and liberty ". The term " unity with liberty " appeals to me as better expressing what is meant. Just as England has been becoming more democratic by the king having less power and the people gaining more power, so in exactly the same way we have been growing in the attributes of nationhood. There has been in our constitutional power a gradual growth which, I think, has been satisfactory to most people except some constitutional experts, in some 'cases self-constituted constitutional experts, and perhaps some youthful Canadians who with all the impulse of youth are going ahead as Rosebery one time said, "with all the heedless rhetoric of ambitious youth." Therefore I believe, generally speaking, the gradual evolution of our constitution has been satisfactory to most of the people of this country.
There are a few facts which, it seems to me, as Canadians, whether Liberals, (Conservatives, Progressives or whatever group we belong to, we might as well admit:
1.	That our autonomy has been increasing and is to-day almost complete.
2.	That our international standing among the nations of the world has also been reaching a high position and has to-day almost arrived at the stage of our being a nation absolutely and completely in the eyes of other nations.
3.	That there are to-day in, Canada no colonials. Every one of us is in a sense a national, if I may modify the use of that word a little. We are all nationals in this that we believe our country is developing gradually into a great nation, becoming more and more a powerful nation among the nations of the world. I do not believe any
one takes the reactionary attitude that we should go back on that progress.
4.	That everybody in our country has a strong desire for peace not only at home but internationally. In that regard I think the British commonwealth of nations is a league of nations in itself, helping us very materially towards maintaining the peace of the world. Our own league of nations, the British commonwealth of nations, is actually an example for the larger and more important, if you will, League of Nations which exists and which is not carrying out its functions to the same extent that the British commonwealth of nations is carrying out its functions.
With those general remarks from the Standpoint, as I stated, of a layman, I wish for a few moments to deal with the Imperial conference as it appears to me. As I read in the press the reports of that Imperial conference when they were first published, before we had the authoritative report placed on the table of the House, it struck me that few if any changes were made in our constitutional position. It seemed to be merely a report of things as they were, an announcement in plain English of our position. The London Times called it " an authentic picture of the empire as it is," and it struck me at that time at least that that was a complete description of the result of the Imperial conference.
But since then contradictory statements have been made by various leaders, particularly by some of the prime ministers who attended that conference, and those statements make all those interested in the question of the development of Canada look into the matter a little more deeply. Mr. Bruce, in his speech at Montreal, said there was no modification of status at all. Mr. Hertzog said that the empire signifies nothing more than a mere name. That is a much more extreme statement than that of Mr. Bruce, and our own Prime Minister, if I may boil down his words somewhat, said that this was among the great charters which have stood for a larger freedom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire a little later to say a word about the reference to this being a charter of freedom. All speakers on the other side have not quoted my words in that connection. I prefaced what I said by the words, "in that particular"-and I will refer to it a little later-the particular being that there was nothing new in the report of the conference, but that it rather stated something that had already been stated and acknowledged as a fact. In that particular I compared it to the great charters of history.
1886	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: I certainly do not wish
to do my rigjht hon. friend any injustice in the matter. I believe he made the same objection when the leader of my party was speaking. If one looks at the three assertions, the most one can say is that our Prime Minister's assertion, if we take his words as stated now, agrees more or less with the statement of Mr. Bruce, but neither of them agrees with the statement of Mr. Hertzog of South Africa. Therefore the argument remains the same, that we have good ground for looking into the real reason for some of those statements. The clause that has been most discussed in the report appears on page 12 of the Summary of Proceedings. I will read only the lines in italics. Speaking of the group of self-governing communities, the report states:
They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
With ninety per cent of that probably nobody could quarrel at all; but with the statement that we are absolutely autonomous, absolutely equal one with another, I think, in view of the fact that there is in England the power to change their constitution without submitting the question to any other part of the empire, and that that power does not exist in Canada, we can hardly state truthfully, when looking at the facts that we are absolutely equal constitutionally. The Minister of Justice in his speech stated that there was no inferiority-and I am certainly not arguing for inferiority-as long as we were willing to admit this condition and willing that this condition should continue. I think I am quoting him correctly. Just to admit a condition does not remove it. To admit a fact does not remove it. For example, a man might admit that he was in poverty; he might say that he was perfectly willing to remain in poverty, but that would not make him a millionaire. The same is true in regard to our constitution. To admit that we are willing to continue thus is not necessarily to put us on an equality with Great Britain in this respect. Therefore to my mind it might be well for us to look at the facts without, in doing so, being accused of colonialism or a desire to be subordinate to some other part of the empire.
The claim that has been made by some, that we are in a position of new superiority does not appear to me to be sustained by the facts, for the simple reason that our present status is the result of a gradual growth

hastened, it is true, very materially by the war. Our position as a virtually autonomous self-governing nation within the empire was long ago conceded. One might go back quite far among the records of progress in the empire to prove this assertion, but three or four brief quotations will I think suffice to illustrate the point I am making. For example, in 1911 at the Imperial conference Mr. Asquith is reported as having said that the responsibility for foreign relations could not be shared by the dominions with the British parliament.. In 1912, however, the same Mr. Asquith delivered a speech in which he practically retraced his steps in this regard1 and admitted that there had been an increase fn power on the part of the self-governing sections of the empire; and he recognized their right, later on, of participating in the guidance of foreign affairs in the empire. This shows the growth that was taking place. Richard Je'bb, a much quoted authority who has written many interesting books on this subject, in one of his books published in the year 1911 advocated an imperial parliament or federation; and in the 1911 conference Sir Joseph Ward of New Zealand embodied this proposal in a motion which failed to receive the support of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or any of the other dominion representatives attending t/hat gathering. Since that time the imperial federation idea has I believe become defunct. The same Richard Jebb two years later, in 1913, wrote a book-I cannot at the moment recall the title but I have read it-in which he described the dominions as nation states, and from the idea of nation stales he proceeded to the broader conception of what he called a Britannic alliance. At the Imperial War conference of 1917 our position was clearly stated, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote two or three sentences from the declaration then made:
The Imperial War conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special imperial conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.
They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of an imperial commonwealth and of India as an important portion of the same.
That was a clear enough definition of our position as seen by the Imperial War conference of 1917. I shall give one other quotation, and that from Mr. Lloyd George.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion
It has been cited before in debates on this question, but it will bear repetition. The statement to which I refer was made in 1921 at the Imperial conference, I think, when, speaking of the self-governing parts of the empire, Mr. Lloyd George said:
They are signatories to the treaty of Versailles and of all other treaties of peace. They are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations and their representatives have already attended meetings of the league. In other words, they have achieved full national status and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and responsibilities of the British commonwealth.
These quotations are, I thiuk, sufficient to show the point of view generally taken in regard to this question. Apparently, therefore, there has been no change in our status as it was recognized some years ago. It has long since been admitted that we were, ultimately at any rate, to be fully autonomous states, and while many other opinions might be quoted to illustrate the widespread acceptance of that fact years ago, it will be admitted, I fancy, that within the past few years, particularly since the war, we have broadened our autonomy. It seems to me that we have developed, from the standpoint of national autonomy to national manhood, just as unconsciously in a way to ourselves, and in a sense as unobserved by other nations, as sons grow to manhood unconsciously to their parents and very often unnoticed by friends and neighbours.
If I may briefly sum up what I have said I shall have concluded that branch of my remarks. We are to-day, in my opinion, virtually independent states within the British Empire, owing a common allegiance to the crown, but not equal to Great Britain so far as the power of making constitutional changes is concerned. There are still many anomalies in our constitution, which anomalies, like others that have existed in the past, will gradually be removed. The Canadian people will without doubt ultimately rule the destiny of this country through its parliament, and if Canadians through their parliament should ever decide to sever the ties of empire and become an independent nation there would be no question about the British parliament accepting that decision. Internationally we are rapidly attaining complete nationhood, as evidenced by our presence at the negotiation of the treaty of Versailles and our signature to the covenant of the League of Nations. And why should we not attain that nationhood when we consider such countries as Bulgaria, Poland, Belgium, the Argentine or Brazil?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: It is not fair to compare us with them.


Robert James Manion: I agree with my hon. friend that it is hardly fair to compare us in civilization and progress with some of these other countries. At any rate, to be modest, we may safely say that in civilization and general progress we are not behind any of the countries I have mentioned.
Now I wish to deal for a few moments with the remarks of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The hon. member has spoken of our complete nationhood. What voice have we in the declaration of war or peace? Is that not decided by Downing Street?


Robert James Manion: Our voice in the declaration of war and peace has not so far been very strong, but that is one of the deficiencies which time will remedy. It just proves the statement I have made that we are not on an equality at the present time with Great Britain.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The Imperial conference report states that the same phase of "equality of status'' does not function. Perhaps the question of our part in declaration of war does not function.


Robert James Manion: I am going to discuss
briefly now some of the remarks of my hon. friend from Labelle. I regret very much the attitude which that hon. gentleman so often assumes in this House and which, if it does not reflect his true state of mind on the subject, is a serious injustice to himself. At any rate he appears to entertain a strong dislike, if not an absolute hatred, for Britain. It seems to me that such an attitude can do nothing but injure the hon. gentleman's own compatriots by inspiring antagonisms, dissensions, unrest and misunderstandings between them and the other people of this Dominion. Nay, more:	he inspires antagonisms between the people of this country and those of other parts of the empire. This is well demonstrated by his reference to Lord Cave, whom he cited the other day as having expressed an opinion which would certainly be unworthy of a great judge-an opinion alleged to have been offered on a subject which was sub judice in the Privy Council. The hon. member declared that Lord Cave had made the statement while in Canada. Lord Cave has since then, however, absolutely denied the allegation. But suppose that he had made the statement ascribed to him: that would not prove the uselessness of the Privy
1888	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion
Council; it would merely prove the indiscretion of Lord Cave. I have no desire whatever to do the hon. member for Labelle any injustice; my sole intention is to bring about a better understanding among the people of this country and between us and the rest of the empire. I ask, what good can it possibly do for anyone here to be continually taking an attitude which must necessarily result in misunderstanding, not only among Canadians themselves but among the different peoples of the empire?
I may observe-I hope without any suggestion of conceit-that a good deal of my reading has been historical; and let me add that, being so far as I know of pure Irish descent, I am not inclined to give any blind allegiance to England. In other words I am not a blind worshipper at the shrine of England, and I say that quite frankly in view of the remarks I am going to make. Even taking that into consideration, after having read a good deal of history and after having considered world conditions I feel that the world owes a great debt of gratitude to Great Britain for her achievements in parliamentary progress, her advancement in democracy, for her successful colonization of the far comers of the world, and for her general high ideals of liberty and freedom. To make the statement that England has made mistakes, some of which the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou'rassa) continually quotes, is merely to admit that the governments of England have been made up of human beings. Every government .the world has ever seen has made mistakes, even the government of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and looking back at some of the mistakes made by Great Britain it seems to me that she has paid dearly for many of them. I have read a great deal of the history of Ireland, and I say here without caring much' whether it pleases or displeases anyone that I have felt for many years that England made terrible mistakes in her government of Ireland. But she has suffered very much for many of those mistakes, because in the last war, for example, if she had accepted the suggestion made by Mr. Gladstone in the eighties that Ireland should be given the home rule which she possesses to-day, Ireland would have been a very patriotic ally instead of more or less of a thorn in the side of England. Again in the case of the American colonies mistakes were made by a stubborn king and a stupid prime minister which drove those colonies out of the empire; if those mistakes had not been made the United States might have still remained a part of the empire. I submit, however, that taking

into consideration all those mistakes having to do with Ireland, with the American colonies, and with other parts of the world, and putting on the opposite side of the balance the honourable and noble achievements of Great Britain in the advancement of the world, she deserves the gratitude of the whole world for the progress she has helped bring about.
To say that Great Britain has made mistakes may be easily balanced by taking into account some of the mistakes made by other countries, and as I thought of the remarks I am now making I jotted down from memory a few mistakes which came to my mind. Think of the mistakes Spain made in Cuba, for example, which led to the Spanish-Ameri-can war; then the Spanish persecution of the Netherlands. Consider also Austria's oppression of northern Italy in the years gone by; Germany's treatment of the people of Alsace after the Franco-Prussian war; Russia's treatment of Poland and the Tzarism which followed, and the Sovietism which followed the Tzarism and which to my mind is an even worse type of government. Then there was the treatment of the Huguenots by France, and the attempts of Louis XIV and later of Napoleon I to dominate the world and to become despotic rulers of the whole of Europe. I mention these mistakes not to criticize these various countries but to show that other countries have made just as grievous and even greater mistakes than those made by Great Britain.


Edward Joseph Garland: Even in
China?


Robert James Manion: Yes, probably even in
China, but I will not go into the Chinese situation just now; I will leave that for my hon. friend. Now I will point out one of the good things done by England which should appeal to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and which I am sure does appeal to all members from Quebec sitting opposite. England conquered Canada and took it from France; in the ordinary course of events, especially in the spirit of those days, it was to be expected that England would wipe out the French language entirely to make this a British, English-speaking, dominion. Instead of that there could not be fairer treatment, it seems to me, given to any group of people than was given by Great Britain to the 60,000 French-Canadians who were then living in the province of Quebec. I think her treatment of those French-Canadians at that time is well epitomized in the words of Lord Elgin to Earl Grey in 1848. It is true that Lord Durham did suggest in his report that

Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion
the French language would 'be and perhaps should be submerged, but the words of Lord Elgin are, I think, worthy of being placed on Hansard although they have doubtless been quoted many times before. In 1848 he wrote as follows:
I am very anxious to hear that you have taken steps for a repeal of so much of the Act of Union as imposes restrictions on the use of the French language. ... I must moreover confess that I for one am deeply convinced of the impolicy of all such attempts to denationalize the French. Generally speaking they produce the opposite effect from that intended, causing the flame of national prejudice and animosity to burn more fiercely. But suppose them to be successful what would be the result?. . .	. Depend upon it, by methods of
this description, you will never Anglicise the French inhabitants of the province. Let them feel on the other hand that their religion, their habits, their prepossessions, their prejudices if you will, are more considered and respected here than in other portions of this vast continent . . . . and who will venture to say that the last hand which waves the British flag on American ground may not be that of a French Canadian?
It seems to me that those words completely cover the treatment of the French language and the French religion, if you will, the Catholic religion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: The Catholic religion is
largely the religion of the French speaking people; there are some French speaking Protestants, but they are not numerous. At any rate, I refer to the treatment of the Catholic religion. The treatment of the French minority is well shown in those words of Lord Elgin, and so far as I know it has been carried out almost entirely to this day. The treatment of the Boers by England after they were conquered, and I believe her treatment of India and Egypt, have been largely beneficial to those countries, and show Britain's great desire for freedom.
The reason I have mentioned Britain's treatment of the French in Quebec after the conquest of Canada is for the purpose of contrasting the treatment of the French people in Louisiana by the Americans after Napoleon sold Louisiana to the American government in 1803. At that time Louisiana comprised not the area it contains to-day, but a territory made up of the present states of Mississippi, Arkansas, Minnesota, Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and some other sections of other states, and at the time it was sold it contained about 80,000 people most of whom spoke. French, which was the common language of the people of that day. But within eight years, in 1811, English was made the official
language and French was not recognized. I desire to quote here an historical authority in the words which follow.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask
a question? Was not that done in the face of protest from the inhabitants of that country?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I am going to
read one or two of the protests which I have under my hand and which I copied in the library after the speech of the hon. member for Labelle, from a work on the history of Louisiana. In 1811 there was passed by congress an act to enable the people of the territory of Louisiana to form a constitution and state government. I quote the words of section 3 of that act:
The constitution to be formed. . . . shall be republican. .	.	. and its records of every
description shall be preserved, and its judicial and legislative written proceedings conducted in the language in which the laws and the judicial and legislative written proceedings of the United States are now published and conducted.
That is, the English language. It is not surprising that when Louisiana was organized and the English language was introduced discontent resulted, and Laussat, the colonial prefect who had handed the purchased territory to the United States, writes in 1804:
Hardly had the agents of that government taken the reins in hand, when they accumulated errors on errors and blunders on blunders.
He refers to:
-the leading characteristics of their administration, such as the sudden introduction of the English language, which hardly anybody understands, into the daily exercise of public authority, and in the most important acts of private life.
Even in 1823 the governor complains of the hardship of "requiring our records to be kept in the English language." That is a contrast that, I think, is well worthy of consideration by my good friends from the province of Quebec. It is well worth their while to remember the contrast between the treatment of the French people of Louisiana by the Americans when they purchased jthe territory, and the treatment of the French Canadians of Quebec by the English when they conquered the territory.


Mr. MARCIL:: The conditions were not
the same in Louisiana and Quebec. The French people were masters of the situation here; they were not in Louisiana.


Robert James Manion: I do not know how the
French Canadian people could be masters of the situation when they had just been conquered.
1890	_ COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Manion


Charles Marcil: How many British people were there in Canada in 1759?


Robert James Manion: On the other hand, this
historian states that there were practically no English speaking people in Louisiana at that time. The language there was French; practically all the people spoke French, and it was the language of conversation at that time. However, I am making these remarks in all good faith. I certainly do not wish to offer any criticism of my hon. friends; I have no such idea in mind. All I am saying is that at an}' rate other countries have not treated the French people as the British have treated the French in this country. Surely it is worth remembering that if, by any chance, Canada became a part of the United States, the three millions of French speaking people in this country would be completely submerged in the 125,000,000 of American people. In view of that it seems to me that the people of Quebec must sometimes, in listening to the speeches of the hon. member for Labelle, ask themselves: whither is he leading us? It might be well also to remember that the independence of Canada, which is being advocated by some people to-day, would probably mean the gradual absorption of Canada by the United States.
Now, Sir-and I am reaching the end of my remarks; I have spoken perhaps a little more slowly than I usually do and have there-. fore taken more time than I meant to-we may as well remember that while other empires throughout the world were wiped out during the war the British Empire remained. The German Empire has been changed to a republic; the Russian Empire has had its whole form changed; and the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian empires have been broken up. And why is it that the British I^mpire remains probably stronger than it was before? It is because of the innate justice of the laws of that empire, the domestic ideals of its people, the generous treatment of dependencies, the honesty in public dealing, and the freedom of the institutions of Britain. Let me in this regard read a very brief quotation by Richard Washburn Child. That gentleman, an American writer, in a long article on the British Empire, published in the Saturday Evening Post, on January 22, makes these observations:
Even the anti-British fanatics in the United States must have an intuitive sense that the world is a little more safe and orderly when Great Britain and her dominions are safe and well ordered.
And then a little lower down:
We are forced to the conclusion, too, that since the war, sorely vexed, sorely menaced by
fMr. Manion.]
conflict within and necessity for readjustments without, the British civilization, its mind and its action, have been on the whole liberal, trustworthy and splendidly courageous.
That is the opinion of an American, and it surely would be finer and nobler on the part of all Canadians-the member for Labelle and the rest of us-to acknowledge the blessings which the world has received through Britain rather than be continually harping upon the mistakes which Britain has made, and perhaps pulling rather a long bow in harping upon those mistakes. We should not forget .that if in this country we sow the seeds of disunion, dissension and intolerance, we will reap defeat. If, on the other hand we sow the seeds of unity, confidence enlightenment and patriotism, we will garner the fruits of a happy, prosperous and united Canada.
In closing may I say in regard to the amendment, that I believe it to be necessary, and that it might well 'be accepted by the government in view of the contradictory statements which have been made by various speakers on the question. The hon. member for Labelle and the lion. Minister of Justice have rather given me the impression-if they have not stated it emphatically-that this amendment is not necessary. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Quebec is very * explicit in wanting to retain those privileges which we possess at the present time. I will just quote a few words from Mr. Taschereau which I have here. The date is January 14, and the extract is from a report of a meeting of the previous day. Mr. Taschereau said on the occasion referred to:
I think that fidelity to our British ties is necessary for our national survival, that we should zealously watch over its preservation and that we are not ready to leave it to a majority of the whole of Canada to say, without the consent of our province, what its future constitution should be.
That is the opinion of Mr. Taschereau. The hon. member for Labelle, I presume, thought he was insulting Mr. Taschereau when he called him a "Tory of the Tories," and said that he did not speak for the province of Quebec. I submit that the Premier of the province of Quebec, no matter who he may happen to be, certainly has as much right to speak for the province of Quebec as my hon. friend. And it may be added, perhaps, that in this day of rather extreme radicalism throughout the world-not only in Canada, although perhaps less in Canada than elsewhere-a little Toryism, if you will, is rather a good thing in order to counteract some of that extreme radicalism.
But to my mind this amendment is necessary if we are to retain the rights of the different

Imperial Conference-Mr. Hocken
parties under the pact of confederation. That pact was an agreement and arrangement between different parties, and I do not know that this parliament, or any part of the Dominion, would have the right to change that pact without the consent of the other parties to it. That is virtually the idea which the amendment of nyr hon, leader expresses.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to say that I shall support the amendment. I am not supporting it in any spirit of colonialism or with any idea of the subordination of Canada to other parts of the empire. I am supporting it because it is based on justice and fair dealing as they relate to the parties to the compact of confederation. I say, Sir, that no matter what our ultimate destiny may be in Canada, that destiny will be a happier one if it is attained finally through honourable and fair acts-honourable and fair not only to the peoples throughout our own country, but to the other peoples of the empire and of the world.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did not the leader of the opposition say in presenting the amendment that it was to be regarded as a vote of want of confidence?


Robert James Manion: That may be but the
Prime Minister stated, if my hon. friend will remember, that if the House did not want it to be so regarded, he would not consider the amendment as a want of confidence motion.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But the leader of the opposition said it was a motion of want of confidence.


Robert James Manion: I submit that if the Prime Minister accepted the amendment, it could hardly be taken as a motion of want of confidence.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: I have two criticisms to make of the report and the action of our representatives at the Imperial conference. The first criticism is that practically the whole time of the conference was employed in discussing academic questions, while our representatives were faced with great practical problems upon which the prosperity of this Dominion and of the empire depend. Of course, men have different types of minds; and for me it is rather unfortunate that our two representatives at that conference were students of constitutional law and, perhaps, not as fully equipped writh such practical minds as seemed to be necessary for the work of the conference. I fancy if the Prime Minister had taken his Minister of Railways with him, or his
Minister of Finance, or his Minister of the Interior, all men I think of a more practical turn of mind than the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister himself, some of these practical problems would have received more consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the Minister of Agriculture?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think I would leave
him at home. The conference, Mr. Speaker, was faced with three great problems-inter-imperial trade, imperial defence, and immigration-and the Prime Minister has not brought back to us anything in the shape of a solution of any of these problems. It must be clear to all the members of this House that the welfare of this country, of Great Britain, and of the empire at large depends upon the solution of these three problems.
Take the question of inter-imperial trade, on which Mr. Coates laid so much emphasis in his speeches while he was passing through Canada. We are bound now to the empire by sentiment, a very powerful agency for holding people together, but our trade is running more to the United States than it is to Britain, and the influence of trade -and commerce upon the relations of different states is almost, if not quite, as powerful as the influence of sentiment. One of the things that is going to bind the empire together is inter-imperial trade. We have in the United States, as Sir Alfred Mond pointed out not long ago, the greatest and most powerful economic unit in the world, exercising so much power that there is now in the process of creation on the continent of Europe another great European economic unit. We have the one firmly established; we have the other about to be established. In neither of those units does the British Empire figure, and if all the dominions are turned loose to deal with this, that, or the other great economic unit in a foreign country, the result cannot be anything but disastrous to the empire. There should, Sir, in my judgment, be established a third great economic unit within the British Empire. We have in the different portions of the empire all the resources that are necessary for civilization. We could form within the empire the most powerful economic unit in the world, surpassing that of the United States, surpassing anything that could be created in Europe. France and Germany %and Czecho-Slovakia are now cooperating in the formation of another great economic unit, and if an attempt were made to improve inter-imperial trade relations, the welfare of this country and of all the other dominions, as well as of the mother country, would be
1892	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Hocken
greatly advanced. More than that, it would add to the sentimental bond already existing, another bond that would secure the perpetuation of the empire, and not merely its perpetuation, but an increase in its economic and political power.
Judging by the statement made by the Prime Minister when he was leaving Quebec for the conference I took it to be his desire to make the empire stronger and stronger.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But I think the Prime
Minister was rather led away from that phase by what I might call some malign influences, and gave his attention at the conference to what seems to me, and must appear to anybody else who studies the report of the conference, a purely academic question. This country cannot go on increasing its trade and other relations with the United States, and decreasing its trade with the mother country, without that having an effect upon our political condition. The one thing that is necessary to make the empire enduring is to create a great British Empire economic unit, which is another name for inter-imperial trade and the closest possible commercial relations between all the different parts of the empire.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: According to the statistics, the United States is our best customer. Would the hon. gentleman prevent our merchants from selling goods to the United States?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am not so foolish as to
think we could prevent our merchants dealing' with the United States. I do not know where my hon. friend gets that idea. We are not limiting the personal liberties of our people to trade here or there. What I am arguing is that this government and the governments of the other dominions should have all sat down at that conference and planned some way by which tihey could tradje together to a larger extent than they are now doing.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the hon. member
advocate that we should trade freely between the different parts of the empire without tariff barriers?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: In other words, my hon.
friend asks me if I am in favour of free
trade?


George Gibson Coote: Within the empire. [DOT]


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am in favour of something of that kind, but I have not formulated my ideas so definitely that I can answer the question just as my hon. friend asks it. But

I say that there should be an inter-imperial preference. That would be the first step, and from that you could work out, with every decade that passes, closer and closer relations between the different parts of the empire.
Mr. WOODSWOTtTH:	Would the same
objections to which my hon. friend has alluded apply in the case of the importation of American capital into Canada? Are we at all in danger of falling under the sway of the United States by having such a large American investment in this country?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think that the penetration of United States financial interests into Canada must have a very powerful influence upon our future. I do not know whether that answers my hon. friend's question. But as to preventing capital from coming to this country from any part of the world, I think that is an impossible idea. I would not propose anything of the kind, but I would do what I could to favour British capital coming into this country and having our great natural resources developed by British capital for the interests of the empire first.
The policy of the Conservative party, as I understand it, has not changed since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. He was for Canada first, and the first interest of this parliament and of the people of this country is Canada. As has been said elsewhere, the people of Canada can do nothing of as great importance to this country as developing our own resources and making the country prosperous. If every dominion of the empire were prosperous, and all standing side by side with the mother country, with inter-imperial trade widely and firmly and soundly established, the whole empire and each and every part of it would be more prosperous. But that is a little in advance of my argument.
I think what should have been done at the conference was the laying of a foundation for a system of inter-imperial trade for the immediate benefit of all parts of the empire, and also having in view the binding of the different parts of the empire more closely together. Mr. Bruce stressed that very strongly on the question of defence when he was in Canada. I think it is t'he duty of this dominion, and the duty of every other dominion, to make some contribution to the defence of our empire. Whether it shall be a contribution to the imperial navy, or whether that contribution shall be made by way of creating a navy, as has been doDe in Australia, is a matter for deliberation, but we cannot get away from the obligation that rests upon

Imperial Conference-Mr. Hocken
us of doing what we can for the defence of our own country. The idea expressed by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that we should go to the United States and say, "We are depending on you for the protection of our teritory," is a humiliating position for any state to put itself in. No self-respecting people will go to a foreign state and say: We cannot defend ourselves; we depend upon you to protect us. Surely the people of Canada are not going to put themselves in a position of that kind. Now, having regard to the forty minutes-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not
apply.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I know it does not, but it ought to. I want to submit a few ideas or thoughts on the question of immigration. I think that in that respect this government is open to very serious criticism, and that the conference is open to criticism. Something should be done at least to formulate, or to begin formulating, a scheme for transferring the surplus population of the mother country to thi3 Dominion, and on the part of this Dominion there should be a more sympathetic recognition of the desire of the mother country to reduce its surplus population and still to keep them under the Union Jack. We can and we ought to bring from the British isles well on to a million people a year, and this country can take care of them. Instead of doing that, our immigration department for the last four or five years has been, as some person has remarked, a department of exclusion rather than a department of immigration. The conditions that are set up might very well be loosened to the advantage of Canada. I do not believe our regulations should prohibit a man coming to Canada unless he is going to work on a farm. I believe the British people have sufficient initiative, that once they reach a young country like this, with its abounding opportunities, they will find themselves placed in a very short time, and every family that comes to Canada makes that much more business for the people of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand my hon. friend to say that our regulations should not prohibit a man coming into the country unless he is going to a farm. I do not know that that is what he meant, but I think that is what he said. I am not aware of any regulations to prohibit anyone coming in from England.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is a regulation, Mr. Speaker, which I think prevents us encouraging to the extent of assistance any but agricultural labourers and domestic help.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but I
wanted my hon. friend to correct his statement, because his words would imply that Canada was prohibiting other classes coming from England to this country. True, the assistance which we give is confined to certain classes, but that is very different from prohibiting other classes from entering.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I thank my hon. friend for bringing the matter to my attention, but what I had in mind was that we should give assistance to all classes and not merely to agricultural labourers. I would give assistance to workingmen and to mechanics, believing as I do that every family that comes to Canada makes sufficient work for others to make up for any labour that may be performed by them.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Is it not a fact that to-day we cannot get people into this country from northern Italy under practically any conditions, unless we get a permit from the department?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have found it pretty hard to get permits for anybody to come in, but that is a side of the subject that I do not think it is necessary to go into.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What would happen in the case of trades which are already overcrowded? Suppose that mechanics were to come here and engage in those trades, would it not add to our volume of unemployment?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I do not think it would. I think if you place ten thousand families in Canada, the needs of those ten thousand families will make up for any employment they engage in.


John Wesley Edwards: No industry has a greater surplus of production than agriculture.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think that is correct,
because they are constantly leaving the farms. I point out to my hon. friend that more people are leaving the farm than are leaving any other form of industry. That must prove that there is a surplus production on the farm.


George Gibson Coote: Then why bring in more
agriculturists?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is what the government is doing. Ask the government that question?

1S94
.	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Hocken


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That only strengthens my point. I would bring in every British settler who is in good health and able to take his place in the economic life of this country.


Mr. FORKE:: And assist them?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, and their presence
here would increase the prosperity of all classes in Canada. I think we need a new immigration measure. My hon. friend has been Minister of Immigration for a short time, and from his exertions I hope the country will fill up more rapidly than in the past, when the country was left without a minister, having merely an acting minister, and the officials not able to decide policies. The department being without a head could not function efficiently. However, I believe my hon. friend is seized with the necessity of filling up the country, and will do his best, whether it is going to be as good as it ought to be or as good as it might be is a matter to determine in the future. I give the minister credit for desiring to do his best. I venture to say when the conference met no person in this country was fretting about our status. There was no talk of our status, except by a few separationists like John S. Ewart, and the Native Sons of Canada who want to cut loose from the British Empire every time they hold a meeting of the lodge, just a mere handful of people who are looking for a new declaration of status. The great mass of the people were not concerned about it at all and are not now concerned.


George Gibson Coote: Has the hon. member any
good authority for making that statement about the Native Sons of Canada.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have this authority, that almost every month I receive a resolution from some organization. I do not know whether that would be sufficient proof for my hon. friend or not. I have received resolutions of that character from Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto, passed by the Native Sons of Canada and they are all of the character I have described.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to be unfair and leave the implication which his words would leave on members of the House, when he says that the men who are interested in the status of this country except as a mere academic question are naturally separationists.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would not go that far.
I think there must be some who are interested *-some of the academic mind of my hon. friend, who like to delve into constitutional problems and puzzles.
[Mr. Chaplin. J


Edward Joseph Garland: There are
real Canadians who are interested in the status of this country outside of academic questions, and I resent the suggestion of the hon. member. I think it is most unfair.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think so, I think the men of practical minds who want to solve the problems of the country are not the ones who are figuring about our status at all. They are not the ones who want to break any of the bonds that bind us to the mother country. They think in the best interests of Canada we should remain a part of the British empire in perpetuity. At least, that is my idea. It is not necessary that I should read this italicized paragraph in the report. We all know what it sets out, but it does not set out any more than Sir John A. Mbcdonald proposed at the time of confederation. I have a quotation from Sir John A. Macdonald, taken from the confederation debates, in which he said:
Instead of looking on as a merely dependent colony, England will have in us a friendly nation to stand by her in North America in peace as in war.
There are some who would like to strike out the last three words.
The people of Australia will be such another nation, and England will have this advantage, if her colonies progress under the new colonial system as I believe they will: that, though at war with all the rest of the world, she will be able to look to the nations in alliance with her and owing allegiance to the same sovereign, who will assist in enabling her again to meet the whole world in arms as she has done before.
Sir John A. Macdonald was something of a prophet when he made that statement, because on two major occasions the Dominion of Canada has stood beside the mother country in war and, in my opinion, will be prepared to stand beside her again if the integrity of the empire is threatened.
It appears to me that when the time of the conference was spent in order to get this declaration, a great deal of aid and comfort was given to those dominions which want to separate from the empire. Just how much influence Premier Hertzog of South Africa and Premier Cosgrave had in directing the trend of the discussion, I do not know. But the conference has done something which puts each of these two dominions into the position of being able to say any day that she is an independent state; that she has no connection with the British Empire or with Great Britain. From the statements which have been made by both of those prime ministers, I do not think any man can have a reasonable doubt but that their aim and purpose is to separate from the empire.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Hocken
Mr. Hertzog says that the British Empire is now a mere name. That statement does not look as though he had very much interest in the empire or that he thought South Africa had very much interest in it. As for the Irish Free State I think we are all pretty well convinced that at the first favourable opportunity an Irish republic will be established owing no allegiance to the empire, not recognizing the king as their sovereign, and setting out to make alliances with foreign nations, nations that are foreign to Great Britain and, quite within their rights and powers, to make alliances offensive and defensive with the enemies of the empire. I do not think I am misstating the sentiments of the Irish Free State when I go that far. What we have done in this document is to put the Irish Free State and South Africa into a position where they can at any time they please realize that ambition. Before this declaration was made, there was a slight bond preventing that; they would have had to create a revolution in order to separate from the mother country. But with this declaration standing as it is-and I conceive it to 'be irrevocable-there is only one further step for any dominion to take to separate itself from the mother country and from the empire. Therefore the conference played fully into the hands of those two prime ministers representing dominions which are not very favourable to the continuance of the empire.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the hon. member keep the dominions within the empire by mere force and not by bonds of friendship?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think any dominion can be kept in the empire by force. I may not have a very keen mentality but I have sense enough to realize that. The situation before this declaration was made was different from that which exists to-day. Speaking for Canada this declaration means nothing at all; it does not add to any liberties or freedom that we had because, starting from the time of confederation, the most responsible statesmen we had declared the position of Canada to be practically what this conference says it is. Therefore our freedom has not been extended.
But there is a marked difference between having an unwritten recognition of our rights, our status and our freedom, and having a written declaration. Prior to this time Canada has not suffered in its liberties. Every person in this country knew that the British parliament would at any time have said to this Canada: If you want to .join the United States, there will be no compulsion from this side of the water to prevent you. This coun-32649-1204
try has been free at any time it chose to go into annexation with the United States republic. Yet that was not declared. Now it is declared, this declaration puts us into a position where we can say to Great Britain: Well, we are going to change our political status; we are going to join with the United States instead of remaining with the motherland. I want if I can to emphasize the point that this country, before this declaration was made, was in a much better position as a part of the empire to remain a part of the empire, and that this declaration does not add anything to our freedom.
I am one of those who believe that Canada has been not only free but under no compulsion ever since confederation to do anything the British government wanted or would try to compel us to do. We have been fairly well a dutiful daughter of the empire, and that is the relationship which I think ought to persist practically as long as we last. These definitions of our status serve materially to encourage all those who believe in Canadian independence, all those who would like to cut the bond that binds us to the mother country. I would be mistaken if they did not become more active now than they have been in the past. We have had a good deal of propaganda in that direction, but it has not met with much success. The people of Canada are too firmly convinced of the wisdom of continuing under present condition* rather than of becoming an independent nation, but this declaration enables us to do anything we like at any time.
There has been some talk about the amendment of the British North America Act. This declaration of status puts this parliament into the position of changing the British North America Act at any time and in any way it chooses. My right hon. friend says that the British North America Act stands where it always stood. That is not the case. Any parliament in the future, ten, twenty, thirty or forty years hence, has only to bring that declaration into this House to enable it to change the British North America Act, or to change any other act, or to pass any law which the majority of this parliament representing the people of Canada desires to pass. It must 'be remembered that the report states that the dominions are:
In no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.
If that be the case and if that view be taken by some parliament in the future, we can amend our present constitution in any way at all. There can be no escape from that.


George Gibson Coote: That will be fine.
1896	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Hocken


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is perfectly satisfactory to mj1' hon. friend. Since this declaration has been made and is irrevocable we have to face the situation, and it will be for the people of Canada, who still believe that the British Empire should be strengthened rather than weakened, to play their part in the political life of this Dominion in such a way as to ensure that separation shall not take place.


George Gibson Coote: Does my hon. friend argue
that we Should be in any inferior position and not on an equality of status?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We have never been in
an inferior position. In the confederation debates Sir John A. Macdonald spoke as I have quoted him, and his argument always was that the acts of this parliament were supreme, as indeed they have been proved to be by the fact that no attempt has ever been made by the British parliament to disallow any of them.


Mr. MORIN ('St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: How is it that for many years commercial treaties in behalf of Canada were made by Great Britain?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If it comes to that, I think that any commercial treaties made by this parliament even now would require the signature of the king.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: On the advice of his Canadian ministers.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No commercial treaties
made on behalf of Canada have ever been repugnant to the Canadian people, so that in that respect we have been as free as in other directions.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What about the Colonial Laws Validity Act?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Louis-Simon-René Morin: However much we may differ regarding the resolution now before the House we can all agree, I think, with the noble sentiments expressed so eloquently by Victor Hugo.
The question of the relations of the various parts of the British Empire inter se and of the relations of each part to foreign countries was the main question considered at the last Imperial conference. It is one of great importance as it involves the destinies of the whole of the empire, and is delicate to deal with because, in the study of this problem, we find no enlightenment in precedents. History has never known such relations and we are handicapped by the rules of international law which have not provided for such conditions.
It is not my intention to study in detail the terms and bearings of each part of the resolutions which were adopted at this conference, I will confine my remarks to a few general ideas on the matter, which in my mind must have been some of the guiding principles of our representatives at this conference and should form the basis of any future developments. The problem which our representatives had to face was to conciliate conditions apparently contradictory, the condition of peoples enjoying their full freedom, claiming full sovereignty and desirous of becoming international persons in the family of nations, with an association or union of a group of sister countries under one nominal head, carrying with it certain restrictions to the rights and liberties of its members.
The evolution of Canada from a crown colony to her present international position has been slow but gradual, steady and inevitable. There were apparently only three solutions to the problem of her relations with the mother country, that is, subordination, federation, or separation.
Subordination was possible for a time, but it could not last. Canadians of English descent who immigrated into Canada were not subject to any degradation; they preserved absolute equality of citizenship with those of their compatriots who had remained on the shores of the mother land; they could not submit for long to a status of inferiority and as their political and economic needs increased they were bound to claim the right to settle them by themselves and in the light of their own interests. As the sense of devotion to the country of their choice or the country of their birth developed in themselves, they were bound to throw off all bonds of inferiority or subordination.
French Canadians who had elected to remain m the land where they were bom and which they loved had perforce to submit for some time to domination, but they were also bound to claim for themselves the right to solve their own problems; government by Downing Street. or by its officials was even more unbearable to them than it was to their compatriots of British origin because it was a foreign yoke.
The troubles and difficulties to which a government by domination gave rise in Canada led certain British statesmen to consider Canada as a millstone around their necks, to lose interest in her welfare and development and to grant her responsible government, avowedly as a first step to separation and independence. It was shortly after this period that a policy of imperial federation began to be preached by certain British statesmen, and the idea took root in the minds of many people in both Great Britain and Canada. The idea of an imperial federation evoked the formation of a political union between a group of countries dispersed throughout the different parts of the world,
1898	COMMONS
Imp. Conference-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe)
rich in natural resources and raw materials susceptible of enormous development, and which, closely and indissolubly united, would take a somewhat predominant place among the nations of the world.
The dominating influence of such an agglomeration of nations was bound to be, for a long time to come, with Great Britain, and naturally her public men were the most enthusiastic protagonists of this new policy, although it had many adherents in the dominions. To many people patriotism meant devotion to the country of their birth or the country of their ancestors; to them Britain was yet the home country and her wealth, her prestige and her power were looked upon by them as their own, even though they had no participation in her government. Any kind of representation in the government ot this federation would satisfy them. Others, however, felt that in such a federation the dominant role would belong to one of the parties and that the position of the others would be of secondary importance; that by such a federation they might be involved in the turmoil of the quarrels and jealousies of the European states with which Great Britain is geographically and economically so intimately connected; that they might be embroiled in mandates, protectorates, extensions of territories and sometimes conquests in which they would have no particular interest and that, on account of the diversity of needs of the different component parts of this federation, a centralized authority might force us to sacrifices which might be unnecessary and prejudicial, consequences which it was best to avoid in every possible way.
Truly imperial when considered from a British point of view, such a federation when applied to countries so far apart, with interests so different and sometimes so contrary, could only mean subordination, inferiority and sacrifices for the citizens of certain of its component parts, so this project of a federation did not materialize* and there remained the third solution, that of separation.
There is in the mind of every human being a tendency, an aspiration, a natural instinct to enjoy the fullest freedom possible; sovereignty, which applying to states means national freedom, is just as much a natural aspiration as individual freedom. This natural instinct which kept us away from federation was bound to draw us towards separation and independence, but in our case these natural and normal aspirations were tempered or mitigated by many factors; ties of blood, ties of affection, common idealistic traditions and a common outlook on public affairs, which TMr. L. S. Morin.]
called for the maintenance of a solidarity inconsistent with separation. The attainment of manhood renders tutelage odious but doea not release the bonds which unite a family together; so attainment of nationhood calls for the removal of all bonds of inferiority, but does not in any way, when these bonds are taken off graciously, alter the sentiments of affection and the spirit of cooperation which unite the members of one family together. So Canada, when she attained nationhood, acknowledging her filiation to Great Britain, could not claim her independence nor wish for separation, and none of the dominions were ready to cut off the ties which bound her to the mother country. Each of them naturally aspired to unfettered freedom and liberty but was ready and anxious to maintain with Great Britain bonds of cooperation entailing a large amount of solidarity, provided these bonds be not imposed forcefully but be voluntarily agreed to as between equals and in the common interest.
Subordination, federation and separation have been left out as a solution of the problem of the relations of the different parts of the Britannic commonwealth, and these relations have taken the character of a partnership, or more accurately, since there are no written undertakings, of an entente which, whilst maintaining the full freedom and liberty of its component parts in all matters domestic or foreign which relate to their own particular interests, yet unites them to preserve the integrity, the influence and the prestige of the whole. Under this system the empire has evolved from a single state to a group of states and the advantages of federation, without its dangers, are being made consistent with the fullest national aspirations and the greatest freedom.
In all matters relating to the internal government of the country, the rights and liberties which are the appanage of independent and sovereign nations have been de facto, enjoyed by the self governing dominions for a long time; and within a few years these rights and liberties have been extended to foreign relations. Thus Canada took part in the negotiations of the Peace conference, signed the treaty of Versailles and entered the League of Nations with the standing of a complete sovereign nation. She has negotiated and signed other treaties through her own ministers, has contracted treaties in the name of the king acting on behalf of Canada-as distinct from the king acting on behalf of the empire-she has made treaties respecting the delimitations of her frontiers, she asserted her freedom from the responsibilities assumed

Imp. Conference-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe)
by the British government without her participation; and has enjoyed in one case, and may have the right whenever she chooses to exercise it, her own diplomatic representation; in a word she has acted as a nation with full powers of sovereignty. This is a state of things w'hich should have satisfied the legitimate* desires and ambitions of all liberty loving and patriotic citizens, but there was still lacking a full understanding and acknowledgment by foreign nations. The resolutions adopted at the Imperial conference have given sanction to these rights and have been a notification to foreign nations of this new status and constitutional freedom. Foreign nations had been slow to grasp such a constitutional development, deceived as they were by the theory of the written law, in many ways inconsistent with this situation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon.
member take the ground that the notification to the foreign nations of this new standing will be effective without resolutions of ratification passed by this House?


Louis-Simon-René Morin: I think that the resolutions
passed at the Imperial conference, accepted generally as they were by Great Britain- in her case so emphatically-and by representatives of the British dominions, are a sufficient notification to the other countries of the world that we have been granted a new status.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Without any acceptation by this House?


James Dew Chaplin: Or by the parliament of
Great Britain even, or by any other parliament?


Louis-Simon-René Morin: Well, we are accepting them.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for recess the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had asked me whether I thought that the decisions of the Imperial conference as to the status of the dominions would be accepted by foreign nations without the approval of the parliament of Canada or of that of Great Britain. I had answered him that these resolutions having been unanimously approved by the representatives of all the dominions and by the British government, foreign nations could not properly require a more emphatic statement of the situation. But apart from that, I may say that
approval by the parliament of Canada would not give to the decisions of the Imperial conference any more Weight unless they were approved also by the parliament of Great Britain and by the parliaments of the other dominions which took part in this conference over which we have no control.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just to be clear,
does the hon. gentleman really take the position that the representatives at the Imperial conference could commit this country to a certain line of action without any reference at all to the parliament of Canada?


Louis-Simon-René Morin: We must make a distinction. There were no active obligations undertaken at the conference in the name of Canada. There was merely a declaration of our new status. That is the purport of these resolutions. They do not carry any new obligation that I know of. These resolutions, moreover, have left unsettled a certain number of points which were referred to in the very remarkable speech made by a colleague of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sitting on this side of the House; they have left unsettled certain conditions which are the last vestiges of our colonial days, and a formal approval of these resolutions by parliament at this stage might give to these conditions a character of finality which is not to be desired.
The views which I was expressing, Sir, were that the resolutions adopted at the Imperial conference had acknowledged that we had the right to exercise practically all the functions of a sovereign state, but that these yet lacked the full sanction and acknowledgment by for-' eign nations, and the importance of these resolutions lies in the fact that they were a notification served upon foreign nations of our new status and constitutional freedom. Foreign nations had been slow to grasp our constitutional development, deceived as they were by the theory of the written law, in many ways inconsistent with such independence, but which under the unwritten constitution of Great Britain is superseded by usage and practice. There was need of a public pronouncement in respect of this new status, and it was the main mission of the last Imperial conference to make it.
There are, and there will be for some time yet, different schools qf thought in the dominions on this matter of the relations between the component parts of the Britannic commonwealth, and it seems an anomaly that these resolutions should have been commended
1900	COMMONS
Imp. Conference-Mr. Morin (it. Hyacinths)
by practically all groups. The inconsistency is more apparent than real, because, as a matter of fact, these resolutions do not fundamentally change our relations with Great Britain or the other parts of the British Empire; they do not create new rights; they definitely sanction rights already exercised and acquired; they raise the international standing of the dominions to a status of equality with that of Great Britain, and they alter accordingly the forms and proceedings of their relations. They cannot be read as meaning in any way a parting of the ways from the commonwealth, but the nature of the ties which unite the dominions to the mother country has lost any character of inferiority or subordination which existed in the past, to take up the character of an association between free countries, entered into voluntarily for their mutual benefit. Such a modification could only respond to the expressed or latent sentiments of all citizens having in their heart a natural and normal aspiration to manhood and to nationhood; it means no disintegration of the empire; on the contrary, if I am not mistaken, it will produce more cohesion. It could not therefore but satisfy all shades of opinions, all of which could find in it some comforting features.
The importance of these resolutions cannot be minimized. Their publication made a tremendous sensation throughout the world as was shown by the commentaries of the foreign press, and there was everywhere a ready disposition to recognize the new international standing of the dominions, and to alter relations accordingly.
One of the keenest students of the British constitution and of things Canadian, Mr. Lawrence A. Lowell, the president of Harvard University, in an article published in the April number of Foreign Affairs expressed the following appreciation of the consequences of these resolutions.
As a result of this conference he says that "the self-governing dominions have become legally and politically, in both domestic and foreign matters, independent states"; they have been brought "to a condition of full constitutional independence." These resolutions are "a notice that the dominions have come of age, have full rights of citizenship among the states of the world, and are to be treated accordingly." But the "spirit of cooperation remains strong," he adds, and as a result of the work of the conference "the cohesion of the different parts of the empire will become stronger rather than weaker."

I concur in these conclusions, Mr. Speaker, and holding these views I can only look upon these resolutions as of momentous importance, as marking an epoch in the history of our country, and commend the work of the Prime Minister and his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at this gathering.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, it will probably not be useful to the House for me to make any remarks at this stage of the proceedings in the discussion which has your attention, but I feel that this is one of the most important matters with which we have to deal during the present session. While there is not a report before us for adoption or rejection there are embodied in the discussion ideas which have to do with our very existence as part of the British Empire. I do not hesitate to say that I am of those who feel that we must not in any way, by thought or deed, interrupt in even the slightest measure the continuity of the connection of this Dominion with the British Empire, that we must go on for all time an indissoluble part and parcel of that empire. I look with a great deal of apprehension upon reports such as this which deal with so important a subject, and yet are not considered worthy by those who present them to be the subject of a motion in this House. If, as has been truly said,
I take it, the Prime Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were merely in conference with representatives of other parts of the empire, without their deliberations or conclusions having any binding force, then the documents we have before us as a report of the Imperial conference could carry no sanction for any action to be taken. That seems to be agreed upon. However, it was brought back as an achievement, as something that our representatives at that conference had been able to get for us. It was represented as being a new charter in fact, and as far away as the Dominion of South Africa we heard from the Prime Minister of that British dominion that it meant the end of the British Empire. When views so divergent concerning the results of this conference have been expressed by our friends in South Africa, our friends in the Irish Free State, and our friends, the constitutionalists, who are so ready to inveigh against the principles of our constitution, we should have something concrete and definite with which this parliament might either agree or disagree. Even to have brought in a report which has no sanction, which does not carry with it the endorsation of parliament, and which is

Imperial Conference-Mr Geary
met without any response, and left on Hansard, or on the records of the House in the terms in which it was brought to us, must, it seems to me, carry some implication in the future. We cannot tell how this matter will be taken up in time to come. It may be argued from this deliverance which has been brought back to us that this may be the case or that may be the case. Who is to say? If it is only a report, the presentation of which elicits no response, and which is denied the endoi'sation of the House, then I say it would have been better never to have been written at all. If it has been placed before us by the Prime Minister and has become a part of the records of the House, then I think the House should declare that it does not agree either with what different people in South Africa have said about it, or what anyone in the future may care to deduce from the words 'of that report. To my mind the amendment of my hon. leader (Mr. Guthrie) suggests the only way of dealing with the subject at the present moment. That is, if there are implications to be drawn from the report, we should deny them and say that this House is not bound by any implication to be drawn from that report. It seems to be sound common sense that we should be on record in some such way as that. Personally I am not afraid of imperialism, either the imperialism which some of my hon friends to my left, who do . not altogether deny that they are of the communist party-


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member has referred to some of us who spoke earlier in the debate and has implied that we are in allegiance with the communist party. I want to say emphatically that we have no connection with the communist party, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement he has made.


George Reginald Geary: I am very glad to welcome the denial that my hon. friend has given. I am only suggesting, while he may have no allegiance with that party, that the views he is called upon to express at times are I think rather in sympathy with the views of the communist party.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no.


George Reginald Geary: I am glad to have that assurance. That leaves it in a more or less definite form. Be that as it may, there is a certain school of thought, communist or otherwise as you may call it, which distrusts imperialism, 'because imperialism means to them the setting of the workers of one
country against the 'workers of another, and they fear the term "imperialism," because imperialism to them does mean that the common interests of the workers of a country are perhaps interfered with by that sort of imperialism which demands that the material interests of the workers of one country shall involve the interests of the workers of another country. That is the imperialism of my hon. friend. The imperialism objected to by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is that which would involve the Dominion of Canada in war. That is a fetish with him, almost an obsession. He seems to visualize some condition in which the Dominion of Canada is to be drawn into a war. Where the Dominion of Canada has gone into a war, an imperial war if you like to call it such, she has gone into it wholeheartedly, with the assent of the people through their representatives in parliament. I am free to subscribe to this: that if the occasion Should ever arise where the interests of the British Empire are involved, and in which we feel we are interested and should take part, then no one but the representatives of the people here in parliament should say whether or not we should take part in that war. I do not subscribe to any doctrine which says that the people of the country should be called upon to decide it, but the elected representatives in the House of Commons in this country should be able to decide the matter, as they have always done in the interests of Canada. I do not say that every war that occurs in which the empire is concerned necessarily involves Canada, but there may be wars in whidh we have such a vital interest, even if it does not touch our shores, that the people of Canada will rise to say that we must take our share in imperial defence or otherwise as the case may be.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: As citizens of Canada, are we not at war when Britain is at war, no matter whether we go to war ourselves or not?


George Reginald Geary: My hon. friend is quite right. It is almost a truism that as we are a part of the British Empire when the empire is at war we are at war, and I think nobody will find fault with that declaration. The Dominion of Canada has risen from a small beginning to a mighty place among the nations of the world. It has risen as part of the British Empire. It depends for a great deal of its force and' effect throughout the world upon the fact, not that it is an independent nation or that it has an independent status, not that it can be said to be separated from the British Empire, but, as I said before, because it is always indissolubly a part of the British
1902	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Geary
Empire. If my hon. friend lias any fear that the design of those who advocate continuity of membership in the British Empire, is to look forward to some controversial occurrence, such as a war, he is mistaken. We are not looking for such a thing, or advocating it. There is no such thing as the militarist or jingo spirit existing on this side of you, Sir, but we do feel that we cannot sit as members of this House- and I speak for myself now-and remain content always accepting the position that although we may be bound to take care of our own shores, we are not bound under any circumstances to protect ourselves by land or sea elsewhere on this globe. I am one of those who feel that if the conference report means anything, it means that we have attained to such a position that we are in a sense, not necessarily autonomous, but independent, so that for instance in ease of war we cannot be called upon for contributions by way of taxes or anything of that sort. We are of course autonomous in that sense, but I cannot understand a relationship which disclaims any dependence upon the British Empire, but which is still content, without assuming one cent of the expense, to accept the protection of the British Empire even when our interests are vitally concerned in other parts of the world.
I do not approach this subject in any partisan spirit. That is not my object in saying what I have to say. I feel deeply that such conclusions as have come before us crystallized in the report of the Imperial conference will, unless we are very careful, tend in the direction of the separating, if you like to call it so, in one sense or another of this dominion from the rest of the dominions of the British Empire. That is why I dread to see part of our constitution put into writing. Except in so far as the British North America Act may be considered a written constitution, we have lived not under a written constitution but under a constitution that has grown up from precedent to precedent. It has been satisfactory so far, and for that reason I dread very much seeing put into writing any declaration of our constitutional or any other kind of status, especially when we know perfectly well and have known since the war and long before, that nowhere is there an intention to interfere with us in our external or internal affairs; that England, while she might be very sorry and hear with regret of any determination on the part of this country to sever itself from the empire or from the homeland, would raise neither hand nor voice to deter us from so doing if that was our sincere wish and desire. We have been independent in that sort of way for many long years, and

nothing was required to be put into writing at this stage to declare what we already knew well. That has been one of my objections to this Imperial conference report, that we are reducing to writing something of which we do not know the meaning, something which in the future may be construed for or against this view or that so that no man knows what the result may be.
What is the answer to that? The answer from the other side of the House is that the report does not bind in any way; that it is simply an arrangement reached by those attending the conference; that it does not involve Canada or the House of Commons. If that be the case, why was it done? If it was meant to be a record of attainment to be crystallized into something that the people could look at so as to see what was done, we should have that statement from the government. As it stands now it is on the records of this House without any sanction at all, and the only sensible course this House can bake is to adopt the amendment moved by my hon. leader (Mr. Guthrie) stating definitely that, no matter what the report may say or what inference may be drawn from it, it does not mean certain things as are set out in my hon. friend's amendment.
We are to-day faced with the situation that we have in the empire of China a danger to many of our nationals, how many I do not know. I have heard it stated that there are as many as six thousand. I do not care how many there are, they are just as much entitled to the protection of their lives and property if they be only one hundred as if they be one thousand. We are, as I understand the matter, not taking any steps directly in regard to that situation. If we are independent, if there is an autonomy, a status of sorts that relieves us of obligations to the British Empire and the empire from obligations to us and dissociates us from any responsibility as members of the British Empire, we would be at this time taking some steps to ensure that the lives and property of our nationals in China were protected. There are missionaries, business men and others there, with their wives and children.


George Gibson Coote: What does the hon. member consider a national? I do not understand that we have any such persons there as Canadian citizens.


George Reginald Geary: I am not going to stick at the question which the hon. member is asking in good faith. When I speak of nationals I perhaps do not use the proper term. I mean Canadians. My hon. friend knows many

Imperial Conference-Mr. Geary
of them personally. I know many who have gone from my city and other parts of my province and who are engaged in activities of one sort or another in China.


George Gibson Coote: In an international sense
would they not be considered simply British subjects and not Canadians?


George Reginald Geary: I am not, as I say, sticking at a word. Let us admit that they are British subjects. Does that mean that the Dominion of Canada, by the mere fact that those people are known as British subjects, is relieved of all responsibility as regards the protection of their lives and property? That is the point I am making. Others know much more about this matter than I do; the government is more closely in touch with the situation, and I am not suggesting that they should send a force or anything of that kind. My point is that we are leaving those lives and that property to the protection not of Canada but of the British Empire.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it not conceivable that the lives of Canadians in China would be a great deal safer if there were no British gunboats threatening Chineses ports?


George Reginald Geary: That would lead to an
academic discussion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am serious, but
I do not insist on an answer.


George Reginald Geary: I know the hon. member i3 serious in what he says, but I believe his view is mistaken. I do not believe the arts of peace extend that far. From what I have read of proceedings in China, the presence there of United States as well as British gunboats has had a considerable effect thus far at all events in preserving lives and property. Perhaps when the millennium comes, we shall be able to cast aside all means and methods of offence and defence, rest secure in the feeling that every man will treat another as his brother and that nobody will be in trouble the world over. That has not happened as yet anywhere, it certainly has not happened in China. I instance that only as indicating the curious discrepancy between the definition of autonomy and independent status and the actual facts as they exist in China at the present time.
As one who has scanned the report more or less closely I feel there is in it nothing that causes concern at the present moment. I do not think however we should be called upon to adopt it in its entirety without very careful consideration. The government, having through its leader and the Minister of * Justice brought the report before this House,
should be prepared to present it to the House with a definite recommendation, and let it be discussed backwards and forwards, through and through, until we know to where it leads and where it has left us, so that this House may have an opportunity of deciding now on the spot exactly what it is prepared to do in regard to the report. But having the matter before us in this vague way, one cannot get away from it by the mere declaration that it binds nobody, ministers of the crown have subscribed to it one way or another. Therefore the resolution of my leader is along the only lines that this House can safely adopt.
As we go along we find in this country people who are taking advantage of almost every opportunity that offers in some way or another, perhaps only by word, to distinguish between our position and that of the other dominions of the British Empire, to separate us somewhere, to take away the appeal to the Privy Council, to have a king of Canada instead of the king which we have at the present moment, to do this, that and the other, all little matters that go towards a general drift in the way of separatism. I feel that the people of Canada do not desire any such thing.
I believe we have prospered and been happy in our connection with the British Empire, and we can continue to be happy in that connection. We can go forward in the eyes of the world never so well as we can as part and parcel of the British Empire. Anything that tends, even by suggestion or implication, in the slightest way to destroy the ties binding us to the British Empire is abhorrent to me. We should guard against anything of that sort, because I believe the people in this Dominion as represented in this House value as they value nothing else their Canadian nationality and their Canadian nationality as it now is part and parcel of the British Empire. We can go on together as we have done in the past. But strong as that empire may be, let us not by any act or deed of ours, by anything we may say, tend to dislocate the union now existing between us. Let us play our part in conserving the strength of that beneficent empire. In that strength, serene and proud, we in Canada will continue to be part and parcel of the British Empire, never to be dissociated from it, pursuing our own way and proud of our own country, but prouder of it because it is an integral part of a great agency of civilization and advancement which the world has come to regard as its main instrument for progress.
1904	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before touching upon the
amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) I should like to comment on what seems to me to have been a deliberate effort on the part of some hon." gentlemen opposite to misrepresent what I have said with respect to the significance of the recent Imperial conference. My hon. friend from St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was, I think, the first one to seek to have the House infer that I had made a statement to the effect that the report which was the outcome of the recent Imperial conference was in the nature of a charter which had been wrested from the British government, and that such a statement indicated an attitude of arrogance-I am not quoting the hon. gentleman's words but their meaning and intent-which the people of this country would not wish the leader of the administration to assume. The leader of the opposition, in the course of his remarks, seemed to me to be endeavouring to have that impression gain ground by quoting merely a part of my utterance, and by declining to take notice of the correction I wished to have made, when I drew his attention to the fact that I was being only partially quoted, and sought to have the full statement I had made presented to the House. Instead, he said that my remarks would be found in Hansard exactly in the terms he had quoted, which was not true. There have been other references by other speakers to the same effect, and in view of this fact I think I am justified in asserting that hon. gentlemen opposite have deliberately sought to have a certain impression created with respect to what I had said as to the significance of the conference, which impression my remarks would warrant in no respect.
Perhaps I can put the position in its true light by reading to the House from the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the interruption on my part and his reply thereto. On March 29, 1927, as recorded in Hansard, the leader of the opposition made the following statement:
I place side by side the statements made by three of the prime ministers who attended the conference of 1926. First, I take the statement made by the Prime Minister of Australia when he was in Canada in January last as reported in the press at the time. He said:
"There is nothing really new in the status or relations of the British dominions as a result of the recent conference. The rights now enjoyed have existed ever since the termination of the war."
That is clear and distinct language which we all understand. Then I compare with that the statement of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made in this House on December 13 last, when he said:
[Mr. Geary 1
"I believe the work of this conference will take its place in history by the side of those great charters which have stood in one form or another for a larger freedom."
Next I place side by side with that the statement attributed to the Prime Minister of South Africa, who said:
"The British Empire now exists as a name only."
When three of the participants in conference make statements so irreconcilable as those which I have just read, it is little wonder that the public in this country and perhaps in other parts of the British world are at a loss to know what actually did take place.
I interrupted at that stage, as Hansard shows:
Mr. Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to mislead the House as to what I said or the significance of it. He has read a part only of what I said. I stated that the resemblance to the charters of a larger freedom lay in the fact that none of them purported to set forth anything that was new, but rather to register the point that had been attained

exactly the same meaning and intent as that conveyed by the reference of the hon. Prime Minister of Australia, which my hon. friend has read.
Mr. Guthrie: No, it is a very different statement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Mackenzie King: No, it is not.
Mr. Guthrie: The language can mean only one thing, that this larger freedom of which the Prime Minister speaks is a new acquisition to the self-governing powers of this country, or something to this effect.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend do me the justice of reading the remainder of that statement, and not take one sentence and separate it from its context?
Mr. Guthrie: I will inform my right hon. friend through you, Mr. Speaker, that the statement is to be found in full in Hansard of December 13 last, and that the quotation which I have read is accurate.
Now I would ask the House to refer to Hansard of December 13 last, bearing in mind the words of my hon. friend, that the quotation as he gave it was accurate. I would now point out to the hon. gentleman that the quotation was not accurate, for not only did he not associate the sentence with the paragraph but he did not even quote the entire sentence. He gave part of a sentence, and that part only which would leave a completely misleading inference. The sentence to which I refer in my remarks made on December 13 is as follows:
In that particular, I believe the work of this conference will take its place in history, so far as the statement of inter-imperial relations is concerned, by the side of those great charters which have stood in one form or another for a larger freedom.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition omitted altogether the words, "in that particular," which began the sentence. What *

Imperial Conjerence-Mr. Mackenzie King
was "that particular"? It is indicated in the words immediately preceding:
May I say here what I said publicly in London before coming away, that I believe from the Canadian point of view the merit of the conference will be not in a statement of what has been gained so much as in the statement of what has been attained and is now acknowledged to be altogether beyond debate. I think it is true that all the great charters of freedom in British history have for the most part not purported to introduce anything new or revolutionary. They have purported to be a statement of those rights which the citizens of the day believed were theirs and which they regarded as established. They were a formal statement which could be appealed to by future generations as indicating the point of agreement that had been reached with respect to the several matters with which they dealt.
Then followed my words, "in that particular," and so forth. The leader of the opposition omitted those words, and when I asked him to be good enough to do me the justice of quoting the sentence precisely he declined to do so. He omitted the words "in that particular" but quoted the remainder of the sentence:
I believe the work of this conference will take its place in history, so far as the statement of inter-imperial relations i's concerned, by the side of those great charters which have stood in one form or another for a larger freedom.
There followed then these further words:
I believe this great conference, once party controversy is removed and we get a true perspective of it, will stand out in history as a conference which has revealed how broad, deep and enduring within the British Empire are the foundations of national autonomy and imperial unity.
I submit that anyone reading the full statement as 1 have now given it, will find it impossible to draw from it the inference which hon. gentlemen opposite have been seeking to give to my remarks, not only in this debate but in discussions throughout the country. I should not like to think that my hon. friend had misrepresented me deliberately and I hope he will now admit that I was right in taking exception to his quotation of what I had said as being only partial, and his not giving to my words the full meaning that attaches to them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what was the original statement I made in reference to the significance of the conference. I have read the statement made in this House after returning from the conference. Let me now read the statement I made before leaving England. It was made at a dinner given by the Empire Parliamentary Association at the House of Lords in England on November 27, the concluding day of the conference, which
dinner was attended by representatives from the other dominions as well as by members of the British government, all of whom were called upon to address the gathering. The statement which I made at the time and which in substance I have repeated since will be found in the London Times of the day following the dinner, a copy of which I have in my hand:
For a time, the real work of the conference may be obscured in controversy, but when controversy subsides, and history lends a truer perspective, it will come to be recognized, not only in all parts of the British Empire, but by the world at large that the conference of 1926 has revealed foundations of national autonomy and imperial unity deeper, broader and more enduring than many have dreamed.
Speaking for the Dominion of Canada, I can say that the pride of our people in the achievements of the conference will, as respects Canada's relations in domestic and external affairs, lie not in what has been gained, but rather in what has been attained, and is now- no longer open to debate. Our pride will be the greater in that this acknowledgement is made without a dissenting voice; that in all that has been recorded you of the motherland and we of the dominions are in complete accord. The charter of the liberties we individually and collectively enjoy may, to appearances, have been enlarged. In reality, there has been, as respects British political institutions, natural development along inevitable lines.
That was the statement made in the presence of the British ministers and the representatives of the other dominions. No exception that I could discover was taken by anyone who was present or indeed by the British press, and it was not until this particular statement was misrepresented in the manner I have indicated that exception was naturally taken to what was supposed to have been the claim I made with respect to some great gain which had been made at the Imperial conference at the expense of the British government or of Great Britain.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will my right hon. friend permit a question? How does the Prime Minister account for the impression received by such an important organ as the Manitoba Free Press, let us say, which has repeatedly asserted that Canada has entered into some new status in its relation to the mother country approximating complete independence, which impression has apparently been taken from the utterances of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend had stopped before he made his last remark I might have been able to reply immediately. I do not see why he thinks the Manitoba Free Press has taken its impressions from my utterances.
1900	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well, I will drop that sentence; I merely added it in explanation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Manitoba Free Press has taken its impressions from its own reading of the documents and from the knowledge gained in its own way of what took place at the conference, and is entitled to its own opinion like every other journal in this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the impression received by the Manitoba Free Press an erroneous deduction to take from the activities of the Imperial conference? I am anxious to get the thing correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to have before me the text of that part of the article in the Manitoba Free Press to which my hon. friend refers, before I express an opinion on it. I do not say that this is the case, but it is quite possible that quotations' have been made from the Manitoba Free Press as they have been made from my speeches, apart altogether from the context, and I would like therefore to see the article and judge of the expression before commenting on it.
To proceed with what I was about to say, may I recall to the House the exception taken by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) to my making utterance of the kind I have just read. If I recall his words correctly, my hon. friend said that I had no justification for saying that any principles had been established by the conference, and he went on to ask what right I had to speak in the name of the Canadian people.


Mr. CAHAN:: Would the right hon. gentleman read from that statement made at the House of Lords dinner exactly what he did say about this new covenant, or whatever the term was, which was agreed to by all the dominions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just read it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: V ould the right hon. gentleman read it again? It was that to which I referred and in respect to which I said I did not understand whence the Prime Minister received his authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read it again:
Our pride will be the greater in that this acknowledgement is made without a dissenting voice; that in all that has been recorded you of the motherland and we of the dominions are m complete accord.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I took exception to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read
the statement made by Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister of England, on the same occasion, tvhich will be found to be identical in meaning if not in the same terms. I desire to give this for the purpose of making it clear that the criticism which hon. gentlemen opposite are endeavouring to focus on the leader of the government in Canada is applicable in equal measure to the prime ministers of all the self-governing dominions and the Prime Minister of Great Birtain, as well as to the other members of the British government who were present. As long as that is understood I have no objection to my hon. friends levying any criticism they may have to offer, but I do take exception to having the impression go abroad not only throughout the British Empire but throughout the world as well that so far as Canada was concerned her representatives adopted an attitude which was singular in this particular direction, and not comparable to the attitude taken by the prime ministers of the other self-governing dominions. 1 will just quote one paragraph from the remarks made by Mr. Baldwin:
"We emerged from the war transformed. Great Britain emerged no longer isolated. Science had decreed that whether Great Britain liked it or not she was for all time an integral part of Europe. The dominions emerged matured, grown up to man's estate and conscious of their manhood, with its privileges and its obligations. We have recognized that fact," continued Mr. Baldwin, "we have acknowledged it to one another and that is really what we have said in this historical document. We are the last people to indulge in theories and definitions. but we have stated there a fact. We have tried to see things as they are and put them forth for the world to read. That is a very different thing from plucking a plant up by the root every year to see how it is growing. We have never done that and we have never attempted to define terms too closely, even at the risk of being thought an illogical people. Now we have published to the word our conception of the status of the communities which comprise the British Empire.
If my hon. friend will take those words of, the Prime Minister of England and put them beside my own words which I have quoted, he will find that their meaning and significance is to all intents and purposes identical. Mr. Baldwin was expressing appreciation of the fact that the representatives of the dominions and the representatives of the British government were as one in their general concensus of view as to the status existing between the different self-governing parts of the British Empire in their inter-imperial relations. He was expressing further an appreciation which I think was felt generally throughout the British Empire that there had

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
been a consensus of view which was unanimous on that particular matter.
Now, what was the status on which we all agreed? Reference has often been made in the course of the debate to the text of the report itself; we will grasp its significance better if we take broadly the possible alternative conceptions of. the relations of the different self governing parts of the British Empire to one another, Great Britain included. There is no escaping one or other of these alternatives. Either the dominions, in relation to Great Britain, are in a position of colonial subordination, or they are in a position of equality of status. There is no escaping this alternative: in relation to the dominions either the position of Great Britain is one of imperial control, or else it is one of equality of status. Now you cannot get away from one or the other of these positions; and when you come to discuss the questions that arise as between the different parts of the British Empire there comes immediately to the fore, the query, on what fundamental basis are you going to settle these questions? Are you going to lay down the basic principle as one of imperial control on the part of Great Britain and colonial subordination as respects the dominions, or are you going to say that the basis that has been achieved- not all in one year but over a large number of years-the point that has now been reached, that has been attained in the evolution of the great structure of empire, is one where the self-governing dominions hold an equality of status with the mother country? I venture to say that understood in that broad light there is not an hon. member of this House who will take exception to that statement of the position. See what the effect is the moment that position is acknowledged. So long as it is not acknowledged you have within the self-governing dominions the strongest kind of reason for agitation against imperial control, the strongest kind of reason for agitation against colonial subordination. The minute the status is declared and known to be one of equality to permit of effective cooperation between the different parts that moment you remove throughout the empire the basis for agitation on that particular ground. I wish to say that when the conference met there was in one or two parts of the British Empire a great deal of agitation which the British government I know viewed with a good deal of concern. There was a condition very unsettled in South Africa; there was a certain unsettled condition in Ireland. The minute the position was made clear that so far as the relations of Great Britain to these dominions was concerned it was not one of imperial control but was one of equality of status-each self-governing part of the empire in its relation to the other part being on a footing of equality for the purpose of effective cooperation-that minute the agitation subsided and those responsible for it were obliged to change their note.
Take the effect of the conference, for that, after all, is the best way to judge of results. What has been the effect in South Africa? The feeling in South Africa to-day towards Great Britain is vastly different from what it was before the conference took place. It is not one of estrangement from Great Britain. On the contrary there is every evidence of a desire on the part of South Africa to remain within the British Empire and a feeling of pride in the position of South Africa in the empire; and the same, I believe, is true in regard to the Irish Free State. I wish to take very strong exception to the words which were spoken here this morning by my hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hock-en) to the effect that there was represented at that conference a couple of nations of the empire that were seeking to separate, and that the representatives of Canada were doing their part in helping to make it easy for them to get away. Those are not the exact words of the hon. gentleman but that is their intent and meaning. I say to my hon. friend that I do not think that he uttered the sentiments of his own heart or his own mind when he used those words; he was talking from a purely political motive at that time. I do not believe that my hon. friend feels in his heart that the representatives of this Dominion went to that Imperial conference with any such object in their minds-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -or that either of them played any such part. My hon. friend spoke about cooperation on the part of the Minister of Justice and myself with the prime ministers of Ireland and South Africa. He did not say anything about cooperation with the prime ministers of Australia or New Zealand. )Yet both the, latter gentlemen have visited this country, they have spoken publicly from coast to coast; and at the many meetings which they addressed they declared emphatically that the representatives of Canada had cooperated with them, and were at one with them in the views that were expressed at the Imperial conference. More than that. I would ask my hon. friend, if he has among his numerous friends and asquaintances, as I believe he
1908	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
has, those who are closely in touch with the British government in London, if he would enquire from them as to the kind of part which was played by the Minister of Justice and myself at the Imperial conference- whether it was a part which sought to make the problems of empire more difficult, or whether it was a part which to the uttermost sought to help to bring about unity in imperial affairs. If hon members opposite will communicate with those members of the British cabinet who were at that conference, I challenge them to. find one who will do other than admit that the part played by Mr. Lapointe and myself was the part of men who were doing their utmost to bring about unity, and to remove the occasions for discord within the British Empire; and I affirm that it comes with pretty poor grace from gentlemen who profess to have such a love of the empire, and to be the especial exponents of empire, to do their utmost to destroy the work that has been done by the representatives of this country in company with the representatives of other parts of the empire with whom they find no fault and whom they are over zealous to praise.
Now let me go back to the statement I have made as to the results of the conference as embodied in its report being worthy of being placed beside the great charters in Britsh history. I have in my hand a copy of the London Spectator which I think is as Conservative an organ as is published in Britain. Certainly no one will challenge its high standing, no one will challenge its interest in the empire, no one will challenge the great skill with which it is edited. The dinner at the House of Lords 'took place on November 27. On that same day the London Spectator came out with an article on the conference. I had not seen this article at the time I made my speech; I had at the time no knowledge of its existence. What was the view this great British journal took of the significance of the Imperial conference? The article is headed "The British Commonwealth's Charter of Freedom" and the first paragraph reads as follows:
The eagerly awaited report of the Inter-imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial conference was issued on Saturday, November 20, and an epoch-marking document it is, whatever may he said to the contrary. For years to come the report will be regarded as a charter of freedom for the British commonwealth of nations. The document may well rank with our most important state papers, for in it are set forth the basic principles on which the British Empire rests. Never was the genius of the British people for adapting their political institutions to the changing needs of the day more

apparent. Here is no written constitution which will bind future generations, but rather a confession of faith in what the empire stands for in 1926, and an indication of how best to insure its permanence.
Now there is a statement identical in its intent and meaning with the one I made, and to which such exception is being taken at the present time. It does not say that the work of the conference amounted to nothing. It attaches very great significance to the fact that we have reached a point in the evolution of empire where we were able by common accord definitely to state a position of vast consequence to all parts of the empire.
But let me quote from a speech made by the Bight Hon. Mr. Amery, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, a speech delivered at the Constitutional Club on December 16th, and reported in the London Daily Times of December 17th. The speech was on the Imperial conference and it is easy to see what significance Mr. Amery gives to the conference, speaking on behalf of the British government. This is the quotation from the Times:
The conference had cleared the way for future cooperation by getting rid of certain misunderstandings as to the relative position of the dominions and ourselves which had survived into recent years and were a cause, not only of difficulty as between the dominions and ourselves in our efforts to cooperate, but also of internal political difficulty in more than one dominion. Lord Balfour had achieved not the least of his many great achievements in being responsible for a report which marked a new and useful stage in empire cooperation. It might be said with truth that there was really nothing new in the conclusions of the Balfour committee, but this report was only typical of many other great documents in our constitutional history. Our procedure has never been to lay down a constitution for the future, but rather, from time to time, to see how the constitution had developed and to take note of the stage which had been reached. That was, in essence, what the Balfour report did.
Exactly the same statement in intent and meaning as the one which I have made as to the significance of the conference itself.
Now I come to the next point that has been stressed in this debate, and that is the criticism of myself and the government for not submitting the conference report for the approval of parliament. My hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Cahan) gave, I think, three grounds on which he felt the report should have been submitted: First, that I had stated when speaking in the debate on the Address last December that it was the intention of the government to submit the report to the House; second, that the report of 1923 had been submitted in whole or in part for the approval

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
of parliament, and therefore that this report should also be submitted to parliament; and thirdly, that I had no right to speak on behalf of the people of Canada, that the only body that had that right was this parliament, and that I should put the report before parliament so that parliament could pronounce upon it.
I think I have stated correctly in intent and meaning my hon. friend's different arguments.
I did state, Mr. S'peaker, in December last that it was the intention of the government to submit the report- to parliament for its approval. But sometimes second thoughts are better than first thoughts. I confess that 1 had no sooner made that statement to parliament than I was told that my reason for so doing was to force a division in this House: that I knew I had come back from the conference with a report that would command the confidence of parliament and would help to give the government a good majority, and that I was intending to put this report before parliament and compel a division upon it, or else the acceptance of the report in its entirety without division, which would,, of course, bring greater -credit to the administration than ever.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who raised that objection,
may I inquire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have heard
it raised in a number of quarters. I have not to go very far to disclose how right I am in what I am saying. The amendment which my hon-. friend has brought into the House to this motion to go into supply was an amendment that was intended as an amendment to the report when dt was brought down, not the exact words, but there was the intention on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, if the adoption of the report had been moved, to move an amendment to it. Hon. gentlemen know that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not for
me to go into the counsels of 'hon. gentlemen opposite, but I have good reason for knowing that there was the intention of moving an amendment if the report had been placed before the House for adoption. If there was no such intention, I fail to see what is the object of an amendment to a motion which is simply for the purpose of enabling us to discuss the report.
Having in mind, Mr. Speaker, what took place at the conference, having in mind the difficulties there were in reaching the point of unanimity which was reached, to the great satisfaction of all parts of the empire, I did
32649-m
not fee1! that it would be in the interest of inter-imperial relations or in the interests of the British Empire to take a course of procedure in this parliament which would provoke a division here when division had not taken place upon the report in any other part of the British Empire, and I decided that I would change the course of procedure so as to avoid anything of the kind.
May I say this? When I made that statement in the course of the debate on the address, hon. gentlemen opposite had -been indicating an adverse attitude towards the report. I was speaking in the spirit of the leader of a party who is conscious of his position, and when I stated that I was prepared to bring that report in here and have its adaption moved in the House, I will admit frankly that I was not giving the consideration which I perhaps should have given at that -moment to the effect that that particular course might have outside of this House and outside of this country. I was not thinking sufficiently, I will frankly admit, of the possible effect in South Africa, in Ireland, in New Zealand, in Australia, in India and in the British parliament, of a division in this parliament and of the kind of debate which we have already had over this amendment; nor had I then given as much thought -as I have since given to the course of procedure adopted in the other -parliaments of the empire.
When I first spoke on this subject, I made it clear that I was going to avoid in my address so far as might be possible anything in the nature of party politics or a partisan view, and my hon. friend opposite was kind enough in the course of his remarks to say that he felt in that particular I had kept true to my purpose as indicated. I deliberately kept away from anything that might prove controversial, hoping that in regard to these inter-imperial matters this parliament would give to the empire the same kind of united expression as the Imperial conference itself had given. In the British House of Commons, as is known here, when questions of foreign relations are being discussed, the political parties have an understanding which has become a tradition in British public life, that on issues of that kind they will not divide parliament if it is possible so to avoid. They will discuss freely the merits of the several questions, but they will not divide the House. They will seek in foreign affairs to be as one when it comes to parliament, as representing the country against the rest of the world. I think we in this House can afford to follow British tradition in that

1910	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
regard, and if that tradition has any value in respect to foreign affairs, it has fifty times greater Value when it comes to be applied to inter-imperial affairs. There, if anywhere, we should seek to avoid the kind of political division which would cause other parts of the empire to believe that on these great questions that lie at the very root of the unity and the maintenance and perpetuity of the British Empire we in this House are not at one. That was my reason, and I now wish to say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that I think he will be taking the right, the wise and the patriotic course if, after the discussion which has taken place, he should withdraw his amendment, and not have this House divide upon a question of imperial unity as it has come to us from the Imperial conference. If he is unwilling to withdraw his amendment, then of course the government has no alternative but to allow the vote to be taken. But if the vote is to be taken, I appeal to hon. members of this House by their numbers to make it clear that they do not wish to countenance a course of the kind, but that they are prepared to share the point of view of those who follow a larger and finer tradition in regard to interimperial relations when these relations are being discussed on the floor of parliament.
May I say, speaking of other parts of the empire-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does that statement of the Prime Minister imply that this House is expected by quiet acquiescence to approve of any action taken by the Prime Minister and his colleagues at imperial conferences in the future?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all, and nobody knows that better than my hon. friend. If my hon, friend has an indictment to draw against the Prime Minister, let him frame it and bring it in here and move it. I am prepared to stand and defend the course I have taken. If my hon. friend thinks I have taken a mistaken course, let him bring in a motion ;o that effect, and let parliament express itself upon it, but do not let him come forward in regard to a report which is accepted unanimously in all parts of the British Empire and divide this House in a way which is going to create a false impression in the other dominions of the empire and in the motherland. Take the practice as it is, as we see it in different parts of the British Empire. In Great Britain in the House of Commons, as far as I can discover, they have not even debated the question of the conference. Questions have been asked of the ministers and the min-

isters have replied. There have been discussions on matters that have come up in which reference has been made to what took place at the conference, and the freest comments made in regard to these matters. But in no place in Britain up to the present time has there been any criticism of the British government's attitude with regard to the conference, or any division with respect to the report. In the House of Lords there was a brief debate, and how was it brought on? Lord Parmoor, on behalf of the opposition, moved for certain papers to permit of a discussion. Lord Parmoor made his statement and Lord Balfour replied to him, and after the reply Lord Parmoor said that he accepted in full all that Lord Balfour had stated and added that unanimity was the thing to be sought, he therefore asked leave to withdraw his motion for the production of papers, which leave was granted. That was the method of procedure there. There has been no division in the South African parliament, or in New Zealand, and in Australia there has been no discussion that I am aware of.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No opportunity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And even in
Ireland, in the Irish Free State despite what we have heard said of fighting propensities and the stirring up of dissention, there was a debate but there has been no division. Is Canada going to be the first part of the British Empire to create a division on a matter that was one of unanimity at the great Imperial conference? Is that the attitude which hon. members opposite propose to take? They may take it, but they will have to take the responsibility that goes with it. As leader of the House, I am striving to secure what I believe to be the patriotic, the right and proper attitude, and I suggest in the light of what I have stated that when this discussion is concluded, after every hon. member has had his free say, the hon. leader of the opposition should withdraw his motion. Otherwise to other parts of the empire and to the world at large, there will be the spectacle that while there has been a declaration to the world generally of the unanimity that exists within the empire on imperial affairs, there will appear to be evidence to the contrary, because of the Canadian parliament in reference to the report not having acted in accordance with the course adopted by other parts of the empire.
Let me come to the second reason which my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George gave as to why this resolution should be submitted to the House. It was

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
that the report of the conference of 1923 had been submitted. I think he said the report of 1923, and I corrected him and said that there had been only one portion of that report submitted.


Mr.   CALIAN@: The part in regard to
treaties?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me explain to the House why a particular part was submitted to parliament, and in so doing I suggest that it forms a kind of precedent which we might well follow in regard to matters contained in the reports of Imperial conferences. There were two reports of the conference of 1923, one the report of the Imperial conference and the other of the Imperial Economic conference, dealing with the same class of subject matters as are dealt with in the one report of the last conference. Those two reports were placed before parliament just exactly as this report was placed by tabling, and by order of the House having copies printed and distributed. That was done in 1924. The conference was held in 1923. In the session following no action was taken on the report. It was not submitted for approval. In the session of 1925 no action was taken, and in 1926 the part of the report which related to a certain procedure with respect to treaties was presented to parliament and parliament was asked to adopt it. Why? Because in the interval there had been received from the British government a statement of some of the matters that would be on the agenda of the ensuing conference, and one was the further consideration of the question of treaties, the procedure, with respect to negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. This parliament has taken a different view than some of the other parliaments of the empire with respect to the approval of treaties. We have taken the position that a treaty cannot be held to be binding on Canada until it has been approved by our parliament-that it cannot be ratified until approved by parliament. Now there had been no expresion of view from the Canadian parliament on that all-important matter, and it was to get an expression of view on that important matter, to get the en-dorsation of this House on the course of procedure laid down and which we had already followed with respect to three or four treaties which we had negotiated that this House was asked to approve that particular part of the report before the conference of 1926 took place. So that when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself went to the con-
32649- 121*
ference we were able to state, "This is the position of the Canadian parliament on this matter."
I will mention a further consideration, which will appeal, I am sure, to my hon. friend's sense of humour, if to nothing else. No one of us in the House was at all certain as to who might be going to the conference from Canada. Some hon. members thought that the then leader of the opposition had a chance of going. We were taking good care to see that if he did go, with his Tory point of view, he should not be in a position to have this country bound by treaties unless this parliament in the first instance had approved of them. We wished to have the course clearly mapped out, so that no matter who might go to the conference he would have to support his position the decision of the House of Commons as to the attitude Canada wished to have placed before the conference with respect to the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask the Prime Minister if it does not appeal to his sense of humour that this resolution of the leader of. the opposition is in complete accord with the Prime Minister's declaration of last session that in all these questions the approval of parliament should first be obtained, and that we do not desire the Prime Minister to deem himself authorized to carry out these reforms without the sanction of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the Prime Minister's position that it would be right that Canada should be committed, for example, to a scheme of imperial air routes without any discussion or decision by this parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I think this parliament should have full opportunity to discuss any scheme, no matter what it is, that has a bearing upon the relations of this country with other parts of the empire.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I understand
the matter then, we are not so committed by letting this question go as it is to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know what
my hon. friend has in mind and I will give my attention to it for a moment. In the course of my remarks the other day, I mentioned that there was one particular thing, one single act out of all the rest, in regard to which the Minister of Justice and myself, acting on behalf of the government of Canada, felt that we were justified in committing this country to some extent, in the belief that in so doing we would have the full support of parliament.
In the discussion at the conference on the question of commercial air routes relating to an immediate probable development of airship navigation, a request was made by the Minister of Air to the governments assembled at the conference for one or more to agree to cooperate with the British government in making a test of aerial navigation for commercial purposes, by going the length of agreeing to undertake to put up a mooring mast to which airships could be moored and to gather meteorological data sufficient to enable those who were doing the navigating to feel secure in the course which they were taking. That request was made in an informal way; there was no resolution or anything of the kind about it. I said to my colleague who was beside me: it seems to me that the people of Canada will welcome an experiment which is going to help to develop trade between England and our dominion, no matter how that development takes place. We all know we are on the eve of great developments in

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
air flights, and at the conference the Minister of Justice and I knew that Africa, Australia and India had already established their commercial routes with flights from one part to the other. We felt that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not take advantage of that moment to endeavour to get the first flight of airships across the ocean between Canada and Great Britain rather than between Australia, or Africa, or some other part of the empire and Great Britain. So we said that we would be prepared, when parliament met, to ask parliament to vote what was necessary to pay for a mooring mast and to undertake that particular work of experimentation. That item is in the estimates and it will come before parliament, in fact the estimates are before the House now. If we have taken a wrong stand in that, parliament can review our stand; parliament can refuse to ipass that estimate.
We were not endeavouring to escape the authority of parliament; but ministers of the crown from the nature of their position are obliged to act or to fail to act on particular occasions, and they can be held as liable for the one course of procedure as for the other. In the circumstances I would have felt, had we not acted as we were glad to do and as I believe the people of Canada will be glad we have done, in stating that Canada was prepared to experiment with the mother country in the matter of air navigation across the Atlantic, this House might very well have taken exception to our course and criticized us for our failure to act. That was in so far as I am able to recall the only commitment made at the Imperial conference directly or indirectly in any regard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the Imperial conference report is adopted or accepted by this parliament, does not that imply that Canada shall participate in imperial defence otherwise than by a mere air route?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not admit any implications in the report at all. The report means just what it says. As regards questions of defence and the like, no commitments at all were made at the Imperial conference.
May I come to the third reason of my hon. friend why the report should be presented, and that is that I as Prime Minister and my colleague as Minister of Justice representing this country had no right to speak for Canada, for the Canadian people? I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the chamber this morning when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) made his
speech which, by the way, may I be permitted to say was a model of moderation, fine in tone and equally good in substance? When he made that speech this morning the hon. member quoted from the premier of Quebec, and in the course of his remarks said that the premier of Quebec had the right to speak for the province of Quebec. Will my hon. friend deny that?
My hon. friend knows very well that someone has to be in a position to speak for the country. When a country has pronounced itself with respect to a government and has placed ministers in office, it gives to their office certain powers and obligations. I say to my hon. friend that the constitutional method of procedure with respect to domestic and foreign affairs is for ministers of the crown to have the right to negotiate. They may not have the right to bind parliament, without the approval of parliament, but they have the right to negotiate and to express sentiments with regard to general public opinion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say that my contention was that, having represented Canada, the hon. gentleman should submit to parliament for its approval the report which he approved? Otherwise he remained without authority to carry out its terms.
Mr. MACKENZIE K-ING: My hon. friend will see his own words in Hansard. From the' regard which I have for him, I shall be a little surprised if one day he does not rather wonder how he came to use them. My hon. friend, I think, understands very well the rules of debate, and on most of these imperial questions I believe he desires to make his contribution as useful and helpful as possible. But I say to him, speaking across the floor of the House, that, judging from the impression which his remarks the other day created in the House, his effort on that occasion was one not so much intended to contribute in any constructive manner to the consideration of imperial problems, as to be as abusive as he could of the Prime Minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am sorry the Prime Minister took that impression.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not mind the abuse; I am quite prepared to listen to it. I do say to my hon. friend however, with all respect, that if he thinks that sort of thing makes for unity within the empire he is very much mistaken. I may tell him frankly, as my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said from his seat the other day, that if ministers of the crown, after having done
1914	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
their utmost on behalf of their country to further unanimity and good will in imperial affairs, are to receive from the loyal opposition of the country as their only reward as much abuse as can be heaped upon them, it will be increasingly difficult to get ministers to attend these conferences and to devote to the task they undertake that tune and concentration which the country might wish them to give such duties.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that I had no right to speak for Canada; they declare that I should not have dared to say whether we were at one with other parts of the empire. When they draw their indictment against me on this ground I should like to ask them what their indictment would have been had I refused to make an effort to find agreement at the conference. I knew before I left for the conference that an effort was being made by hon. gentlemen opposite to have it appear that I was going to England to make all the trouble I could. As a matter of fact, the first impression which imy hon friends opposite sought to create was that I did not intend to go to the conference; that for some reason or other I had a dislike for Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and the man who has just said "hear, hear" is responsible for much of the language of that kind. Let me say that nothing could be more unpatriotic, more unworthy of a British citizen than such an insinuation. I tell hon. gentlemen that there is no man within the empire who has a greater love for it than I have; there is no man who believes more strongly than myself in the wisdom of preserving the empire as the greatest agency for peace and goodwill and progress in the world. It is for that reason that I say now, emphatically, that when a party or its members seek to have it appear to the world at large that one who is imbued with that spirit, and who entertains that regard for the British commonwealth of nations is engaged in an endeavour to dismember the empire, they are going a long way towards sowing seeds which some day may bear the kind of tares they would not wish to see. It is easy enough to sow the wind but the time comes thereafter when you reap the whirlwind, and I tell my hon. friends opposite that any man who seeks to make party gain out of imperial questions fails to play his part as a true British citizen or a patriot. I do not think I need repeat that when I left Canada I made it clear that so far as our Dominion was concerned our relations with the mother country, as well as with other parts of the empire, eojild not be better
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
than they were. From the moment I entered upon the proceedings of the conference until the very close of those proceedings every effort I could possibly put forward was made with the sole object of seeking, as far as I could, to help remove such differences as existed and to bring out that demonstration of unity which every true lover of the British Empire will appreciate.
I had no intention of referring to my own part in the conference, but hon. gentlemen have made it necessary for me to state my position more fully than I otherwise should have done. I need not detain the House longer, but in conclusion I would again appeal to my hon. friend to consider the wisdom, after the close of this debate, of withdrawing the amendment he 'has submitted.
The amendment is unnecessary and misleading. The position has been made abundantly clear to parliament that the report of the Imperial conference in no way commits this country or this House to anything, nor does it deprive this parliament of any right or power now exercised. To agree to an amendment such as the one now proposed is to create an entirely misleading impression with respect to the contents of the report of the conference, and the significance thereof. Let me take the first clause:
That it is not desirable that this House should be deemed tacitly to have acquiesced in the declarations and recommendations contained in the report of the proceedings of the Imperial conference, 1926.
Suppose that clause is accepted; what is the implication? The implication is that where a resolution of this nature has not been adopted . with reference to previous imperial conferences this House has tacitly acquiesced in the reports of those conferences. For my part I am not prepared to admit that this country is bound by a single report of any imperial conference. As I stated emphatically at the outset, the imperial conference is not a parliament, nor is it a council empowered to lay down policies. It is no more than a gathering of representatives of different parts of the empire delegated to state their views and to indicate their conclusions. I submit, with respect to this report and every other report of any imperial conference, that, except to such extent as this parliament desires to endorse and to be bound by what appears in any of these reports, they have no binding effect whatever. The purpose of the conference is to help as far as possible to bring about some Symmetry on the part of the various parts of the empire in the working out of many problems they have

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
in common; to provide between them some more effective means of cooperation; to lay down broad principles and methods for dealing with such matters as call for joint or common consideration; and to ensure effective cooperation whenever the necessity for cooperation may arise and the parliament concerned may decide upon it. I repeat that imperial conferences are not parliaments or councils empowered to make constitutions for the empire.
I ask the House therefore not to agree to any amendment which will leave the implication that, where there has been no formal resolution with respect to reports of this nature, this House has tacitly acquiesced therein.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did not the Prime Minister in submitting his resolutions at the last session say that previous reports had tacitly bound this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would refer the right hon. gentleman to Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister did not say that. The second paragraph of the amendment reads:
That in the opinion of this House the proceedings of the recent Imperial conference and the declarations and recommendations contained in the report of the Imperial Conference Committee on Inter-imperial Relations should not be binding upon the parliament of Canada until approved by a formal resolution of this House.
All this has already been made perfectly clear; no one in this House has any misconception as to the extent to which the report is binding. There is therefore no need for the House to divide on that point. But take the rest of the clause:
And that until such approval is obtained this government shall not be deemed to be authorized to take any steps to carry into effect the recommendations contained in said report.
This morning the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) complained that sufficient time had not been given to the consideration of trade, of migration and of defence. He thought there had been too much purely academic discussion on the question of status. May I say to my hon. friend that while he paid the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself the compliment of being academic and the still greater compliment of apparently having directed the affairs of the conference, we w*ere not responsible for the agenda. We took it as it was presented to us and as it appeared when we got there, and if these constitutional questions assumed
large proportions it was not because of our representations. It must be remembered that the conference was representative of all parts of the British Empire, and that many of these questions were of great concern not only to some of the other governments of the selfgoverning dominions but to the British government as well.
If this amendment is adopted the government is prevented without the approval of parliament from even carrying out the administrative measures mentioned in the report, and may I say that in a very large part what is there in the way of recommendation relates to matters of administration which it is hoped will help bring about a more effective coordination and cooperation. Consider the matter of trade statistics; certain standards are laid down to which it is hoped all parts of the empire will conform. We are to be prevented from even attempting to conform to these standards, while other parts of the empire are prepared to do so. The report suggests certain investigations should be made with respect to certain commodities effecting empire trade but until this parliament formally agrees to it we are supposed to say, "No; we are sorry, but we cannot give our consent to any inquiry being made until parliament formally approves of our so doing". I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will not wish to press matters that far. Then in the concluding paragraph it is stated:
That it is also the opinion of this House that no amendments should be procured to the British North America Act to give effect to said report or otherwise, which would affect the rights, powers or privileges of all or any of the provinces of Canada, as they now exist under the terms of said act, unless the same are first approved by the legislature of each of the provinces of Canada.
It has been stated over and over again that the position so far as the British North America Act is concerned is now exactly the same as before the conference was held, and there is no need of discussing that act on an amendment bearing upon the report of this conference. The conference was held in October and November of last year, and today the British North America Act is in exactly the same position it was in last September; it stands in exactly the same position, so far as the people of Canada, are concerned as it stood before the conference. What then is the need of bringing the British North America Act into a discussion of the rep or' of this conference?
1916	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
I take a further exception. The amendment goes far beyond the report in its reference to amendments. It says:
-no amendments should be procured to the British North America Act to give effect to the said report or otherwise-
Note the "or otherwise." I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the subject of amendments to the British North America Act is big enough to be dealt with alone and should be discussed in this parliament by itself without being confused with this particular report.
In conclusion may I say that if hon. members will reflect they will, I believe, have reason to feel that in every part of the British Empire to-day there is cause for congratulation that those who happened for the time'being to be in certain representative positions were in agreement on great, broad principles which, understood between them, help to make for more effective unity and greater cooperation between all its parts. I say there is cause for congratulation and I believe the people in all parts of the British Empire are proud and pleased that that position has been reached. Now I ask this House not to destroy the good effect of that work of unity and goodwill performed in London by beginning here in Canada a division with respect to this great question of inter-imperial relations which is so far reaching in its effects on all parts of the empire and as well on imperial relations with other parts of the world.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind hon. members that if the leader of the apposition speaks now he will close the debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has already
spoken.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no right to reply; I was only going to answer the intimation of my right hon. friend, but if anyone objects I have no desire to go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Hugh Guthrie: My right hon. friend has intimated in very strong language that under the circumstances I should withdraw the amendment which I moved to the motion before the Chair. I do not know whether or not he desires me to answer his intimation, but I think the House will agree with me that the speech he delivered to-day had such a strong flavour of partisanship and so lacked anything in the nature of conciliation that he could hardly expect me to take seriously the

request he has just made. However, I think we can get over the difficulty quite nicely- if my hon. friend sees a difficulty, which I do not.
In the amendment which he has just read clause by clause I think there is something to which every member of this House can subscribe. This amendment does not in any way transgress the subject matter of the Imperial conference; it expresses neither assent nor dissent with regard to a single matter which was discussed at the Imperial conference; it merely affirms principles to which every hon. member of this House will, I believe, readily agree. The first principle is that tacit acquiescence should never bind this [DOT] parliament. But, my hon. friend says, that may have an effect on other conferences. It has had effect already. We bound ourselves by tacit acquiescence in regard to the question of treaty making from 1904 until the end of the war, when we signed the Treaty of Peace. We have never ratified a conference report in that -respect, but by acquiescence we have attained the right to negotiate treaties. I do not think tacit acquiescence should bind us in these matters, and I think the House will agree with me. To the second declaration my hon. friend has already subscribed under ordinary circumstances, and he was ready to move it in this House on December 13, last. It declares that nothing in this retport should bind this parliament until parliament has approved of it. The third principle is that we should not in any way commit ourselves to any legislation or any proposal which in fact or by implication would give us the -power to amend our constitution in any way without the consent of the provinces of Canada.
I submit that these are principles to which we can all subscribe, and if unanimity is desired in this connection-to which I have nc objection-let the Prime Minister accept the amendment. He announced in this House that he would not treat it as a motion of want of confidence, and we do not ask him to do so; we can pass this amendment unanimously and by so doing we will lay down principles with which I am satisfied we all agree in our hearts.
I believe the amendment is right in principle, that it will be found to be right in practice and will be adopted in this country sooner or later, so why divide over it now? Let me also -point out that we do not raise in this amendment a single issue which was raised at the conference; no one can misconstrue this amendment, and for the satisfaction of my right hon. friend I am going to tell hi-m that the amendment was prepared on Saturday morning, and was not thought of until he startled this House on Thursday with the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
announcement that he did not intend to carry out the intimation he made on December 13 last, when he said he was going to ask the House to approve the report.
I cannot withdraw the resolution; I feel that it is right, but I do invite my hon. friend to join with us in passing it unanimously.


Mr. TOBIN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). Had I voted, I would have voted1 against the amendment.	,


Mr. HAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Hubbs). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUFF:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Cumberland.(Mr. Smith). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. WILSON (Vandreuil):: I was paired
with (he hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Dussault). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GUERIN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUBUC:: I was paired with the 'hon.
member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.	.


Mr. HODGINS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Bowman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I made the motion to go into committee of supply I explained that it was for the purpose of having the House discuss the Imperial conference report. With the unanimous consent of the House I would agree to withdraw the motion and we can go on with item No. 19 on the order paper, the second reading of Bill No. 233, (o encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his motion? Carried unanimously.
Motion withdrawn.



BONUS TO COKING PLANTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines) moved the second reading of Bill No. 233, to encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada.
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the House goes into committee on this bill, would it not be fair if the Minister of the Interior followed the example of the Minister of Railways yesterday, and gave a statement in explanation of the purpose of the measure?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He can do that in com- [DOT] mittee.


Hewitt Bostock: It is true that the second reading of the bill was declared carried, but there was so much noise in the House at the time that. I feel justified in acquiescing in the request made by the hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The bill is intended to meet in some measure the suggestion contained in the Duncan report which we have been discussing here, and upon which legislation has been introduced with respect to freight rates and other matters of importance to the maritime provinces. It is not, however, confined entirely to the maritime provinces. The assistance proposed to be given under the bill is for the purpose of encouraging the erection of plants for the manufacture of by-product coke. I propose when the House goes into committee to introduce two amendments that will make it very clear that this aid is only to be extended to domestic coke, and will not in any way touch the metallurgical production of coke. The main object of the bill is to encourage the use of Canadian coal in the manufacture of coke, which we hope will in a large way supplant the use of anthracite in the acute fuel areas of central Canada. There has been a great deal of discussion in the House with respect to the fuel situation in what we call "the acute fuel area of Canada," which comprises the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Although there is a low grade coal available quite close to the boundary of Manitoba, yet that province imports a very considerable quantity of American bituminous and anthracite coals for domestic purposes, as do the other provinces named. This assistance is granted in the hope that it will encourage to some extent the use of

Bonus to Coking Plants
Canadian bituminous coal in the municipalities of Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa, and that the market for this coal will be extended farther provided transportation rates warrant it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the drawbacks at present given to certain plants in Hamilton and Winnipeg be continued if this bill passes?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no intention to interfere with the drawback which has always prevailed in connection with the metallurgical production of coke. We are merely putting the domestic coke on a parity with the metallurgical coke on which a drawback is at present given. In addition it is hoped to encourage the consumption of Alberta coal for coking purposes in the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Will
coking plants at present in existence get the benefit of the proposed subsidy?


Charles A. Stewart: No, they
will not. The only way you could benefit plants already in existence would be by granting a bounty. This aid is to encourage the erection of plants for the manufacture of domestic fuel. It is not in any sense a bounty that would be applicable to plants already in existence.
The bill speaks pretty largely for itself and requires little explanation except as to the amounts that it provides for assistance in various localities. The hope is that it will encourage the manufacture of the Canadian product as far west as this city in the eastern part of Canada, and as far east as Winnipeg in the western section of Canada.
A word about the existing plant. There is only one, and it is in the city of Hamilton. This will not in any way interfere with the coke that is manufactured there and distributed throughout the area which that particular plant serves. This assistance is being given for the purpose of supplanting so far as that is possible the use of American coal by coke manufactured from our own bituminous coal. At the present moment the American product is coming into the cities of Montreal and Quebec, and it is necessary to make the assistance fairly substantial owing to the fact, which perhaps our maritime friends will not admit, that there is a considerable difference between the American product and the Nova Scotia product used in the manufacture of coke; not in the coke product itself, but as hon. gentlemen know, the by-product obtained in the manufacture
of coke is of considerable importance and cuts down the manufacturing costs very considerably. The high sulphur content in the Nova Scotia coal makes it difficult to wash the gas, and the sale of the gas, of course, has a tendency to cut down the production costs. That difficulty in connection with washing the gas is not so prevalent in the American product as it is in the Canadian product. I think, however, and the work done by our geological research officers tends to confirm this, although drilling would be necessary to prove it, that there are seams in Nova. Scotia which if opened up would be quite equal to the American product, but at the present moment they are not accessible.
May I say that the agitation carried on for the consumption of Canadian coal has brought the Nova Scotia bituminous coal into this market at Ottawa, so something has been accomplished in that direction. So far as this bill is concerned, it is designed for the purpose of supplanting to a greater degree than at present the importation of American anthracite coal. We have demonstrated that the manufacture of coke from the American product has reduced the tonnage of American [DOT] anthracite coming into Canada from 5,000,000 tons in 1923 to 3,500,000 tons last year, and if rates are so adjusted as to bring Alberta lignite coal into western Ontario, the importations of American anthracite will be reduced by just that much more. We are bending all our energies in that direction with a view to supplanting the importation of American anthracite into this central portion of Canada, and we are asking that this assistance be given for the encouragement of new plants for the manufacture of coke for the purpose of further reducing the anthracite supplies required in eastern Canada.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion? The motion is carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understood that as I had not heard the motion declared carried I would have the right to discuss this question before going into committee. This is an important matter. The principle of it is perhaps the most serious aspect of it. If the principle can be agreed upon the details are nothing, but inasmuch, Mr. Speaker, as you admit a disturbance in the House for the moment, those members who did not hear the motion carried should have an opportunity to say something now.


Hewitt Bostock: I put the second motion
in order to allow the hon. member to make
Bonus to Coking Plants

his statement. Does the hon. gentleman not think that members will have more opportunity to get answers to questions in committee?


Edward Joseph Garland: I desire no questions and no answers. It is the principle of the bill I am opposed to, and as the minister has made a brief statement, I would like to say a few words in regard to it.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this is an important point of order. When a motion is declared by the chair to be carried, I think the whole House is bound by it.


Edward Joseph Garland: If we hear it.


Hewitt Bostock: It is true I declared the motion carried, but there was great noise in the chamber at the time, and that is why in fairness to those who did not hear the question I allowed the minister to make the statement he usually makes on a bill presented to the House.


Hugh Guthrie: But we cannot go further than that. If we go into committee now my hon. friend will have every opportunity of . discussing it, and I have no doubt we will consent to discussing the principle. If he discusses it now we will have a double discussion.


Edward Joseph Garland: There will be no effective discussion of the principle of the bill in committee. This bill involves commitments which may amount to over nine million dollars, and surely that is of sufficient importance to entitle hon. members to discuss the principle of the measure. The minister in his little speech certainly made no effort-although I felt that he was uncomfortable when he made his speech-to apologize for the vicious legislation he is introducing, and I say this with all deference and kindness to him. He proposes now to set up a new subsidized industry-just one more, adding to the many that are pressing down on the backs of the taxpayers of the country, and to benefit a small section of the country. The statement that it is going to benefit Alberta coal is wholly ridiculous, and no one knows better than the minister the truth of the remark I made.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
put my hon. friend right in that respect. So far as this bill is concerned it will undoubtedly be beneficial to the coking plant now being erected in Winnipeg for Alberta coal, which intended to use American coal.


Edward Joseph Garland: The problem is as to the amount which can be used. I propose to touch briefly on that, and I trust I can disabuse the minister's mind as to the value of the proposals. The development in Winnipeg is so absolutely limited that it will amount to nothing. I think that statement is absolutely true. Apart from this measure a similar bill was placed on the order paper some two or three years ago 'by the present minister. That bill met with such disapproval from the ranks of the hon. minister's own party, that, apart from the attitude of the opposition, the bill was withdrawn and not introduced again. The pressure was too strong, but now, under the excuse of the Duncan commission report, they introduce this vicious measure. The Liberal party appealed to the electorate on the basis of low tariff and anti-special privilege and anti-bonus proposition. Now they propose to introduce as vicious a piece of legislation as ever could emanate from the Tory party. No wonder the leader of the Tory party wishes to rush it through. It is in accordance with their principles. It is one of the most alarming and one of the most repellent features of the whole session. It is not only in this matter that they are deviating from their avowed principles; we have had other instances of special privileges and the giving of rights that were extraordinary, in view of the declarations of my hon. friends opposite. We find the Georgian Bay Canal bill being pushed forward. We find the twenty per cent eastern railway rate reduction put through last night in violation of their own ideals, and probably we will have the Russell patent bill, vicious as it is in its principle; and it will be supported by hon. members opposite. Now we have this legislation. I throw up my hands in despair when we find the great old Liberal party sinking into the morass of Tory legislation. This is the most disgusting and appalling feature of the legislation of this session.
As to the general principles of the bill, there is no question that there is an acute fuel area in the central provinces. There is no question that there is an abundant supply of coal in eastern and western Canada to supply the eastern and western provinces. The one great difficulty is the distance of the supply from the market, and instead of attempting to adjust transportation rates through the railway commission, and instead of taking some action to bring into effect the findings of the Board of Railway Commissioners when made, we find the government trying to meet it by introducing legislation of a character tremendously important and overwhelmingly burdensome. I

Bonus to Coking Plants
am astounded at the action of the Liberal administration. The total anthracite shipped into the country is now 5,000,000 tons. The total coke shipped into the country is 668,121 tons. These figures remain relatively about the same one year with another. At page 8 of the publication of the Dominion Fuel Board, entitled, Coke as a Household Fuel in Central Canada, one can find a complete summary dealing with the exports from United States to Canada of coke and anthracite. As to coke being a substitute for and replacing anthracite, there is no quarrel. He says, and I agree,-and that is the apparent idea in this bill-" we are going to replace by this bill a part of the present importations of anthracite by about 2,000,000 tons now being used in the provinces." I find in this same report, which supports the idea of a subsidy for the coking plant, at page 11, a declaration that anthracite prices are bound to become prohibitive. The reason given is the limited supply in the United States, the growing disinclination of the people of the United States to allow exportation of anthracite to Canada, and in addition to that the steady replacement, which would be enormously increased by satisfactory freight rates, of the anthracite by our own domestic coal. But the conclusion the Fuel board arrived at in connection with this was that the ultimate prices of anthracite in Canada will grow to a point where the people will not be willing to use it. It will be too high, and the people will turn their attention to cheaper fuel. The solution of the problem, rather than establishing a bonus or setting up a subsidized industry, is the adjustment of the freight rates. On that point I will quote from a statement of the Fuel board which corroborates that position. I am not quarrelling with the quality of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coal. It is true that sometimes sulphur contents are too high to make it possible that the first grade quality coke can be produced from it alone.


Mir. MACDOUGALL:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I notice that provision is made in the bill for the importation from foreign sources of about 30 per cent of the coal to be used in these plants. If the hon. gentleman who has just said "no," is satisfied and can convince the House that a first-grade coke can be produced from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick coal, then I submit that there is no excuse, if this bill does pass, for permitting the importation of 30 per cent, which is quite a proportion, of other coal.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The best proof that we can make satisfactory coke out of Nova
Scotia coal is that we have been doing so for a number of years. One hundred per cent would be much better but we feel that 70 per cent use of Nova Scotia coal is a step in the right direction.


Edward Joseph Garland: If that can be shown to the House, it would have been much more patriotic, to use a phrase that has been used so much this afternoon, if the government, if it is sincerely behind the bill had, in introducing it, implied by the very nature of it the use of 100 per cent Canadian coal instead of paying subsidies to plants that will use only seventy per cent Canadian coal. At page 14 of the same publication will be found this statement:
In other words, if coke produced from these coals can be sold at a price which will give heat units equivalent to other fuels, it will rapidly come into favour.
There is no question about that. But note the hypothesis:
If coke produced from these coals can be sold at a price-
The question that is worrying me is whether under this scheme we can produce coke so cheaply and economically that people will buy it instead of the anthracite and other coals that are coming in. A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of visiting the city of Troy, New T ork, and of going over the extensive coking plant they have in that city. I was informed that it was the last word in coke oven plants. I found that that plant was producing 365,000 tons of coke a year, or roughly 1,000 tons a day, but in the production of that the company also produces, as a part of its process, 16,000,000 cubic feet of gas a day. Every authority on coke and on the marketing of coke admits that coke can be satisfactorily and economically marketed only when there is a full and satisfactory market for the gas by-product, which is the principal by-product of the carbonization of coal. In this particular instance in Troy there was a ready market at its door; but I would ask hon. gentlemen to note this and to ask themselves in turn: Is there a single district outside of Montreal and Toronto where similar conditions can be said to exist in Canada? This plant under contract was supplying with gas from its plant no less than the cities of Albany, Troy, Schenectady, Cohoes, Rensslaer, and Watervliet, all of them industrial towns in the Hudson valley. If you can dhow me any single centre in Canada where little industrial cities or towns are grouped closely enough together to make it possible economically and profitably to dispose of the gas by-product, I
Bonus to Coking Plants

admit there would be some sense in establishing or in assisting in the establishment of coking plants. There is no such situation in Canada excepting, as I said before, the two cities of Montreal and Toronto.
There is another point which occurs to me. If a ready market can be found for the gas and if the coke itself will find a ready market at an economic price, then I submit that there is no necessity for a subsidy. The thing should stand on its own feet if it is a commercial proposition. Why is it necessary to undertake to bonus, to subsidize to the extent of four per cent per annum of the total capital cost of the plant in the case of a municipally owned plant and four per cent in the case of a privately-owned plant, if the thing is economically feasible? If it is not economically feasible, why under heaven launch the country into an undertaking that, under pressure, political and otherwise, may develop in Canada another great subsidized industry sapping the taxpayers in annual payments? That is wrong, and I will go further in a few moments in indicating what the actual cost wilt probably be if advantage is taken of this measure.
In the United States I find there are several coking plants already established. There is no question as to the economic feasibility of the carbonization of coal provided that a ready market for the gas by-product is found. There are at least five or six plants, in some cases municipally-owned, in other cases privately-owned, where coking has been going on for some time, and in Great Britain and Germany they not only are experimenting but actually have developed quite a number of plants for the carbonization of coal. This same publication, dealing with this point of markets, states at page 21:
There is a market in Canada for all the coke for domestic fuel that the country can produce, both by coke oven and retort.
There is no question about that. There is in my opinion no superior fuel, not even anthracite, to coke if it is a good coke. I will admit that there is a ready market for the coke itself, but the point is, as I said a moment ago, that unless you can dispose of the principal by-product and the other byproducts, the thing is not commercially profitable, and therefore the development of coking plants is not advisable. The report of the Fuel board itself admits that, unless the market for the by-product can be ascertained, it is not feasible. At page 21 the report states:
Coke ovens cannot be established in every city in central Canada, and can be economically operated selling coke and gas at fair prices- only where there is a market for the gas.

The report of the Fuel board is very specific and dear on that. We pass on then to a survey of the possibilities in this country, and we find that the board actually undertook a survey of the whole market for gas and coke. They chose several cities which I will name in a moment, but they make this com'' ment at page 29:
The cities chosen are those where the domestic gas demand is sufficient to warrant installation of ovens and successfully support a by-product coke plant.
But even then the demand would be only half supplied, because under the contention of the board itself, they can dispose of only a fractional part of the total domestic fuel requirements. The only portion which they cou'd dispose of would be the portion dependent upon the market for the gas byproduct. The cities and districts in which that survey took place were Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto, Port Coilborne, Hamilton, London and the border cities. If the total potential market that can be developed for each city and zone is estimated, it would mean a production of roughly in the case of the different towns:
Tons a day
Quebec	 150
Montreal	 1,200
Hamilton	 232
This is not for city requirements alone; this embraces a whole zone.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: What is the definition of a zone?


Edward Joseph Garland: The zone
laid down by the fuel board is the territory surrounding a centre in which a plant might be established, throughout which zone, without overlapping other zones, coke could be disposed of.
Mr. EDWARD'S (Waterloo):	Is the hon.
member aware that at the present time gas is being transported more than one hundred miles in Ontario.


Edward Joseph Garland: I was not
aware of that particular fact.


Alexander McKay Edwards: It is being
transported between Hamilton and Brantford.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad to hear that. I am not disputing the possibilities of carrying gas, because I think gas can be carried a long way, even in this House. At page 29 of the report the statement is made by the Fuel board that with cheap lake transportation of coal and a large market the conditions are most favourable for the installation of a coking plant, and that the

Bonus to Coking Plants
demand for domestic fuel will be only half supplied. I do not think it would be half supplied. Toronto has a market for 1,000 tons of coke a day; that is to say, it could support a plant of that capacity. Ottawa and district can support a market of 300 tons daily, and London a market of 294 tons.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What statistics is my hon. friend quoting from?


Edward Joseph Garland: These statistics are taken from the report of the Fuel board entitled, Coke as a Household Fuel in Central Canada. It was published in 1925 by the Dominion Fuel board. It refers to coke for domestic purposes only, and we are not [DOT] dealing in this bill with coke for metallurgical or other uses of that kind. For that reason I take the report as a basis of discussion. On the basis of an admitted cost of $3,500,000 for a 1,000-ton plant the total capital involved I have estimated to be $12,000,000. The Fuel board itself estimates it at $11,000,000 but in my opinion it would be higher. Putting it at $12,000,000 the interest at five per cent would amount roughly to $600,000 per annum, so that the total involved during the term in which this bill would be operative would be $9,000,000. We are asked to commit this country to an outlay of $9,000,000 for the purpose of establishing a subsidized industry.


Charles A. Stewart: That is on the assumption that we use Canadian coal in all these plants.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope the minister had in mind the use of a sufficient quantity of coal-


Charles A. Stewart: This bill
does not provide for the transportation of Nova Scotia coal beyond the city of Ottawa, so that my hon. friend should confine his argument to Ottawa and points east.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am suggesting the implications of the bill. I have pointed out what would be involved if full advantage were taken of the subsidy.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will note that the bill provides for $1 a ton maximum payment.


Edward Joseph Garland: As a maximum.


Charles A. Stewart: It would
take $2.40 a ton to carry Nova Scotia coal to Windsor.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister overlooks the fact that both east and west have been struggling for some years to secure a fair railway rate, so that that objection would be at once removed if both sides could get sympathetic action on the part of the administration to which the minister belongs, either in the way of assistance-


Charles A. Stewart: The railway rate to be provided would not take freight from Windsor eastward.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is getting fearfully impatient. Perhaps he has reason to.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all; but I do not want the hon. gentleman to cover ground which the bill does not include.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understood the minister to say that, because of the freight rate, coal from the maritime provinces could not be used under this bill further west than Ottawa. I say to him that as soon as the Board of Railway Commissioners is prepared to do so it can recommend that the go\ ernment take action in that direction.


Charles A. Stewart: The railway commission will have nothing to do with the ninety-cent rate.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister suggest that the introduction of a lower rate under the Board of Railway Commissioners' cost finding will not result in a greater flow of maritime coal west beyond Ottawa?


Mr. MALCOLM:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: The
Minister of Trade and Commerce interjects, no. That is the very reason why the board was asked to ascertain the actual out-ofpocket cost in order that a rate might be fixed at which coal could be moved to points further west than suggested by the minister. At page 35 of the report the statement is made that the first plants to be established will have the cream of the market. This is a declaration of the Fuel board. Taking as an example the city of Montreal and district we find there a possible market for 720,000 or 740,000 tons, whereas I am informed that it is proposed by a company taking advantage of this bill to erect a 400,000 ton plant. This plant will secure, according to the statement of the Fuel board, which I have just quoted, the cream of the market, and by

Sun Life Assurance Company
this very fact discourage the setting u,p of other plants. So the free encouragement that the bill proposes would be in itself destructive, in so far as supplying the fuel requirements of the Montreal district is concerned.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Cahan.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Proportion of profits of participating business to shareholders to be reduced.
Mr. IRVINE:: Has this bill been reprinted?


The CHAIRMAN:: No, the amendments are noted on my copy.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The banking and commerce committee did not order the bill to be reprinted.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was before the select standing com-jnittee on banking and commerce I opposed it; I have * not since had occasion t'o change my mind, but in fact am more opposed to it now than when it was before that committee. Before the bill is passed I think it would be well for this House to consider it carefully, especially in view of the growing importance of insurance in our economic life. After the usual camouflage, this bill provides that this company may increase its capital stock from $1,500,000 to {4,000,000, and that is one of the main purposes of the bill. This increase in the capital stock will be brought about by means of distributing stock bonuses and not by paid up cash at all, and having done this the company will be able to conceal from the participating policyholders and the policyholders in general the actual profits paid on the capital stock, which is the other main purpose of the bill.
We do not want to be unfair to insurance companies; we realize that they have certain responsibilities and that their stocks are more or less speculative, but in view of the fact that the company has already built up a reserve of $56,000,000 from profits, which fund now is the property of the shareholders, I feel that those shareholders have nothing to worry about.

I would like to place on Hansard a short statement concerning this company. The original paid up capital was $305,000 and in premiums another $120,000, or a total of $425,000 actually paid in cash. In 1921 a special dividend of $350,000 was paid1 to the shareholders and stock bonuses to the extent of $845,000 have also been issued, making a total of $1,195,000. Adding this to the amount originally paid in, we have the capital of the company amounting to $1,600,000. The nominal dividend is 15 per cent on this amount, and last year profits of $225,000 were divided among the shareholders on the original investment of $305,000, or at the rate of 73.8 per cent'. On the total paid in capital, including the $120,000 collected in premiums, the fate was 52.9 per cent. If this bill passes the capital stock will be increased to $4,000,000 by distributing bonuses, and with the usual 15 per cent dividend they will divide $600,000 annually among the shareholders which is equal to 141 per cent of the total cash paid in by the shareholders. At present the company does not need to draw on the profits of the participating policyholders in order to pay the 15 per cent on the $1,500,000 of capital, but to show that they intend to do so if this bill passes and they are allowed to increase their capital, they have provided in the bill itself a fixed rate ranging from 3 per cent to 4 per cent which may be taken from the policyholders, so that there can be no question as to their real purpose, and I do not think this is fair to the policyholders. When the president of tlie company appeared before the banking and commerce committee he said that the policyholders were in agreement with the shareholders in this move and that they had approved of the action of the company at the annual meeting. I doubted that statement very much, so as a member of the com-piitl'ee I asked how many policyholders were present at the annual meeting and I think he said there were fifty. I question very much whether there was one of those policyholders who did not have some interest other than that of an ordinary policyholder, but even granting that fifty policyholders were present out of 500,000, that means only one out of every 10,000 was present at the meeting. No formal notice of the meeting was sent to the policyholders, though the president said that some sentence on the company's receipt form advised policyholders of the meeting. I am satisfied that perhaps almost 100 per cent of the policyholders who have no other interest in the company would be opposed to this bill, because it means that the company will be enabled to take money out of their pockets to swell the dividends of the shareholders.

Sun Life Assurance Company
I do not want to ask the House to take my word for it, so I have here some of the evidence given by the former president of this company before the Royal Commission on Life Insurance in 1906. The extracts which I am about to read are found at page 2802 of the evidence taken before that commission, where in reply to a question about the capital, he said:
I have been repeatedly requested to allow shareholders to pay up more and I have always refused. . . . Simply because we did not need the money.
The examiner made the following statement:
That is an excellent reason. You did not need the money, and there was no reason why you should permit shareholders to put in more money to be drawing down interest.
His reply was as follows:
Taking away more of the profits belonging to the policyholders. Of course I fully appreciate that I am under oath and you want all the information that I have. The reason that guided me particularly in refusing was always that it would be a tax on the policyholders.
Now I have a great deal of respect for the Superintendent of Insurance for the Dominion, Mr. Finlayson. I think he is one of the very few men who will not be swayed by any influence other than his own good judgment.
I know that he is opposed to this bill and rightly so. It is unfair to the policyholders; it is almost a breach of contract with the policyholders. In the second place when the camouflage is removed it is nothing more or less than an attempt to conceal the actual profits being paid to the shareholders. I pointed out	that	they will	be enabled topay $600,000	annually,	or at	the rate of 141per cent, if	this	bill	goes	through. Thisprinciple has	been	put	in force by so many
companies and corporations in Canada that its effect is like that of the tariff-it is bearing too heavily upon the public. I think if there is anything this parliament can do to stop this practice it should be done, and I for one intend to vote against this bill on its third reading.


William Irvine: I apposed this bill in
committee; I am glad of the opportunity of opposing it again to-night. When the bill passed committee I do not think one-third of the membership was present owing to the fact that there were other committees sitting simultaneously. I am of the opinion that if we had had a fairly good representation in the committee the bill would not have passed. It passed by a very small margin as it was.
I wish to oppose this bill chiefly because I regard it as a device by means of which 3264S-122
the shareholders of the Sun Life Assurance Company will be permitted to collect a larger toll from the profits of the policyholders. This is not the first device which the company has practised in this regard. I wish to substantiate that statement by quoting briefly from the report of the Royal Commission on fjife Insurance, dated February 28, 1906. I quote from page 20 of that report:
During 1891, and the first half of 1892, dividends at the rate of twelve per cent, and since and including the latter half of 1892, at fifteen per cent, have been declared, besides the bonus of 2J per cent upon the old stock in 1897.
Carrying to the credit of the shareholders' account the ascertained proportion of profits and interests has not, however, enabled the company to pay these dividends, and from time to time the directors have resorted to various devices for the purpose of increasing the shareholders' account, so as to enable it to pay the dividends which have been paid.
The first of these devices was to credit the practically defunct accident branch with considerable sums of money, upon the theory that that branch in years past had been charged more than its proportion of the general expenses of the company. The accident branch being so credited out of the current profits, the sums so credited were brought into the shareholders' account, for the purpose of augmenting it and so enabling the dividends to be paid. Three sums were so credited to the accident branch and brought in to the detriment of the policyholders; $2,000 in 1895; $4,000 in 1900; and $30,000 in 1902; and the evidence is that there are still at the credit of the accident branch considerable sums of money, the intention being to bring these also into the shareholders' account. It is manifest that in revising the charges made in past years to the accident branch, the directors of the present day have undertaken to overrule what may be presumed to have been the well informed and deliberate decision of the directors of former years as to the proper proportion of expenses to be charged to that branch, and your commissioners think it clear that the revision was undertaken solely as a device for maintaining the shareholders' account.
Another improper means by which the shareholders' account has been enabled' to provide the dividends paid to shareholders is by similarly revising the rate of interest allowed upon capital in addition to its share of the profits in past years. The method adopted has been to go through the years as far back as 1877 and to allow, instead of the rates -which were allowed, a rate of six per cent, which has been imposed at six per cent, compound interest, from 1877 down. The result of this has been to bring into the shareholders' account $9,088.34 (in 1901).
A third method of swelling the shareholders' account has been to go back to the year 1897, when the new capital was issued at a premium of $30 per share, and to bring into the general shareholders' account interest, compounded at six per cent, upon that premium. This revision of the earlier dealing with this premium, to the prejudice of policy holders, was also, in the opinion of your commissioners, improper. In this way the shareholders' account was swollen in 1905 by the sum of $37,930.73.

Sun Lije Assurance Company

I think that extract, Mr. Chairman, will be sufficient to show that the company is not beyond practising devices for the purpose of increasing the profits of the shareholders.
Now I want to have a look at section 1 for a minute. Section 1 provides that at the end' of the present year the percentage of participating policyholders' profits taken by the shareholders shall be reduced to four per cent. This is fixing the rate to be received by statute, and by so fixing the rate the shareholders are deprived of the privilege of reducing the percentage of their profits even if they should desire to do so. Subsequently it is provided that there shall be reductions to 3| per cent and 3 per cent. First, I protest against the fixing of these profits by statute. But the most objectionable phase of the first section of the bill is that it represents the company as being magnanimous. It will sound good to be able to say that they are only being paid four per cent. But when we take this section into consideration with sections 2 and 3 we will find that the company is not as magnanimous as would appear under section 1. I shall have occasion in a few minutes to refer to the meaning of this as brought out in sections 2 and 3. Meanwhile I would point out that section 1 of the bill represents a curtailment of the power of the shareholders to reduce the percentage of profits by a majority vote. It appears to do something in favour of the policyholders, while really it is strengthening the position of the shareholders at the expense of the former. It is very doubtful if any considerable percentage of the policyholders of this company know anything at all about this bill, and it is to be doubted if any percentage of those that do know understand its real significance; for unless one clause were explained in relation to the other it would be very difficult for an ordinary layman, unless he was looking for it in particular, to know just exactly what is the real meaning of the bill.
Now I want to deal with the second section of the bill, and I ask, why this company should desire to increase its capital? The reason why any company would want to increase its capital would be, I suppose, one of two. It might want to increase its capital in order to make the company more stable. For instance, if there is too narrow a margin between the assets and liabilities of the company it might be advisable to increase the capital. I do not think, however, that the Sun Life Assurance Company iof Canada would like the people of this country to be-
TMr. Irvine.]
lieve that the reason why they are asking for this increase in capital is in order to stabilize the company because of there being too narrow a margin between assets and liabilities. Indeed, there is no such danger.
There is another reason why a company might wish to increase its capital, and that is in order to draw greater profits. If this company is in need of more capital to guarantee the stability of the company, then perhaps it would be the duty of parliament to pass this bill; but if, on the other hand, the company is in good financial standing and further capital is not required for good business reasons, then an extra two million dollar capital would simply be an extra burden on the company, and the profits paid thereon would not have been honestly earned. Moreover, all such profits must eventually be gathered from the policyholders. If this latter be the position obviously parliament would be doing a very .great wrong in passing this bill.
I propose to inquire into the position of the company in this regard: Does the Sun Life require an additional two million capital? Before referring specifically to the financial position of the company and to the shareholders, I wish to make an observation or two in a general way in respect to capital in relation to the insurance business, and then to refer specifically to the paid up capital of this company.
There is a very great doubt, Mr. Chairman, whether capital is required at all in insurance companies. We will all agree that in most business enterprises capital is essential, and we might even go so far as to say that in the initial stages of an insurance company a certain amount of capital is essential. But when the insurance company has become established, then the more capital it has, the more dangerous it is for the company, for that capital is unnecessary; it becomes an additional burden upon the company. Writing insurance is the best insurance for an insurance company. If the stability of any established insurance company in Canada were to depend upon the amount of capital subscribed, there is not one of them that is safe; but that is not the basis of their stability. The basis of their stability is their policyholders and the business that they do. The insurance business is the safest business in the world, and capital is the greatest hindrance that it has. If we are going to permit this company after it has been established for so many years to increase its capital now that it has become so prosperous that it does not know what to do with its

Sun Lije Assurance Company
profits, I think we should be very remiss in our duty indeed. All that one has to do is to imagine that the amount of profits now being paid on the capital stock of insurance companies were left to swell the reserves; we can readily see how much better the position would be in that case. But if you increase that capital, an extra charge for profits will be made directly on the policyholders, and to that extent you would embarrass the company.
That capital is not required in well-established insurance companies may be proved by (he tendency to-day towards mutualization. Some of the greatest insurance companies in the world have become entirely mutual. For instance, we have the Prudential Insurance Company mutualized. Then we have that company which is I believe the greatest of its kind in the world, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, with its Canadian head office in this city; that company, I believe, is entirely mutual. I understand that the stockholders were bought out for one-third the value of the stock at the time the Change was made. The company is now a mutual one, and its shareholders are its policyholders. Not one cent of profit is taken from the earnings of the company to pay stockholders.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say that it would be more in keeping with the modem tendency if the Sun Life Assurance management were taking steps towards mutualizing the company and doing away with all stock whatsoever, rather than trying to increase its capital, which would mean the gathering of more profits from the policyholders.
Again, the policyholders do not need additional capital for their security. On the contrary, it is a detriment to the policyholders, because it will involve paying a larger amount of the participating policyholders' profits to the shareholders than would otherwise be necessary to provide reasonable dividends. If we authorize the increased capital asked for in this bill, it will no doubt be distributed in the way of stock bonuses or special dividends to which the participating policyholders will be called upon to subscribe.
The present paid up capital of the Sun Life Assurance Company is $1,500,000. Let us stop to realize that no other insurance company in Canada has such a large subscribed capital. Indeed, no other company has a capital exceeding $1,000,000, and yet we have one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest Canadian company not satisfied with that amount of capital but coming here and asking us to increase it. Of that present paid up
32649-12Zi
capital of $1,500,000, $1,195,000 has been paid by way of stock bonuses or special dividends, and only $305,000 has been paid in cash by the shareholders. I want you to take notice of this, Mr. Chairman. The annual amount required to pay the dividend is now $225,000, so the shareholders of the Sun Life Assurance Company collect 73 per cent annually on their investment, that is 73 per cent on the amount' of money that they actually put into this company. If the capital of the company is increased to $4,000,000, as is asked for in this bill, and is distributed by way of stock bonuses or special dividends, as will almost certainly be done, and if the present rate of dividend of 15 per cent is continued, the amount annually required for shareholders' dividends will be $600,000. The amount of capital actually paid in to the company in cash by the shareholders would remain as at present, $305,000, and the annual dividends therefore would represent 197 per cent profit per annum on the capital originally invested in the company. Surely a condition of that sort is worthy of the attention of this committee. Surely when these facts are placed before us we shall realize our responsibility to the policyholders, who may be regarded as the general public. These profits can only be paid at the expense of the policyholders. The profit which now goes to shareholders on unnecessary capital should either increase the profits of policyholders or go to the reduction of the cost of insurance. Policyholders' funds are virtually trust funds. In this regard I wish to make another short quotation from the report of the commission already referred to, under the heading, " The relation of directors to policyholders and their interests, including questions of individual or concentrated control, and the powers and duties of directors with regard to investments and management generally":
It seems to the commission of importance to define the nature and position of the funds resulting from the operation of insurance companies. Save in so far as capital stock plays a part, these funds are either a reserve kept in hand to discharge the insurance obligation or a surplus resulting from a charge upon the persons insured in excess of what it has cost to insure their lives. The policyholder contributes both reserve and surplus, and where business is done upon the participating plan it is the surplus moneys that are called profits.
A little further on I read:
And what is the character of these funds? Are the purposes to which they are being devoted consistent with that character? Your commissioners have no doubt that accumulated insurance funds are, in every essential particular, trust funds. They belong to the policyholders and not to the shareholders. The directors are not in possession of them as
Sun Lije Assurance Company

 1,444,372 96
19,915 45 650,000 00
Stock bonuses	
Balance, which must have been provided from participating profits transferred	
There is another very interesting summary to which I would like to refer. This deals with non-participating and shareholders' surplus fund from December 31, 1921, to 1926. It might be noted that the surplus in this fund belongs wholly to the shareholders. I will not trouble to read the details of this page of figures, I will ask the permission of the House to place it on Hansard.
669,915 45


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I object.


William Irvine: If the hon. member objects, I shall be glad to read it all. Perhaps that will suit my hon. friend a little better. I was trying to conclude my remarks in time to have this bill come to a vote. The statement is as follows:
Non-Participating and Shareholders' Surplus Funds-Dec. 31,1921 to 1926
-	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926Non-Par Fund (The surplus in this fund belongs wholly to the shareholders).	$ 22,564,622 1,976 18,000 118,811 1,268,598	$ 25,946,862 2,885 21,000 181,824 1,625,514	$ 31,008,529 5,375 31,000 272,457 2,136,409	$ 40,721,175 3,960 35,000 476,127 2,274,127	$ 46,475,019 3,515 35,000 11,210 3,532,939	$ 51,458,0452. Instalments and amounts	40,000 168,263 4,691,8333. Provision for unreported	23,972,007	27,778,085	33,453,770	43,510,389	50,057,683	56,358,1427.	Increase in surplus for year. Shareholders' fund (The balance of this fund belongs wholly to the shareholders). 8.	Transferred from non-parti-	356,916	510,895	137,718	1,258,812	1,158,894
500,000 309,491 96,666	
9. Transferred from parti-		109,766 56,983 90	150,532 57,456 32	231,341 64,193		350,842 137,400 31,650
						
						
						
		166,839	208,020	295,534	906,157	519,892
						
Sun Life Assurance Company


Mr. WARD:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Irvine: I would allow him to ask two questions.


William John Ward: Does the hon. member happen to be a policyholder in this company?
lessness. Well, taking his remarks whence it comes, I hope he will have external and internal and eternal insurance.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: Are these views the personal views of the hon. member or those of Mr. Trotzky?


William Irvine: I am sorry to say that I am not. If I were a policyholder I would speak even longer than I am going to.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is the hon. member connected with the Metropolitan Life directly or indirectly? Is that one of his reasons for endeavouring to talk out this bill?


William Irvine: That is a suggestion which could come only from a certain type of mind. I must say emphatically that I have no connection directly or indirectly with the Metropolitan Life. I am not even a policyholder, and as the company has no stock I could not hold any stock. I am not working for that company.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is the hon. member not a member of an eternal life assurance company? Is he not a preacher?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: I was waiting until the
hilarity on account of the witless remark of my hon. friend had subsided. His remark is just about as wide of the mark as he usually is with his sallies. Of course I recognize his sharpness and at times his point-


William Irvine: That is the best joke tonight and hon. members do not laugh at it. I do not know what the views of Mr. Trotzky are on anything but if Trotzky 'is a very bad man, I should say that he must have drafted the bill which is now before the House. I cannot conceive of any Trotzky going bejmnd this in injustice and unfairness. This bill is nothing short of a constitutional and moral way of pilfering other people's money. I say it is moral because it is generally done, and it will be constitutional if we pass this bill. Nevertheless it is a means by which the shareholders of the company may pilfer the pockets of the policyholders. Having answered my hon. friend's question I proceed now to give the rest of the statement.


Mr. BIRD:: Has the hon. gentleman any connection with St. James street, Montreal?


William Irvine: I have about as much connection with St. James Street, Montreal, as I have with Trotzky, and I do not imagine that I should be any more welcome with one than with the other. The statement continues :
Regular dividends declared to shareholders...$ 127,500 $ 159,375 $ 127,500 $ 129,974 $ 206,199
special dividends and bonuses		500 000
rS.i ,		 ouu.uuu
Other charges	 23,000	23,137	24,282	60,301	88,097
Total charges	* 150,500 $ 182,512 $ 151,782 $ 190,275 $ 794,296
Balance of S. S. Fund	8 72,931 $	89,270 S 114,778 S 258,530 S 974,412 $ 725,008Raid-up capital	
850,000	850,000	850,000	850,000	1,000,000	1,500,000Total	$922,931	S 939,270	$ 964,778	31,108,530	31,974,412	$2,225,008
Accumulation of (7) + (8) + (9) + (10) less (13)
at5%	$1,365,243	31,993,013	S2,398,416	34,553,332	$6,221,936
*Pre-1903 business brought from 3j,% to 3% reserve basis.
I am sorry I was forced to weary the House with the reading of these items, but I have another table which I am anxious to have appear in conjunction with the foregoing. I do not wish to take up the time of the House reading it, and if hon. members will give their consent I am prepared to hand it to Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.
' Mr. IRAINE:	Very well, I appreciate
the taste which hon. gentlemen appear to have
cultivated for figures. It promises well for the consideration of the estimates, which no doubt will be taken up shortly. The following table has reference to amounts received or credited on account of capital.


Mr. SPENCER:: Can the hon. gentleman
give the total assets of the company at the
present time?


William Irvine: I hope my hon. friend will
not interrupt me until I have read the table:
[Mr. Irvin*1.1

Railway Committes
Received or Credited on Account op Capital
Year	Cash payments by share- holders	Applica- tion of special dividend	Stock Bonus	Premium	Subscribed capital at end of year1875 	$ 50,000	$	$	'$	$ 500.000 500.000 700.000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,0001877	12.500 12.500 70.000 100,000 125,000 25.000	1897 	30.000 75.000	60,000 60,000	1910 	1915 	1918 	1919 	1921 	350,000	1 Q?5 	150,000	192fi 	500,000	
305,000	350,000	845,000	120,000	
Cash paid by shareholders-
Capital	S 305,000
Premium	 120,000



S 425,000

[Stage Direction]
Credited to shareholders from profits-
Special dividend, 1921	& 350,000
Stock bonuses	 845,000
[Stage Direction]
 §1,195,000
Total, Capital... Premium
[Stage Direction]
Assuming that the dividends are now at the rate of 15% of $1,500,000, or $225,000 per annum, and that following the increase in 1897 they were 15% of $105,000, or S15.750 per annum, we have the following percentages:-
Dividends per cent of-
(a) Capital paid by shareholders-
1926
19-7%
73-8%
(b) Capital and premium paid by shareholders-
1897	
1926	
11-2%
52-9%
It being nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise.
Hewitt Bostock: The hour for the consideration of private bills having expired, the House will now revert to the previous order.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon) presented the eighth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon) moved:: That the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the printing of 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of evidence being taken by said committee respecting bill No. 78, an act respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, be concurred in, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
like to know my standing in this matter. I understood that we reverted to the order of business being debated at six o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: The presentation of this report can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House, in order to facilitate the business of the House.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What is the effect of this report?


Hewitt Bostock: It is simply a request that the evidence taken before the committee in relation to this particular bill be printed, and that rule 74 in connection therewith be suspended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember that the committee requested that the evidence be printed for the convenience of members of the committee and of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bonus to Coking Plaids


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed! consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles Stewart (Minister of Mines) for the second reading of Bill No. 233, to encourage the .production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada.
Edward Joseph Garland: When the House rose at six o'clock I was drawing attention to the report of the Dominion Fuel Board entitled, Coke as a Household Fuel in Central Canada, Bulletin No. 5, from which I quote:
Although there is room for a plant in all the cities mentioned, the first plants built will have the advantage of picking the cream of the market.
This bill proposes to encourage the establishment of those first plants, and I submit if that is the case the bill by its very nature will prevent the accomplishment of its alleged purpose, namely, the establishment of adequate coking facilities in all the centres capable of maintaining such plants, to supply 50 per cent of the domestic fuel requirements of the two central provinces. Therefore this legislation will discourage private investments later. If on the other hand the bill did take cognizance of this danger and prevented the organization of a company under the subsidy until that company was prepared to erect a plant sufficiently large to take care of all the requirements of that particular zone, the bill would then create a subsidized monopoly unless steps were taken to control the prices at which both coal and gas would be sold. Let me give an illustration. According to the report the city of Montreal has a potential market, including the surrounding district, for
870.000	tons of coke per annum. That estimate is arrived at by estimating in turn the quantity of gas which can be sold economically. I am informed that a company is being formed to take advantage of the bill and erect a plant with a capacity of only
400.000	tons, which means that a market for
470.000	tons will be left for those who come later, but if the cream of the market is taken by the first plant I submit that it is most improbable that any further investments in coking plants will be made in Montreal. If on the other hand the bill insisted on the construction of a plant in Montreal capable of producing the total coke requirements of that district a subsidized monopoly would be created which would be even more vicious than the first proposal. You create a monopoly

subsidized by the government of this country, the government having no control over the rates at which either gas or coke may be sold.
There is one other point. This bill proposes to encourage the establishment of coking plants producing gas in large quantities in centres where to-day there are plants developing gas the owners of which had the initiative to open up and develop the field, and who have already made1 heavy investments. You now propose to put up a subsidized gas producing plant side iby side with an industry which in many cases is struggling to get along. Let us take for example the city of Ottawa, to which the minister referred as one of the cities which would be affected under this bill. In the city of Ottawa we have a gas company; I am paying gas rates and it is my opinion that the charges are not exorbitant. Now it is proposed under this bill to subsidize a second company to sell gas in competition with the company already established and which has already made its investments and commitments. That I consider to be most unfair in every way.


Charles A. Stewart: I think I
can save my hon. friend a lot of useless argument which he is presenting a.t the moment with the very best intentions, if I tell him it is not proposed to subsidize these plants for the purpose of creating a monopoly. It is simply desired to get them to utilize Canadian coal in preference to American coal. The price of the American product will always regulate the price in Canada, the duty being left off, and we are simply attempting to substitute Canadian coal for that imported from the United States.


Edward Joseph Garland: The delightfully ingenuous argument of the minister is not at all convincing. I am showing as plainly as possible the fact that if the full requirements of each zone are supplied under this bill we will be creating a monopoly, no matter what the minister says and no matter what may be the intention of the administration.


Charles A. Stewart: Suppose the zone is supplied at present with American coal; what would be the difference in supplying that zone with Canadian coal?


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree
that it would be preferable to consume Canadian coal under fair economic conditions, but if the minister studies Hansard subsequently and allows himself a little more time for consideration he will realize that if advantage is taken of the bill to the degree which the Fuel

Bonus to Cokinu Plants
board indicates, irrespective of the minister's opinions or intentions we are creating a subsidized monopoly with subsidized plants taking care of these requirements. The only consideration which will enter into it will be the competition of imported anthracite and coke.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
finding fault with my hon. friend's argument, but when it is argued .that we are creating a monopoly, I say that no monopoly could be created for the simple reason that we are doing nothing under the sun except proposing to grant a sufficient sum to encourage plants that otherwise would use American coal. Take the plant proposed to be established in Montreal. There is no definite assurance that its promoters will avail themselves of this assistance to use American coal; I hope they will not. They are proposing to build a plant in Montreal capable of turning out
400.000	tons of coal. All we are attempting bo do is to get them to use Canadian coal instead of American. That is all, nothing more.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the minister cannot see it by this time I have failed utterly in my attempt to persuade him that the effect will be what I have stated. I agree entirely with the minister-


Charles A. Stewart: May I say that I agree with my hon. friend that there cannot be a plant unless there is a distributing system already owned by the municipality or by private corporations?
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); The minister is quite right in this respect, that a
400.000	ton plant will not create a monopoly, but it will discourage the building of other plants to meet the requirements of the other
470.000	tons for the reason that is given in this report-that the cream of the milk having been skimmed off by the first plant to take advantage of any subsidy, only the dregs will be left for those who come after. I follow that up by stating that if the bill had taken the precaution to .provide for meeting all the coke requirements in each zone, then you would have a plant established able to take care of 870,000 tons, and so you have the creation of a monopoly. There you have the argument placed for the third time before the committee.
I now come to deal-


William John Ward: Before the hon. gentleman
leaves that point will he permit me to direct a question to the Minister of the Interior?


Edward Joseph Garland: No; I am afraid not.


William John Ward: I think it will further elucidate the point you are making.


Edward Joseph Garland: You may make a speech afterwards. I have the floor, and if I yield to your request I am afraid it may imperil my rights.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. All this is very irregular. The hon. member for Bow River has the floor and may not be interrupted without his permission.


Edward Joseph Garland: I come now to the other by-products. The possibility of a gas market for these coking plants is discussed in this report, but to my amazement it occupies only two pages, and there is no indication whatever-either by survey, inspection, by tabulation of statistics, or by a compilation of any figures-as to the potential markets for gas. There is no indication whatever in it that there will be a market available for the gas to be produced from these plants.
Ammonia sulphate is the next by-product, in point of volume, from the carbonization of coal. At page 44 there is one short page given to discussing the market possibilities in this country, in one sentence of which the limited nature of the market at the present time is indicated by the statement that "an educational campaign, if properly attempted, should create a demand for home consumption." There is no doubt but that there is a market for ammonia sulphate in the West Indies and some other places where they have been using it for some time. Possibly the plant at Montreal could dispose of its surplus in that way; but the other plants at Ottawa, Toronto, or wherever they may be established, would find it very difficult to take advantage of the proposal from an economic standpoint. Of course if a plant were established in Quebec, it could avail itself of the ocean transportation to the West Indies.
The next by-product is light oils. Now the report itself definitely lays down the statement that in plants of 500 tons carbonizing capacity per day, or less, it is not profitable to recover the light oils. The suggestion is made that they should be left in the coke, and to that degree at least add more bulk and more volatile matter to it, but you would be losing a valuable by-product by so doing. I understand that in England and in Germany, since the close of the war many investigations and experiments have been carried on in this line of work their endeavour being to reduce the
Bonus to Coking Plants

minimum quantity of gas produced from coal and increase in proportion the light oils available, which of course would, be very valuable; but unless the plant is capable of producing at least 1,500 gallons per day, the extraction of oil is not profitable. When we take the figures I have quoted this afternoon showing the total production per day per plant in the zones outlined in the report, in only two instances will it be found profitable to put up a plant of this nature and produce and take out the oil as one of the by-products. Tar products, of course, are always valuable and readily disposed of. There would be eight or twelve gallons to every ton.
As to breeze, that product-could be disposed of to industrial steam and other furnaces, or could be disposed of to a limited extent in the plant itself.
Now at .pages 114 and 115 of the report I find estimates given of the cost of plants. I gave the House this afternoon an estimate of my own of the cost of a plant producing a thousand tons of coke per day. That estimate was based on the cost of the Troy plant, one of the most efficient and up-to-date plants in North America to-day, and which was visited by some hion. members opposite as well as the members of the committee a couple of yeais ago. The Troy plant cost about -three and a half millions, but the labour conditions in the plant, and in the district surrounding it, were deplorable. I asked Eon. gentlemen who were there if they were not struck by the pallor, the emaciation, the miserable, wretched physical condition of the workers and their families within the vicinity of both the blast furnaces and the coking plant. I found out on examination-by inviting statements from some of the foremen and others-that the wage paid ordinary labour in the plant was 42-| cents an hour. The highest wage paid in the plant was paid to technical workers, that is expert men like the acetylene welders, or men engaged in work of that mechanical character. They are paid 75 cents an hour. This condition in the United States where conditions are supposed to be so splendid. Forty-two and -one half cents an hour for the average labour; 75 cents an hour for the expert or dangerous labour. I asked:	How
many hours a day do you work? And to my utter amazement I found that these men in the plant were working twelve hours a- day.


George Gibson Coote: As bad as the House of
Commons.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just as bad as the House of Commons. On receiving that
fMr. E. J. Garland.]
answer I asked if the workers were allowed off time for their meals. I found that they were not; they were compelled to eat their meals while the work was in progress. I submit that similar conditions should not be created in this country. If coking plants are to be put up I submit that the workers should be paid reasonable wages and should work under proper conditions. Turning to page 114 I find the estimate given there is not much below the one I gave the House. Let me quote:
The plant in table XXI would as a rule consist of a single battery of ovens, from 45 to 60 ovens in the battery, the number of ovens being dependant on the size of oven, style or type, and the coking time. The coking time plays a very important part in the physical characteristics of the coke produced. Such a plant should produce about 7,300 M cubic feet of surplus gas per day and 700 tons of coke. The coke yield varies with the grade of coal used and the plant practice, a yield of 70 per cent commercial coke from dry coal being a fair average.
The expense items in the table are the usual ones allowed and are conservative. The labour rates are based on Canadian conditions. Such a plant would cost about $2,500,000 for a 700-ton plant.
Let us glance for a moment at the table of expenses. We find there-and may I call this to the attention of the Labour party in this House-that ordinary labour is estimated at 50 cents an hour, and repair labour 60 cents an hour. Think of it, Mr. Speaker. We are proposing to establish an industry in this country, paying the employees 50 cents -an hour for ordinary labour and 60 cents an hour for repair labour. The table of expenses given in this report is as follows:
Per ton
Expenses	dry coal
Operating labour (50 cents per hour). $0,750 Repair labour (60 cents per hour).. ..	0.180
Repair material	 0.200
Supplies and lubrication	 0.050
Fuel	 0.400
Tank car rental	 0.030
Switching	 0.020
Manufacturing materials	 0.150
Power and water purchased	 0.120
Miscellaneous other expense	 0.050
Total operating expense	 1.950
Adding the coal cost to the fixed charges and the expense of operation gives a total cost of $9.46.
Now I turn to a publication entitled "Some New Aspects of Low Temperature Distillation," by Harold Neilsen, at t'he request of the Smoke Abatement League of Great Britain. On page 6 this expert on European

Bonus to Coking Plants
coking plants and European methods lays down this doctrine:
In my paper before the South Wales Institute of Engineers, in April, 1922, I drew specific attention to this, and tried to prove that unless this figure is low, the economic success of any low temperature distillation process is highly problematical. It will take too long to go into details of the production costs here, but it will suffice to say that the overall costs today per ton of raw material treated, including: Depreciation on capital cost, including foundations and buildings and complete plant,
Fuel for carbonising,
Cost of handling material,
Power and steam,
Labour,
Maintenance and stones, etc., should not exceed 4s. per ton.
That is about $1 per ton. The figure given by the Fuel board is roughly $2, $1.95 to be exact, so we are 100 per cent above the lowest economic figure given by this expert.
Now I come to the capital cost, including everything. According to this expert, and he ought, to know, it should not exceed from 10 to 12 shillings per ton of raw material dealt with, or $2.50 to $3. The figure we have in the fuel board estimate here is $9.40. This would indicate that costs in Canada will be too high for economic development.
Walking out in the city of Troy, Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me to examine the retail prices in order that we would have some idea of what relief we might expect in this country under a similar proposal, and I found right there beside the plant, with no railway charges to pay, nothing but the wagons to haul, a price of $11 a ton. The coal for coking in Troy cost them from $5 to $5.40 per ton. Coal in this report is estimated to cost $7 per ton, so you have a cost right immediately at the door of the plant in Canada of $12 to $13 per ton. That is not so bad. The immediate consumer in the little city, if it was economically feasible to build such a plant, might gain some advantage, say about $1 per ton over the anthracite price.
As to the possibility of developing this trade to any extent outside the city, that is hopeless on account of the present railway rates. I will deal with that point before I close. In the Hamilton plant which was mentioned this afternoon, I find that they are using entirely American coal. They are using that under drawback, and 70 per cent of it is the celebrated Elkhorn coal, which is a very high volatile coal from the United States, and 30 per cent of it is the equally celebrated Pokahontas coal, a bituminous, low volatile coal. They are using 100 per cent American coal in that plant, and I ask you how? By
securing from this Liberal government a drawback of 99 per cent of the cost of the coal that is used for this purpose.
The minister informed me this afternoon, in answer to a question, that it was not the intention of the administration to affect in any way the drawback, and that it was to be continued. At the same time the minister challenged me when I stated that under this bill there would not be one dollar of advantage to the Alberta coal producer, and indeed I am beginning to be a little timid of its effects elsewhere if this drawback is to be continued. Let me point out one or two facts in connection with it. Specific mention has been made of the city of Winnipeg. The minister thought that a plant in Winnipeg would be able to develop a partial market for our Alberta coal. The Winnipeg Electric Company have operated a gas-producing plant for many years. Some time ago they introduced a battery of by-product coke ovens. The primary object of both plants is the same, that is, the production of gas, with coke as a by-product. This by-product plant was built prior to the tariff amendment of 1925 which admitted United States bituminous coal for coke-making purposes practically free of duty. The United States coal used in the gas producing plant is not entitled to a drawback of duty, but coal imported for use in the by-product ovens, although used for the same purpose is entitled to the di-awback or subsidy. Every ton of coke produced in this plant from American coal is sold in direct competition with Alberta domestic coal in Winnipeg. Note that, Mr. Speaker: Every ton of coke produced from American coal in this plant is sold in direct competition with our own Alberta coal.
I do not think I need go further than that simple statement to indicate to the minister that any belief he may have had that this policy would provide a market for our Alberta coal in Winnipeg is dissipated and must remain so as long as that drawback continues. Let me say this. Although I have from time to time deplored the practice of imposing duties, and I do still deplore it, yet I say to the minister that there is nothing so utterly inconsistent and ridiculous as imposing a duty for certain purposes, such as to keep out a commodity which is entering inito competition with our own commodities in this country, and then upon pressure from private interest, for private exploitation and private gain, to permit the importation of that commodity on a drawback duty of 99 per cent. That is a most vicious principle, and I am sure the minister agrees with me.
Bonus to Coking Plants


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
this to my hon. friend? The moment that you put a duty on, you increase the cost to the consumer. My hon. friend will not deny that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite right.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend agrees that the imposition of the duty raises the price to the consumer. By leaving the duty off we protect the consumer, and if we want to use our own product the logical thing is to assist by way of bonuses so as to keep the price down to the consumer.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is going to allow American coal to come in here under a drawback of 99 per cent, and then we are going to subsidize private interests to develop and sell coke from Canadian coal in competition with the, coke produced from imported free American coal.


Charles A. Stewart: I hate to
object, but I shall certainly take a few minutes to explain this point to the committee. My hon. friend is arguing from wrong premises there absolutely. There is no such thing as creating a monopoly under this bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is back to the monopoly again. I hope he will deal with this question when I get through, but may I have a rest from the interruptions which have 'been very numerous. At page 134 of the report of the Fuel board they deal with this question of railway rates, to which I promised a few moments ago to refer before I close: It is quite clear that even the fuel board itself did not believe in the commercial feasibility of establishing coking plants. Note what it says:
There is no single factor of more importance to the coal and coke industry than that of transportation.
In that we all agree. It goes on:
It is proposed to point out the conditions existing and just how these affect the by-product coke oven and gas industry.
Then it gives a table showing the rates in effect on coke on a mileage basis, with which I shall not weary the committee, but hon. members will find it on page 134 of the report. The fuel board goes on to make this statement:
It is only reasonable to assume that after coke plants are established and tonnages in quantity are assured, the railways will grant commodity rates, which will bring not only freight markets to the railways, but cheaper coke to the public.
[Mr. E. J. Garland.1
In short, the board itself realizes that the biggest problem in connection with this matter is not the subsidizing of private interests to develop coking plants, but the reduction of transportation rates, a point which I have consistently argued in this House.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will admit that the 'board is now referring altogether to the transportation of Canadian coal.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, that is what I am referring to now.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has just stated that the Fuel board did not believe in the establishment of coking ovens.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not at all. I said the Fuel board had, by implication at least in this statement, inferred that the establishment of coking ovens without a reduction in rates was not economically feasible.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend will say for Canadian coal, I will agree.


Edward Joseph Garland: All right. I understood the object of the bill was to use Canadian coal in these plants. My hon. friend is getting away from that.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but I
do not want the hon. member to understand that the Fuel board were against the general practice of making coke.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Fuel
board, according to their own statement, clearly realized that unless there was a reduction in railway rates the production of coke was not necessarily nor even probably profitable or commercially feasible. I will read again from this report, page 134:
It is only reasonable to assume that after coke plants are established and tonnages in quantity are assured, the railways will grant commodity rates, which will bring not only freight markets to the railways but cheaper coke to the public.
The rates quoted were the Canadian rates. I now turn for a moment to the comparison in this table on page 135, between the American and Canadian rates. The American rate from Detroit to Montreal is $4 a ton, approximate distance 560 miles and the per mile rate 0.715. Then we take the Canadian rates on that basis, Hamilton to Montreal $3 per ton, approximate distance 377 miles, rate per mile 0.786, rate per same basis as Detroit, $2.70, as compared with $3. The United States rate has the advantage of 30 cents per

Bonus to Coking Plants
ton over our rate. Then the rate from Montreal to Ottawa per net ton is $2.50, distance 115 miles, rate per mile 2.17, rate per same basis as Detroit 0.82. Then Montreal to Quebec, the rate is $2.40, distance 172 miles, rate per mile 1.40, rate per same basis as Detroit 1.23. Then the rate Montreal to Sherbrooke, $2.40, distance 106 miles, rate per mile 2.26, rate per same basis as Detroit 0.75. Then Boston to Sherbrooke, $3.60 per net ton, approximate distance 272 miles, rate per mile 1.32, rate per same basis as Detroit 1.96.
In every instance there is a very serious difference in favour of the United States rate. This report indicates that there are other disadvantages under which we suffer and which should be removed. Another disadvantage is that switching charges are high. In many localities these now amount to 80 to 90 cents per ton. In the Connellsville coall and coke region, and other points in the United States where any considerable tonnage is moved, the switching charge is 19 cents per ton.
The final statement in the transportation division of this report is as follows:
The favourable side of the transportation question lies in the receptive attitude of the railways.
I am afraid if we are going to rely on that it will be a long time before we get an adjustment in rates.
Although, perhaps, the complexities of ratemaking render a complete answer to this perplexing question most difficult, it may be possible to go a long -way towards a satisfactory solution by merely laying the facts before the proper authorities.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should not pass. I will give a summary of my reasons in a moment. Let me at this stage call the attention of the minister concerned and of the administration to an editorial in a newspaper which is favourable to the government and has supported it strenuously during -the recent election campaign, and is still supporting it. I refer to the issue of the Ottawa Citizen, March 21, 1927, referring to the new methods being developed in the United States and Germany. It reads:
In the report of the Royal Commission, proposed new by-product coke plants would be established at Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Port Colborne and London. Together they would produce annually 1,376,000 tons of coke and 13,795,000 "million" cubic feet of surplus gas, according to the way the figures are tabulated in the report. Presumably it should be 13,795,000,000 cubic feet. The House *will need to satisfy itself that this enormous proportion of surplus gas can be commercially marketed: otherwise the cost of the coke would be higher.
It may be possible to dispose of 4,000,000,000 cubic feet of gas annually in Montreal and 5,000,000,000 cubic feet in Toronto; but before government assistance is voted parliament will need to make sure that such by-product coking plants are the most economical method of treating the coal.
The quotation then continues:
It would pay Canada to get the very latest information, particularly about low temperature carbonization as it is being developed in Great Britain. It is no longer a laboratory experiment, but is being tested commercially.
Nova Scotia would benefit by waiting, at least for one more session. The demand for Nova Scotia coal, under the process as tabulated in the report of the Royal commission, would obviously be restricted to the ability of the by-product coking plants to dispose of the surplus gas. A process to produce oil in large quantities, without any such enormous surplus of gas, would allow a greater expansion of the industry.
I submit that if we proceed with this bill now we may be assisting in the establishment of coking plants which in five years will become obsolete and will be thrown back on the administration, or we will, have to pay increased subsidies.


Charles A. Stewart: They cannot be thrown back on the administration.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then you will have established an industry which has failed. I turn now to a paper which I do not think is so favourable to the administration, but whose orthodox views will appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House. The Monetary Times of March 25, 1927, referring to coking plants, has this to say:
The proposed encouragement for the coking industry is a matter that is of quite equal importance to central Canada as to the mari-times. The fuel problem in Ontario and Quebec is in urgent need of a solution. Coke is already growing in popularity in these provinces and the opportunity for the government policy is favourable. The interest of the maritime provinces is in the use of Nova Scotia coal. The Dominion Fuel Board is understood to be satisfied that a satisfactory coke for domestic purposes can be produced from most of the seams operated in the Cape Breton coal fields. It is, of course, desirable that Canadian coal should be used for this purpose if possible; but it is also desirable that the industry should be so organized as to. be able to stand upon its own feet. It would be a misfortune if the result of this branch of government policy were to be to set up an industry which could live only at the cost of repeated subsidies from the public exchequer.
No more complete condemnation of the scheme could come from any newspaper than to indicate that nothing was more obnoxious than to set up an industry whose continued
193S
Bonus to Coking Plants

existence would depend upon annual subsidies from the government. I do not wish to be destructive. I think we can find a way out in this matter. Why not make a loan direct to accredited individuals or companies desirous of developing this industry, at a reasonable rate of interest? If a group of individuals in Montreal desire to build a 400,000-ton plant, make them a government loan at a reasonable rate of interest, and let the taxpayers of the Dominion have security on the property until the loan is paid off.
I appeal to hon. gentlemen in the ranks of the Liberal party opposite who have stood against special privilege; I appeal to the Liberal Progressives, those hon. gentlemen who would appear to have lost the progressive part of their title, to accept the suggestion which I have made and to induce the minister to put this policy of his on a loan basis instead of on a subsidy basis. Make a loan, have an interest in the company, own it ultimately if necessary, or get your loan paid back to you. Use the same policy with respect to these companies as you are using in the matter of the Montreal harbour commission, the Vancouver harbour commission and others. If you like, have your Dominion Fuel board act as the body to supervise the development. I offer that suggestion to the minister in the hope, the vain hope I admit, that realizing fits constructive possibilities, he will consider the withdrawal of this bill for one session, for two reasons.


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly
not on a plan of that kind.


Edward Joseph Garland: The first
reason is in order that the feasibility of the plan which I propose may be examined. I do not suggest for a minute that it has no flaws, but there are possibilities in it. The second reason is in order that we may prevent the too hasty development of coking plants that may not exist feasibly or economically for more than a few years if low temperature carbonization proves commercially advantageous.
I appeal to hon. gentlemen who profess real Liberalism not to start this vicious thing again, to restart or continue subsidizing private interests in the establishment of new industries of this nature. The evil thing has already set its roots deeply into our country; it is taking from our people too heavy a toll every year. No one knows that better than hon. members from the prairies who sit opposite, who were not long ago our own colleagues holding the views which I hold to-day and who, I am satisfied, hold
{Mr. E. J. Garland.]
them at this moment, but who, because of the position in which they find themselves, may not wish to exert their real convictions and to satisfy their consciences by opposing evils of this kind. I appeal to them to remember their former ideals and to help us in our opposition to legislation of this nature.
I am opposed to it because the investigational and experimental work in this matter is not yet completed. We should not enter into the construction of these plants until we are satisfied that they will completely meet the requirements for a long time to come. These plants may be obsolete in a period of five years and you will have lost your subsidies without doing much if any good. The feasibility of the whole plan is seriously in question for the reasons I have given, namely the difficulty of disposal of the gas by-product which is the principal byproduct of the coking operation in our Canadian plants. The capital cost estimated by the Fuel board, which cost will undoubtedly enter into any arrangements with the administration of this concern, is, according to an expert, too high to permit of economic development. The plan will not even scratch the real fuel problem in those areas.
A satisfactory readjustment of transportation rates would be infinitely better, not as a matter of charity or special privilege, but as a cost rate under which nobody would lose anything but when the business increased, probably a profit would be realized on the movement of a volume of tonnage by the railway company. The last and final reason is because this is creating another "special privilege" interest which we shall have the greatest difficulty in removing from our backs in the years to come. For these reasons I am opposed to the second reading of the bill and I will vote against it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not rise for the purpose of unduly protracting the discussion on the bill introduced by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), nor do I wish to follow in all its details the lengthy address of which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has just delivered himself. As a representative of the maritime provinces I think I voice the sentiments held by my associates from those provinces when I say that we are all disappointed that the hon. member for Bow River, whom we hold in high regard not alone personally, but also for his splendid gifts of intellect, has seen fit to use that ability tonight in hostile criticism of this bill; a bill

Bonus to Coking Plants [DOT]
calculated to be of great benefit to the people of the maritime provinces, and especially to the coal industry, which is one of the most important industries in those provinces.


Edward Joseph Garland: I know my hon. friend does not wish to do me an injustice.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am entirely friendly and sympathetic to the interests of the maritime provinces and if an economically sound proposition were introduced I would be glad to support it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: My hon. friend has
a most peculiar manner of showing his sympathy. My hon. friend comes as I do from a Canadian province which possesses vast and extensive coal deposits. I know he must be as anxious as I am to see developed in this country a national fuel policy under which Canada will so far as possible be made independent of a foreign nation in the matter of her fuel supply. And in spite of the fact that my hon. friend has used his voice and intimates that he will exercise his vote to prevent this bill from going through, whenever he or any of his colleagues or associates from Alberta brings up in this House any measure dealing with transportation or anything else tending to improve the condition of the coal industry of that province, or to increase its coal output, or to bring that coal to the markets of central Canada, then in direct opposition to the attitude that he has taken to-night, my voice and my much inferior abilities will be raised in support of the legitimate claims of the province from whence he comes.
My hon. friend in the first part of his speech said there were certain objections which could not be met in respect of the establishment of coking plants. One of the chief objections was that we had no allabsorbing market for our gas such as the House of Commons provides on certain occasions. If he will refer to the report from which he quoted at some length to-night, he will find that the author of that report takes an entirely different view. He will find for example that the very eminent engineer who compiled the report from which he quoted stated in it that he made an extensive survey of conditions in Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Port Colborne. He then goes on to say:
The cities chosen are those where the domestic gas demand is sufficient to warrant installation of ovens and successfully support a by-product coke plant.
He also states:
Other localities such as the "border" cities, can erect plants as soon as the industrial or domestic gas demand is sufficient.
He goes on further to say on page 34 of the report that at the present time there is a total market in Canada for some 2,628,000 tons of household fuel. The writer, having in mind the possible disposition of the gas and other by-products, points out that by the establishment of coke ovens at the present time, a production of 1,376,300 tons of American anthracite could be displaced by Canadian coke. I think that is sufficient evidence of the feasibility of the project which this bill has in mind to encourage.
I am in favour of this bill because it aims at the further development of the great coal resources of the. Dominion. It is intended to bring about a wider distribution of Canadian coal in Canadian markets. I am in favour of it because it is a step in the direction of a national fuel policy for Canada, and that is something which should meet with the approbation of every patriotic Canadian who has the industrial and commercial interests of Canada at heart. Coal is one of the basic elements in the industrial progress of any nation, for no great industrial achievement is possible unless a nation possesses coal deposits and can properly utilize them. Coal is by far the most important of all the mineral products, and next to coal in importance is iron. The existence of. coal and iron deposits throughout the world has profoundly influenced modern civilization. The greatest commercial nations in the world to-day are the United States, Germany and England all of which owe their industrial and commercial greatness in no small measure to their coal deposits. If Canada is to take its place in the sun industrially and commercially, if it is to occupy that position in industry and commerce which a 'bountiful nature ordained should be ours, then I say this parliament must of necessit3r take steps to inaugurate a national fuel policy. And this is one such step. I may say to my hon. friends that when they bring into parliament any measure calculated to assist *the coal industry of Alberta we from the maritime provinces will support it just as we had expected that they would support us in connection with this bill.
It is an anomalous, an illogical position for Canada to allow the central provinces to depend upon a friendly but none the less rival industrial power for their fuel supply. It is a situation that should not obtain because in Canada we possess 17 per cent of the total coal reserves of the world. Our concern should
Bonus to Coking Plants

be to bring Canadian coal to our industrial centres, and this can be done if proper measures are taken by this parliament.
This bill will not only be of advantage to the province of Nova Scotia, but it will foe of very material advantage to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. At the present time these provinces depend almost entirely upon American anthracite for their domestic needs. That is an insecure position. It is a position which no self-respecting country should care to be in. It is a dangerous position for any province to tolerate. It is dangerous for this reason chiefly, that according to mineralogists the supply of American anthracite coal is being rapidly depleted. Already, as those who have given study to the question know, what were two very important sources of supply of American anthracite, namely, the Carbondale and Scranton districts, which ten years ago were important sources of supply, 'have by this time petered out, and to-day they produce practically no coal. In 1924 there were presented to congress no fewer than three resolutions to the effect that the United States government should place an embargo on the exportation of American anthracite. What would foe the position of central Canada today had such action been taken by the government to the south of us. It is time for us to take serious cognizance of the situation and to see to it that there shall be available some suitable substitute in the event of the supply of American anthracite being at any time cut off. But apart from the uncertainty of being able to secure American anthracite we have the positive assurance that as the years go on, according as the American supply diminishes, the price of anthracite coal to the consumer in Canada will go up. I venture the prediction that within half a decade if the people of Ontario and Quebec can obtain any American anthracite at all, they will have to pay a very much higher price for it than they are paying now. I say, therefore, that this bill the object of which is to displace as far as possible, American anthracite by a fuel which is superior to it, and which can be and is sold a,t a lower price, will materially assist the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It will also greatly assist Nova Scotia inasmuch as the coal industry is one of the most important of our activities. Upon that industry almost one-fifth of our population depend for their livelihood, and the great problem we have to face in our coal industry is our inability to provide employment for our workmen in winter. When our coal -is banked throughout the winter it generally breaks up and consequently it is more difficult to dispose of. Tt is not

so easy to sell it in that state, and the rehandling charges add materially to the cost of the coal. It has therefore become practically impossible for us to bank coal in winter, although this would provide employment in that season. If this bill goes through and the coal is used for coking purposes at Montreal and other centres, we shall certainly bank our coal because then we shall not care whether it disintegrates or not, because it has to be broken up in any case before it can be coked. The result will be that we shall produce over
500,000	tons of coal a year more than at present. And we shall thus give .in wages to Nova Scotia miners about a million dollars a year more than at present. My ban. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) had a great deal to say about the workingmen; there was much pathos in his voice as he referred to them. I would have him consider the workingmen in Cape Breton island and the miners of Nova Scotia generally who to-day must go without employment in winter, and whose wives and children on such occasions are in needy circumstances. I would ask the hon. gentleman to be sympathetic toward a project which has as one of its objects the providing of work in winter for men such as I have described.
I do not intend to discuss the bill at any great length, but I would point out to my hon. friend from Bow River, who was critical of it because it concerned only Nova Scotia-


Edward Joseph Garland: No, no; that is not fair.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not want to be unfair to my hon. friend, but that is the way I understood him.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would oppose it as strenuously if it applied to Alberta.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then my hon. friend's position is a great deal worse than I thought it was.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is at
least consistent.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: This bill rises
directly out of the recommendations of the Duncan report. It is supposed to apply primarily to Nova Scotia and to the maritimes generally, and those who come from coal producing sections of the west should give it their sympathy and support because in the future they may require the sympathy and support of the maritime representatives for measures calculated to improve the coal industry of Alberta. This is one of the vital

Bonus to Coking Plants
recommendations of the Duncan commission, having as its aim the stimulation of one of the most important industries in our province. To-day the people of Nova Scotia are looking to this parliament as they have never looked before; in these days when the report of the Duncan commission and the measures implementing that report are being discussed, a million Canadians down by the Atlantic seaboard have their eyes focused on the parliament of Canada. These people feel that in the past, injustices have been done them, and they feel that their provinces have not kept pace with the onward march of Canadian progress. This mental attitude produces a condition which is bad for Canadian unity and which unless removed may be fraught with serious dangers to Canadian union as well. I do not claim that the people of the maritime provinces have done more than the people of other provinces. But I do say that they have always assumed their fair share of the burden; they have always made their share of the sacrifices, and they have maintained faith with the rest of Canada. Today, in travail and difficulty, they confidently expect that the rest of Canada will not break faith with them. If the measures of the Duncan report, and particularly those calculated to stimulate industrial activity in the maritimes, go through, they will have a wholesome psychological effect upon the people of those provinces. As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said in one of the best speeches delivered this session, "as the celebration of Canada's sixtieth anniversary approaches, as a result of these recommendations being implemented the maritime provinces will take new heart and renewed confidence in the sense of justice of the rest of Canada and the parliament of this country. They will look forward with renewed confidence and optimism to the future and with courage undaunted "greet the unseen with a cheer" realizing that "the things they go to do will be better things than they have ever done," and their future within confederation will be a better future than they have ever known. In order to bring about that happy result and in order that there may be amity and cooperation between the different parts of Canada, I ask hon. members to-night sympathetically to consider our claims, that the national good of Canada may be promoted. If they do that I think there will be greater sjunpathy with the legitimate claims of the maritime provinces as set forth in the Duncan report.
Mr. Speaker, I very cheerfully give my support to the Minister of Mines on this bill;
I congratulate him for introducing it and everything I can do to facilitate its passage will certainly be done. I would, however, say that one part of the argument of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) impressed me; I refer to what he said about item 1049 of the present tariff. I think perhaps there is a little inconsistency in formulating a policy to produce coke manufactured from Canadian coal while we allow American coal for the manufacture of coke to enter Canada under a drawback of 99 per cent. To my mind that rather nullifies the effect of this bill, and I hope the minister will take serious cognizance of that fact and that this clause will ere long foe removed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles A. Stewart: I would like to say a word or two in connection with some of the remarks made by the previous speakers. I do not want to take more than a moment to explain .to the committee my contention, which is that the bill is not designed for the purpose of creating a monopoly, which fact I think I can establish at cace. It is not intended to capture the entire market for coke but simply to encourage the manufacture of domestic fuel from Canadian coal in so far as the present facilities will permit. That is, you must have the network of pipes in every city to dispose of the gas, and the extent to which you can dispose of that gas is the limit to which you can manufacture coke.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am not sure about that.


Charles A. Stewart: That is as conditions are at present. A great deal has been said about new processes, with which I do not propose to deal at all. At the Hamilton plant, where this process is away beyond the experimental stage, a good deal of the gas is being consumed in the heating of the plant itself while the balance is distributed through the city mains. Therefore that is settled; coke can only be manufactured to the 'extent to which you have provision for the distribution of gas, or the consumption of gas if you prefer those words. Neither the fuel board nor anyone else ever thought that as the gas distribution systems exist at present in the cities, we could supplant all the anthracite coming into Canada. Under existing conditions, however, we can supplant anthracite to the extent of over 2,000,000 tons, and altogether in Canada, last year we only used

Bonus to Coking Plants

3,500,000	tons of American anthracite. We used 5,000,000 tons in 1923, so I point to the fact that we are making some progress in. providing a substitute for anthracite coal, which, as my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) has said, will probably be denied us altogether in ithe near future. Our object is to be in a position to supply a substitute fuel when that time comes. Electricity is playing an important part as a substitute for this domestic fuel.
Now let us come to the purport of the bill before the committee. Whether or not this bill passes we are given to understand on the best authority that a coking plant will be constructed in Montreal, capable of consuming 400,000 tons of bituminous coal. All we are seeking to do is to give assistance without taking responsibility for a single 'brick in that plant; under certain conditions we desire to provide for assistance to these companies if they will use Canadian coal in preference to coal coming from the United States.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it fair to say that that assistance will amount to two-thirds of the capital cost of the plant?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it cannot go beyond the figure of one dollar for every ton of Canadian coal used, so the total amount will depend entirely upon the percentage of Canadian coal used. If less than 50 per cent of Canadian coal is used, no assistance will be given.


Edward Joseph Garland: My figures are to the contrary.


Charles A. Stewart: My friend
is basing his figures on the cost of the plant which, while it is a consideration, does not enter into the final determination of the amount to be paid. We are not seeking to say that we will deny these companies the right to earn part of this assistance if they do not use 100 per cent of Canadian coal, but we do say that they should use at least 70 per cent of Canadian coal and not less than 50 per cent. By means of this encouragement we are seeking to get individuals, private or corporate, to transfer their affections from American coal to Canadian coal. All the avenues for the transportation of bituminous coal into this central region lead from the United States. People are using that fuel, and they do not readily transfer their affections from the American to the Canadian product. The assistance proposed to be given will be for the purpose I have indicated. My hon. friend suggests that we should loan money to the companies to build a plant. But that
TMr C A. Stewart.]
would mean our going into the business ourselves, and it is now past the experimental stage. The Hamilton plant has proved beyond all question that the manufacture of coal into coke and1 its sale for domestic purposes meets the necessities of the case.


Edward Joseph Garland: If we made loans we should at least get our money back, but here it is proposed to make a straight gift.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend's argument was followed .to its logical conclusion there would be very grave doubts as to that because of what he says as to the feasibility of the high temperature system and the possibility of its being scrapped within fifteen years. The life of such a plant is fifteen years anyway and then it has to be entirely renewed. May I say for the information of my hon. friend that we are watching new systems of experimentation in the carbonization of coal just as closely as possible. There is not a single thing happening in any of the important coal bearing areas of the world where we do not watch progress of developments. I agree with my hon. friend that if low temperature carbonization proves to be feasible and workable it will reduce the cost very materially, but the conversion of coal into coke will also have a very material effect upon the cost. I disagree with the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton who has spoken in connection with the reimposition of the duty-because that is what he means. The reimposition of the duty would at once raise the price to the consumer. On the other hand my contention is that under this system of assistance, and of encouraging the substitution of Canadian coal for American, we do not raise the price to the consumer one iota. We keep the price level, because the competition still exists and that is what should prevail. It may be said we ought to try to shut out American coal altogether, but we do not view the matter from that standpoint.
I want to say very frankly that I am not one of those who advocate the giving of subsidies very strenuously, I never did; but if my hon. friend calls this system vicious I say it is the least vicious system that could be adopted in connection with the encouragement of industries to use Canadian products.


Mr. HEAPS:: I wonder if the minister would give an explanation of the statement he made earlier in the day in reference to the proposed drawback in connection with a Winnipeg coking plant?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I
would be very glad to. There is a feeling in the minds of some westerners that we should .

*	Bonus to Coking Plants
reimpose the duty on Canadian coal because the drawback is nothing more or less than a return of the duty paid on the entrance of the coal crossing the border to be used for coking purposes. Metallurgical coke comes in free, and I want to say to my hon. friend that if he attempted to put a duty on metallurgical coke every manufacturer in this country would raise a howl to high heaven. I have thought, and I still think, that if the manufacturer was entitled to free coke, the consuming public were surely entitled to free coke as a substitute for anthracite. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Bow River that this assistance will not help Winnipeg. It will do no harm to any industry but it will substitute in a large degree the use of Canadian coal for American coal in the city of Winnipeg-of Alberta coal if you like. I hope our maritime province friends will not take offence when I say that Alberta coal is equal to the best grades of the United States coal for coking purposes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What I am trying to get at is the fact that in the city of Winnipeg, in addition to a private gas and coking plant, there is a publicly owned central heating system and the latter ought to be treated at least as well as the gas plant owned by a private corporation.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid I did not catch my hon. friend's statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want the central heating system that we have in the city of Winnipeg to be placed on exactly the same level as the private gas plant. I do not think we should give a drawback to one and not to the other. Personally I should like to see the central heating plant, which is owned by the city, using Canadian coal to the extent of one hundred per cent if it is at all possible. When the central heating plant was originally built that was the idea entertained, and I believe the city of Winnipeg went to considerable expense in putting in equipment for the drying of the coal. I do not know whether it was on account of the quality, or whether it was due to other reasons, but they 'have not found it profitable to use Canadian coal entirely. It is quite possible, however, that if assistance, such as is promised to the private corporation in Winnipeg, were granted to the central heating system it might be able to use more Canadian coal than it is using at the present time. May I point out further that the gas plant in the city of Winnipeg comes into direct competition with our electrical public utility there, and if it is granted an extra allowance in the form of a drawback or subsidy, such as is proposed here, it will be in a
32649-123$
position to compete more easily with that public utility. In the city of Winnipeg the people are using more electricity than gas for domestic purposes. If the government is granting a subsidy it certainly should grant such aid to the first publicly owned steam heating utility established in the Dominion of Canada and prevent it from being exposed to unfair competition.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
rather regret what my hon. friend fears, but I think he missed the point which I tried to illustrate before, namely, that the subsidy will not increase the use of coal. This assistance is proposed to be given in order to substi- ' tute the use of Canadian coal for American coal. It would have no effect in reducing the price of the gas or coal either so far as that is concerned, or at least of very materially reducing it. The assistance proposed is simply based on the amount required to make it profitable, or a little more profitable, to use the Canadian product in preference to the American. My hon. friend says that if used to a greater degree it will interfere with the sale of electricity. But to the extent to which coal is being manufactured into gas there will be competition anyway. All that is being done is in the hope of encouraging the substitution of the Canadian coal for the American.
I want to get that idea home to my hon. friend. May I say to my hon. friend, in connection with the coal for his central heating plant, that I remember the day when we were supplying almost 90 per cent of the necessities of Winnipeg from Alberta coal? There are two reasons why a change has come about. One is that bituminous coal never was cheaper in the history of American mining than it is to-day. It is at possibly the lowest point it could touch. Naturally it is reaching a little farther out to-day, and probably the competition is a little stronger. That is not true of our Alberta coal. The Alberta members will agree that the price is somewhat higher to-day than it was at the time we captured the Winnipeg market. Therein lies the difference. I agree with my hon. friend from Bow River that the solution of this difficulty lies in the transportation question, which is now before the railway board.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Supposing the central heating plant in Winnipeg is using large quantities of American coal and that by granting a subsidy they would use large quantities of Canadian coal. Would the minister give them the same subsidy for converting that coal into steam as will be granted in the case of coal converted into coke?
/f
Bonus to Coking Plants


Charles A. Stewart: I think that difficulty will be cured entirely by a readjustment of the rates. That is the feeling we have in Alberta, at all events.


Thomas Cantley: I am, of course, entirely in sympathy with the object of the minister in bringing down this bill, but I am utterly at a loss to understand the basis on which he deals with the matter. I do not see how it is possible for this measure to be of very much advantage to us in Nova Scotia so long as item 1049, to which my hon. friend from Inverness referred, remains in the tariff. If coal for this purpose is to be admitted free of duty as it is now, what inducement is there for the proprietors of these proposed new plants to use Canadian coal? For more than thirty years I have had some connection with the coal business and the production of coke in retort ovens. I quite appreciate the advisability and approve of using a mixture of coal for the production of coke. Coal from different seams, even if identical in analysis, will produce a stronger coke if mixed together than coke produced from any single seam. Why this is so, I do not know, but it is so, and therefore I have not any doubt that a mixture of 30 per cent of one class, and 70 per cent of another class, of coal will produce a better quality fuel.
The minister said that coke should not bear a duty. Why not? Coal, which is a natural product, bears a duty, and if coal is entitled to a duty, coke, which is a manufactured product, is still more entitled to protection. I cannot follow the reasoning of the minister in that matter. I know of no reason why a manufacturer in this country should not pay a duty on all his material, the finished product of some other industry and if he has sufficient protection on his finished product. I do not know whether the minister will agree with me in that or not, but I would like to know what is the answer to my question as to why he retains tariff item No. 1049. Of course, the minister is quite familiar with it, but for the benefit of the House I will read it. Tariff item No. 1049 provides that bituminous coal is subject to a drawback of 99 per cent:
When imported after the twenty-fourth day of March, 1925, by proprietors of by-product recovery coke ovens and converted into coke at their by-product recovery coke ovens. Provided that no drawback shall be paid under this item on coal converted into coke at a gas retort plant or at a plant using any other process than the by-product coke process, also provided that drawback payable under this item is in lieu of drawback payable under any other item.
[Mr. Heaps.!


Charles A. Stewart: As my hon. friend knows, anthracite coal comes into Canada free.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, but it should not.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
going to get into an argument as to' whether it should or not, but as a matter of fact it does come in here free, and has done so for a veTy considerable number of years, the idea being, I believe, to cheapen the cost to the consumer. When we sought to supplant anthracite by coke we found that the metallurgical coke was also imported free. Run-of-mine coal bore a duty of 53 cents and slack of 14 cents, but the difficulty of enforcement as between the slack and the run-of-mine caused a great deal of trouble, and we reduced the duty on run-of-mine coal by 3 cents and increased the duty on slack to 50 cents, so all bituminous coal coming into Canada bears a duty of 50 cents a ton. In order to put domestic coke on a parity with metallurgical, but more particularly to iput it on a parity with anthracite coming in free, we give a drawback of 99 per cent, as prevails with regard to the metallurgical. That is the reason there is a drawback, to put them on a parity.


Thomas Cantley: I thank the minister for
his explanation, but he is simply reasoning backwards; that is all there is to it. The fact is, if you are going to protect the coal industry at all you must protect it by putting a duty on all classes of fuel that compete with coal. What is the effect as regards the Ontario plants which use American coke which is brought in there free? It means that the miner in Nova Scotia who is mining coal for use in the steel plants of Cape Breton is working without any protection at all. In addition to that, he is more than one thousand miles from his nearest competitive market, say in Montreal. That is one of the grossly unfair discriminations which we have had to suffer from in Nova Scotia for several years, and, with shame I say it, the party that I am supposed to Support were the ones who put that into force. But nevertheless it was wrong. We all make mistakes, and that is a mistake that ought to be now corrected. I cannot really understand how the minister expects to get any advantage from this proposal so long as item 1049 remains on the tariff list.
There is another point. I do not want to appear as though I were not supporting this measure, but I would ask the minister where is the fairness of bonusing new plants of this

Bonus to Coking Plants
kind and leaving other plants that are already built and in operation without similar protection or assistance? Why is that attitude taken? It seems most unfair.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
no existing plants except your metallurgical plant in Sydney-


Thomas Cantley: I think there are.


Charles A. Stewart: None of
the new standard type except the plant in Hamilton.


Thomas Cantley: Are there not two plants in Hamilton?


Charles A. Stewart: No, one
plant, the Steel Company's plant.


Thomas Cantley: I think there is another
as well.


Charles A. Stewart: They are
making metallurgical coke entirely.


Thomas Cantley: The minister is in error:
the fact is that all the plants are making and selling a very considerable portion of their product as domestic fuel to-day.


Charles A. Stewart: Gas plants?


Thomas Cantley: No, coke oven plants.
A very' considerable portion of the coke made in Cape Breton is sold as domestic fuel, and the quantity is growing. They are entitled to equal consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: Where do
they sell it? In their own locality?


Thomas Cantley: They not only sell it in
their own locality, and to each of the maritime provinces but they also sent a very considerable tonnage up the St. Lawrence this year, and that tonnage is increasing. Over
70.000	tons came up this year, and that trade will increase, and should increase.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that
70.000	tons used for domestic purposes?


Thomas Cantley: Yes. It is crushed coke
broken to certain sizes best suited for domestic consumption. There are other features that I shall not refer to now, but I do not understand why a. straight bonus is not paid instead of paying a certain percentage of the cost of construction of the plant. What is the objection to giving a straight bonus?


Mr. MacLAREN:: The object of the bill
is to encourage the use of Canadian coal in the manufacture of coke, and so substitute it for anthracite. I think it is also in the mind of the minister to encourage the use of Canadian bituminous coal. With both of these objects I am in full accord, but I cannot help thinking that the minister might go further in the encouragement of the use of Canadian bituminous coal. A drawback is allowed, for instance, in the case of coke ovens in Hamilton. I do not suggest that that be disturbed, but I would ask the minister to consider the point most carefully and in future, in the erection of further coke ovens, provide that this item 1049 should not apply to them, so that there will be no further drawback allowed in respect to the importation of American bituminous coal. I presume the minister has considered that matter carefully. I hope he will see that that is a feasible thing. I do not for a moment suggest upsetting present conditions in regard to those ovens that are now obtaining the drawback. That would probably make the matter difficult, but here is a chance of proceeding under the bill with these coke ovens without the application of the drawback which is now in existence.
'Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definition.


Murray MacLaren: I thought the minister
was going to say something in answer to my question on section 1.


Charles A. Stewart: The matter my hon. friend refers to comes under an item in the tariff, and of course must be applicable to all Canada.


Murray MacLaren: It is a tariff that is
dependent upon the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot make it apply to plants now coming into existence without making it apply to those already in existence. It must be general. There is no zone system to which it can be applied.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If you subsidize coal at $1 a ton when it is to be manufactured into coke, why could you not subsidize all coal manufactured into briquettes?


Charles A. Stewart: We spent
a lot of money on that proposition. I desire to insert an amendment to section 2, which would be paragraph (d), to read as follows:
"Domestic use" means use in the home or use solely for the direct heating of any building.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I raised a point a few minutes ago with reference to the city of Winnipeg.
They have a central heating plant there. Instead of converting coal into coke they convert it into heat, and this plant heats about a hundred buildings in the centre of
Bonus to Coking Plants

Winnipeg. If the government is giving a subsidy to coking plants for using Canadian coal, I think there is no reason why this central plant in Winnipeg should not be put in the same position as a coking plant.


Charles A. Stewart: Nova Scotia coal is being used to heat this building from the central heating plant, but Nova Scotia coal will never be used for the manufacture of coke in this city unless something is done to put it on a parity with its American competitors. Nova Scotia coal competes with American product here and has captured the market. Therein lies the difference between what my hon. friend is asking and the assistance I am proposing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The comparison is not a
very good one. By what we have done in Winnipeg we have practically cut out the use of coke in that city. It is not used in the parliament buildings. Most of the buildings which were heated by American coal are now being heated fifty-fifty by Canadian and American coal, and I am anxious for Canada to get the other fifty per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: Our hope is that the reduction in freight rates would make it possible to use one hundred per cent Canadian coal. I am simply trying to substitute Canadian coal for American coal for the manufacture of coke in this country. I syn not going into the whole bituminous coal field. In the case my hon. friend refers to it would be nothing more than a glorified heating plant which would be used in an apartment house, so that my hon. friend's suggestion would lead into an unlimited field.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The plant I refer to is something more than a glorified heating plant in an apartment house. I hope when the minister comes to Winnipeg he will take the opportunity of visiting the plant. If he does he will find that the heat is sent from the plant a distance of probably a mile in the city, which is something quite different from a glorified heating plant in an apartment house. The city of Winnipeg has spent well over a million dollars in establishing that plant, and I think they should receive a little more encouragement than they have received from the minister, especially when -any plant which is to come into competition with them will receive some benefit from the bill now before the House.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister expect that one of these plants will be built in Winnipeg? Is there any reason to expect that?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a plant already in existence there; it has been there for some time. They have a gas plant as well, and they are using the old beehive ovens, the sole purpose of which is to manufacture gas which is very much inferior to the domestic fuel. What is proposed to be done in Toronto will be done elsewhere, and what they are doing in Montreal will be done elsewhere. They are tearing down the old plants and substituting the new ones.


George Gibson Coote: No existing plant can receive any benefit from this plan?


Charles A. Stewart: Not under
this bill. This is in order to try out this scheme to see -how it will work.


George Gibson Coote: Any company that has a
plant at present and that wishes to secure the benefit of this legislation will have to establish a new plant?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I thought the minister could tell us whether he had some expectation that advantage of this legislation would be taken in Winnipeg so as to 'help the market for British Columbia coal.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Am I to understand that if
an old plant remodels itself to a certain extent, it will come under the provisions of this bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, if the
product of the plant is up to the standard that we will set for fuel. The difficulty is that there are at present in existence two or three processes that make an inferior fuel which we would not be warranted in calling domestic coke in the real sense of the word. The fuel will have to be up to a certain standard before we will grant the subsidy. Of necessity you must have a modern plant to manufacture that class of fuel. I do not wish to decry the output of beehive ovens, because there are engineers who will come along and say th-a-t you can manufacture perfectly good fuel in a beehive oven. What we are asking is that a modern system of by-product coking be installed before we will offer assistance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was not the Winnipeg plant which was referred to remodelled about two or three years ago and a modern up-to-date system installed?


Charles A. Stewart: I believe
something of that kind has been done.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give the committee any idea how many o-f these plants will be established if this bill goes through?

Bonus to Coking Plants


Charles A. Stewart: If the assistance provided for in this bill is taken full advantage of, it would not extend beyond this city, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John. They are probably the points to which this would apply.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister explain
why only 70 per cent of Canadian coal is required?


Charles A. Stewart: For the
reason that if we insisted on 100 per cent Canadian coal, we would very likely, with the subsidy that we are offering have no Canadian coal used.


George Gibson Coote: Is that because they cannot make this coke from Canadian coal?


Charles A. Stewart: A very much superior quality of coke can be manufactured by blending.


George Gibson Coote: That is the real reason?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Where is it provided in this
bill that the ooke must be up to a certain standard?


Charles A. Stewart: That will
be provided. for in the regulations.


George Gibson Coote: It is not in the bill?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister does not
agree with our friends from the maritime provinces that first class coke can be made from 100 per cent maritime provinces coal?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a wide difference of opinion about this question and one only gets into an endless argument about it. It is the old, old story of a dispute by eminent engineers as to the quality. I have devised this for the purpose of using as large a proportion of Canadian coal as possible. If the proportion goes below 50 per cent we pay nothing.


Thomas Cantley: We might as well clear
up this question of the quality of our Nova Scotia coal. There have been manufactured wholly from Nova Scotia coal millions of tons of coke equal to any coke that is made on this continent. In the report of the Dominion Fuel board they then refer to the question of washing coal and they put the cost of washing at 50 cents a ton. There is no doubt whatever that such a figure is ridiculous. We have been washing coal in Nova Scotia for nearly forty years and the cost is but a fraction of the amount referred
to in the report. What the minister has in mind is the sulphur content. The sulphur can be washed out; it is being washed out every day not only in Nova Scotia, but in the United States, Wales, Scotland, Belgium, Germany-everywhere where coke is being manufactured. Practically no coal is used today that is not washed to remove the sulphur or ash or both. We may as well at once get rid of the idea that we cannot produce in this country really first-class coke made from domestic coal, because we can, and are so doing, not only in the east but in the central provinces and in the west. To suggest anything else is rather beneath our intelligence.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
want to enter into any argument with my hon. friend. Suffice it to say that while I did not discuss thi3 question with Mr. Gray, my officials discussed it with him, and I went into it very fully with officials of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, who are going to establish this big coking plant in Montreal. On the basis of the information which I received from those officials I drafted this bill in the hope that we would substitute with Canadian coal the large proportion of coal that will be used in that plant in the manufacture of coke. I was told very plainly that if some assistance were not given, not one pound of Nova Scotia coal would be used. Therefore, without entering into any discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, I may say it is based on that information. They are practical men who are investing $6,000,000 of their money in the construction of this plant, and I think they must know their business.


George Gibson Coote: I think the minister mentioned that they would have to use 50 per cent of United States. coal.


Charles A. Stewart: Under 50 per cent.


George Gibson Coote: Where is that stated in the bill?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
very clear, but I have a table of the contents in which it works out on the basis of a dollar a ton drawback, so that when you get less than 50 per cent of Canadian coal you get no subsidy whatever.


George Gibson Coote: Paragraph (a) of clause 3
reads:
To use during each year in the manufacture of coke, coal mined in Canada to the extent of at least 70 per cent of the total coal so used.
I do not see how they can get it under 50 per cent.
Bonus to Coking Plants


Charles A. Stewart: If less than 70 per cent of Canadian coal is used, a penalty is imposed by which the subsidy disappears when less than 50 per cent of Canadian coal is used.


William John Ward: The subsidy will be on a
sliding .scale from one dollar down to nothing?


Charles A. Stewart: It becomes less if they do not use 70 per cent until it disappears at 50 per cent.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Amount of annual payments.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister explain a little more clearly the proviso made in this clause for the sliding scale?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I
can best explain this by referring to the chart taking Montreal as a centre. The chart is as follows:
Quantity of Canadian coal used 70 per cent (35 per cent 60 per cent 55 per cent
Assistance per ton of coke 86 cents 69 cents 50 cents 27 cents
And it disappears at less than 50 per cent.


Robert Gardiner: I do not think that
proposal is a satisfactory one. This bill is presumed to be primarily for the purpose of utilizing Canadian coal. The minister now says that below 70 per cent there will be a sliding scale down to 50 per cent and that the assistance given will be reduced in proportion to the amount of Canadian coal used between these percentages. No assistance will be given if less than 50 per cent of Canadian coal is consumed. We are supposed to be paying 4 per cent on the total cost of the plant, including land, buildings, machinery and so forth. If it is the intention of the minister to have such a sliding .scale as he has indicated, why not put it in the bill?
.Mr. STEWART (Edmonton): It is in the
example to
show how it will work.
nothing in the
bill to indicate it.
e 100-ton * unit <);hat can " more
pfapoftionat therefore the maximum of 4 per cent on the

construction of the plant is thought advisable. After all, the assistance must be earned by the tonnage of the plant. It is not proposed to tie up a large sum of money without making some provision for saving the investment in the event of strikes or of any difficulty in securing Canadian coal. They may use American coal if they cannot possibly obtain the Canadian product, but the intention is to encourage the use of our own coal, and that is why we are granting the assistance. And we are fixing a sliding scale for the very purpose of stimulating the production of Canadian coal. We say emphatically that there is no reason why 70 per cent of Canadian coal should not be used with an admixture, if you will, of 30 per cent of the American product. Beyond that point we will not go. We might very well have made 70 per cent an arbitrary figure, but we thought it advisable in order to encourage the use of Canadian coal to have a sliding scale down to 50 per cent, and if they use less than that amount no assistance will be given.


Robert Gardiner: Now that the minister has given that explanation I see the matter more clearly. There are certain interests in Montreal who want to secure backing from the government in order to float their bonds and to obtain the money to build the necessary plant. Once they get the plant built and have an assurance that it will be a success, then so-far as Nova Scotia coal is concerned they may or may not use it, just as they see fit. If it suits their puiipose to use that coal, well and good; if not they will use American coal. If it pays them better to use American coal, they can use it, and, while the subsidy which they would otherwise receive from the government will go by the board, they will nevertheless have the backing of this House when they go to float their bonds in order to raise money to carry on their operations. I understood that this legislation was intended in the interests of the people of Nova Scotia; that is-the excuse given for it. If, however, you do not make it effective in relation to Nova Scotia coal, then I suggest it should be withdrawn.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is not assuming that this bill will help-the sale of 'bonds?


Robert Gardiner: The guaranteeing of interest will be a factor in the situation.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no guaranteeing of interest.


Robert Gardiner: They can go on the market and say, "We intend to take advantage

Bonus to Coking Plants
of this legislation, which provides that in the event of our using 70 per cent of Canadian coal the interest is guaranteed". That is what it is to all intents and purposes.


Charles A. Stewart: No, exactly the opposite.


Robert Gardiner: For goodness' sake, then, don't claim that this is in the interests of Nova Scotia.


Charles A. Stewart: This is not a subsidy bill. After the plant has been completed, the bonds have been sold, and they are producing coal the assistance will begin, and not before. There is absolutely no .possibility of the bill being of any assistance in the floating of bonds.


Robert Gardiner: It is true that they will not be able to secure any assistance until they have the plant in operation, but will this bill not help them to secure money? They can take the bill on the money market and say, "This is what the government will do for us if we use Canadian coal."


Charles A. Stewart: If they carry out the provisions of the bill.


Robert Gardiner: Certainly; that is true. But it seems to me you are misleading the people of Nova Scotia, in that they expect this legislation to be a factor in helping to solve the coal mining difficulty down there, whereas it is problematical whether it will.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me
assure the hon. gentleman that I have been very strongly urged to guarantee bonds and I have absolutely refused to recommend any such course to the government. Those who buy bonds are the most shrewd investors in the world, and we may rest assured that every provision of this bill will be thoroughly looked into before the legal authority who passes on bonds will give his assent to the purchase of bonds in this case. Our Nova Scotia friends have scrutinized the bill j carefully, and as it was designed in their interests I hope it will do all that I have indicated. I trust it will have the effect of substituting Canadian coal for American.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Suppose one of these
plants in the city of Montreal should use 70 per cent of Nova Scotia coal for a year and then discontinue its use. How much would the government have paid the plant during that year?


Charles A. Stewart: They will be paid $1 a ton as a maximum on all Canadian coal used, if they use 70 per cent. If they use less than 70 per cent, the assistance is reduced until, below 50 per cent, it is withdrawn altogether.


Henry Elvins Spencer: There is nothing to guarantee that they will use a ton of Nova Scotia coal if they do not want to.
Mr. .STEWART (Edmonton): They are not tied down in any way.


George Gibson Coote: Would it not be more satisfactory to leave it at 70 per cent?


Charles A. Stewart: I am told that this large concern in Montreal will not agree to the use of 70 per cent of Canadian coal, although I contend that it can. Of course I cannot compel them to use it, but I am not asking the government to guarantee any bonds or to become responsible for the plant. We simply say that when the plant turns out its product, on the basis of a certain percentage of Canadian coal consumed in their operations, it will receive the assistance provided for, .and on no other condition.


Finlay MacDonald: Coming from a coal district I am deeply interested in this matter. Needless to say I am not opposed to the proposal; I am strongly back of it, and I think the government are to be congratulated for bringing in this bill and that the two ministers from the maritime provinces are especially to be thanked. I know how difficult it is to get an ideal bill under such circumstances; we from the maritime provinces would like to have this bill set the limit at 100 per cent of Canadian Coal, as was the case with the old bill. We realize that that is impossible, however, and we are quite content to get this 70 per cent limit because we realize that the additional 30 . per cent may be necessary in order to make suitable coke.
There is another feature which was in the old bill, and that is the penalty clause. Under that clause the manufacturer of coke had to pay one dollar per ton as damages for every ton of American coal he used in the manufacture of coke, but that clause is not included in this bill. As the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out a few moments ago, there is another feature of this bill which should receive some consideration. If the contractor uses 70 per cent of Canadian coal he will receive the full subsidy; that is graduated down to 50 per cent,
Bonus to Coking Plants

and after that he gets nothing. I would suggest to the minister the advisability of inserting a clause to prevent a manufacturer of coke from taking advantage of this particular situation which might arise and saying to the American coal producer, " 1 am getting a subsidy of so much a ton if I use Canadian coal; I would rather use American coal if you will meet that price." That is a situation which might very likely arise, because the man in Montreal would very likely prefer American coal as against Nova Scotian coal I would suggest that under these circumstances when they begin to use American coal at the 50 per cent limit, they should pay this penalty and should not be entitled to the subsidy, which I think would meet the situation.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid my hon. friend would create a great many complications and difficulties. As the bill now stands the manufacturer is penalized for anything below 70 per cent. If he goes beyond 70 per cent he earns the full assistance, but if he drops below he is penalized until he reaches less than 60 per cent, when he will get practically nothing.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. King (Kootenay)
moves to amend clause 4 by adding after the word " coal " in the twenty-fourth line the words " for domestic use."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH:	I would like to
ask two questions. First, does this apply to plants already in existence.
Charles A. Stewart: No.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: Then in connection with any undertakings of the government or any contracts which they let it is usual to insert a fair wage clause. In the cases of these plants subsidized by the government, will the minister undertake to see that fair .wage clauses are inserted?


Charles A. Stewart: The government will have nothing to do with the construction, but we will see that a fair wage clause is inserted in connection with the operation of the plant in every case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is what I was particularly thinking of.


Charles A. Stewart: The clause will be inserted as in every government agreement.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.

On the title:
Mr. MacNUTT:: Before this bill passes I would like to inform the minister that any criticism from this side of the House is constructive rather than destructive. I think the hon. member for Piotou (Mr. Cantley) advanced a very strong argument regarding the existing plants throughout Canada, and I did not hear the minister make any reply. Whether there is one or whether there are a dozen plants at present in Canada surely they should have some consideration under this hill. The position which they will occupy, operating along with plants established under this subsidy, is exactly the position the railways in the maritime provinces were in, and it will be remembered that a clause was added to a previous bill in order to place those railways in the same position as the Canadian National Railways. I suggest to the minister that before the bill advances a clause be inserted to protect the existing coking plants established in this country to-day from what would be a handicap of one dollar a ton compared with those receiving a subsidy under the new bill as brought down.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say for the information of my hon. friend that we went very thoroughly into that question and spent two weeks making a study of the question of assistance to the plants already in existence. May I say to him that there is just as much difference of opinion as to the product being turned out by the beehives as there is about the quality of the product of the Sydney coking plant, and I found it almost impossible to provide assistance of that character without running into unending difficulty as to whom we would assist and whom we should not assist. We intend to set a standard for the fuel; the Fuel board will be the judge, and this bill is designed for the assistance of new plants. Give us an opportunity to try this out; give us an opportunity to see what can be done in Montreal in the way of substituting Canadian coal for American coal, which is the intention of the parties who are constructing that plant, and in that way you will sell 300,000 tons more of bituminous coal from Nova Scotia than is being sold at present. Let us try this bill before we venture into the other field which presents so many difficulties. I would ask my hon. friend to give us a year in which to try out this measure and see if we cannot make some progress along this line. I am perfectly willing to go into the consideration of other plants manufacturing fuel which may be equal in quality, but the difficulty arises as to saying where such assistance shall stop.

St. John Harbour Commission


Thomas Cantley: I should like to ask the
minister one other question. Suppose a concern in Canada has a coking oven plant that is ten or fifteen years old, and in view of this legislation they conceive it would be desirable to scrap that plant and build a new one. Would the new oven plant get a bonus of four per cent on its cost?


Charles A. Stewart: No such
case is likely.


Thomas Cantley: Then what is the advantage under the minister's scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: The advantage is that they will be using Canadian coal in place of American.


Thomas Cantley: Suppose, in the case to
which I have reference, they were using Canadian coal before.


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt
whether anyone would scrap a plant simply for the purpose of earning this subsidy.


Thomas Cantley: That would depend on
the age and condition of the existing plant.


Finlay MacDonald: In view of the provisions in the bill that plants must be built according to certain specifications is it not possible to insert the fair wage clause in the measure?


Charles A. Stewart: On construction?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: We are not particularly interested in construction except to keep tab of costs. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has pointed out, it is much more important that the employees who will be running the plant for at least twenty or twenty-five years should have protection than those persons who will probably be employed only for a short time. I do not know what excuse we should have for interfering in such a matter. We are not in any way taking part in the construction of plants.


Finlay MacDonald: But
the government still intend to keep control of the situation. A person coming to the government and asking for a subsidy would not necessarily receive it. The government will decide in its own wisdom whether such a coking plant is necessary; in the event of one being already in existence it is not likely that another plant would be built to put the other plant out of business.
' Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):	I should
say not.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: With the consent of the House I should like to present the tenth report of the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend can do that a little later.


Hewitt Bostock: This can be done only by unanimous consent.



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 226, relating to the harbour of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick.
He said:	When this bill was being considered in committee of the whole it was understood that on the third reading I would answer one or two questions put to me by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), referring particularly to the audit of the affairs of the commission. My hon. friend asked me if I would ascertain if these harbour commissions come under the Audit Act. I have ascertained that they come directly under the Audit Act passed in 1925.
Robert Gardiner: There is just one other point that the minister was going to enlighten us upon, and that was as to whether the elevators built by these commissions come under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners. I may say that I have looked into the matter and as far as I have found out, after studying the Grain Act very carefully, they will come under the control of that board. That will be satisfactory.
Motion agreed to and bill read1 the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (for the Minister of Railways) moved the third reading of Bill No. 224, respecting the Canadian National Railways and the tariffs of tolls to be charged on eastern lines.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Soldier Settlement Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved! the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 61, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Robert Gardiner: I
would ask the minister what the scope of these amendments is.


Robert Forke: One of the Senate amendments provides that an appeal shall be had to the Exchequer court from the decision arrived at by the board1. I think I explained when I first introduced the bill that the Exchequer court has the power to delegate the appraisement or revaluation of the land to a county court judge or to such an officer as it may see fit. If the Exchequer court appointed a county court judge to make the revaluation, that judge would most probably call in a member of the board and the soldier settler affected. Then you will have exactly the same court as you would have had under this bill as introduced into this House, except that when the county court judge makes his decision, he will report to the Exchequer court instead of making a judgment, the Exchequer court, of course, making the final judgment. I recommend concurrence in the amendments.


Robert Gardiner: I presume that the
Exchequer court will make these appointments; there is mo question about that?


Robert Forke: There is no question about
that.


Robert Gardiner: Are there any further
amendments?


Robert Forke: No.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into (committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Chicoutimi in an amount not exceeding $500,000, to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. CARDIN:: This resolution provides
for a loam of $500,000 to the Chicoutimi harbour commission, which is being organized under the legislation passed by the last parliament. This amount is required to cover the cost of the extension of the wharves that already exist in the harbour at Chicoutimi. It is expected that an enormous traffic will develop in the very near future in this port, for as hon. members know, it is of growing importance on account of the developments being made by the aluminum company which is established there, as well as several pulp and paper mills which have been constructed in the vicinity. We have calculated that the amount of this loan, together with interest and sinking fund, wall be entirely taken care of by the revenue we expect to derive from this port during the course of the next year. This proposal is along the same lines as the legislation relating to the harbour commissions of Vancouver and Montreal. If we had not followed that line, we would have been compelled to come to parliament for a vote under the Public Works department.


Robert Gardiner: This is the first vote of money for this harbour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What is it proposed
to spend this money on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the extension of
wharves.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 272, to provide for a loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, and reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 225, respecting the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: In connection with this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the situation in connection with Halifax harbour is somewhat different from that of any other port perhaps in the Dominion, inasmuch as the property there, outside of that owned by the railways and other departments of the government, is all private property. The government and railway property, that is, the elevator coming

Halifax Harbour Commission
under Trade and Commerce, and the wharves coming under the Department of Railways, are at the present time very well managed, economically managed, I think I can say. It is these properties, as I understand this bill, that will be taken over by the' commission. Different departments of the government will be paid for these properties by money raised, I suppose, on debentures guaranteed by the government, and the private property will remain as it is. In Montreal I think all the harbour is under the control of the board, and that all the property is owned by the board. Comparing these two bills, the city of St. John is interested to an amount beyond $2,000,000 which will be returned to them by the commission there, and practically the whole of the harbour in St. John will be under the harbour commission. Such is not the case in Halifax. As I understand the proposal, the only transfer of property will be that now owned by the government and managed by the government. The transfer to the harbour commission in Halifax means, that in order to pay the interest on the moneys paid for these properties, to pay the commissioners and to pay the management of the whole organization, goods will be taxed an amount per ton. I do not know how much-which somebody has to pay, whether it is the ships carrying those goods or whether it is the goods themselves-and that tax will have to be paid in order to keep up the harbour commission. At the present time charges such as will be introduced by the harbour commissioners are borne, rightly I think, by the railways. They are included in the through freight rate, and there is no further tax on those goods. That tax on these goods for the upkeep of the harbour and of the commission will be a tax placed upon the traffic of the port to which the port is not now subject, and to that extent it will be a disadvantage to the port as an outlet and an inlet for Canadian trade. I may say that in that connection I received a telegram from Halifax as follows:
Joint committee of city council and board of trade have wired Colonel Ralston approving of the harbour commission bill but wish to only have it put :n force by order in council, giving time for a conference with the government to work out details before any appointment commissioners. Also adding a clause giving commission power to use funds to canvass trade for the port.
The latter suggestion with regard to funds to canvass for trade would be in line I think with the Duncan report, because it suggested that a commission would be able to advertise the port, and possibly through that advertising bring trade there. The request seems to be a fairly reasonable one, and perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) may see his way clear to meet the wishes of our Halifax friends, the board of trade and city council, by adding a clause such as they suggest, and also giving permission, if such is necessary, that the expense in connection with the advertising of the port be borne by the commissioners. Apparently, if the details can be worked out satisfactorily in connection with the change of management down there, there will be no difficulty at all with regard to putting the bill in force. But the request on the part of Halifax seems reasonable, and I hope that the minister may see his way clear to deal with the bill in such a way that the wishes of our Halifax friends can be fully considered. I can assure hon. members that it is a very important matter. In looking over the bill I find that it requires a good deal of study. There is a good deal of detail that should be worked out in connection with the city of Halifax, which is an exceptional port in the Dominion of Canada.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot see any difference between the situation in Halifax and the situation in St. John. I think the argument of my hon. friend is rather an argument against one of the recommendations of the Duncan report, because there is no alternative and there is nothing indefinite in the recommendation of the Duncan report. What they want is the organization of a harbour commission. We are complying exactly with the recommendation of the Duncan report with regard to the incorporation of a harbour commission, and I feel that I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. friend to add a clause that the bill become law only by proclamation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister permit me to make a suggestion which I think will meet the idea of my hon. friend', which he may not have thought of? Section 5 states that the board shall consist of three commissioners to be appointed by the governor in council. The commission does not come into existence until the governor in council appoints it. If the minister would give to my hon. friend, and through him to the board of trade of Halifax, the assurance that the commissioners would not be appointed until there was an opportunity of hearing the board of trade, it would accomplish exactly what my hon. friend suggests.


William Anderson Black: That would be
satisfactory.
1954	COMMONS
Marine and Fisheries Department


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think I can accept the
suggestion, and if in the meantime it is desired to drop the recommendation of the Duncan report, if we are requested to do so by the people interested, I have no objection. As far as the matter of advertising is concerned, I think we need have no fear in that regard. The commission will be quite capable of making all the advertisement necessary in connection with the revenues of the port. They are authorized to do that and are able to do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just as they do in
Vancouver.


Mr. RALSTON:: I have before me the
telegram which the hon. member for Halifax referred to, and I took it upon myself to confer with him and to let him know the matter was coming up. I feel under the circumstances it would not be likely that the government could concur in the suggestion which was made, namely, to make an amendment to the bill providing that it should not come into force except by proclamation. I suggested to him, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), that before the appointment of the commission, as far as I was concerned as minister from Nova Scotia-and I am sure my colleagues would join with me in that regard-I would be glad to give the board of trade and city council an opportunity to make any recommendations in connection with details such as are suggested in the telegram. I may say that I felt that I would be taking on myself a responsiblty which I did not think I should assume if power were retained on the part of the government to make this legislation entirely ineffective by the addition of such a clause as is suggested, and I assume the senior member for Halifax will accept the assurance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in connection with the matter.


Hugh Guthrie: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries seems to have misapprehended the attitude of the senior member for Halifax. He does not desire in any way to interfere with the bill which is brought before this House pursuant to the Duncan report, but merely suggests a conference between the officials at Halifax, the board of trade and the city council, before the act is put into operation. I think he stated his case quite clearly, but the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seemed to think in some way that the hon. senior member for Halifax desired to abandon this part of the report. I am sure my hon. friend had no such desire or intention.


William Anderson Black: That was not my intention at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 258, to amend the act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On clause 1-Constitution of department with two branches.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Can we have a short explanation of this bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is simply to provide a Deputy Minister of Fisheries as distinct from a Deputy Minister of Marine, so that there will be two deputy heads in that department.


Mr. JELLIFF:: What are the salaries of the two deputies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know offhand what salary the present deputy minister is getting, but I think it is $6,000 a year. Whoever is appointed to this position will receive the salary which the present deputy is gettting.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the purpose of the
bill to give assistance to the present deputy minister? Is the present deputy overloaded with work?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is in order to carry out the recommendation in the Duncan report that there should be a separate deputy for the Department of Fisheries as distinct from the Department of Marine.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Robert Gardiner: How many deputy ministers have we at the present time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry,
speaking offhand, I cannot tell my hon. friend, but I shall be glad to give him that information when we get into supply on some department.


Robert Gardiner: The reason why I ask the question is this. It seems to me we are

Questions
getting top heavy in our civil government in this country. The time has come when some rearrangement should be made whereby we can cut down many of the deputy heads that, in my judgment, are not necessary. Let us have a little more business injected into the carrying on of the public service in order to save money and get better results. This proposition of creating new deputy ministers is getting far beyond the needs of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is an exceptional case. It is carrying out the recommendation of the Duncan report.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Samuel William Jacobs: If I can get the unanimous consent of the House I beg to move that the House revert to motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Samuel William Jacobs: That Senate Bills Nos. 261 to 268, both inclusive which were read a first time this morning, be placed on the order paper among private bills for second reading this day.
I am presenting this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), chairman of the private bills committee.
Motion agreed to by unanimous consent.


Samuel William Jacobs: I beg to move that Senate Bills Nos. 261 to 268, both inclusive, be now read a second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 261, respecting a certain patent of R. T. Vanderbilt Company.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 262, for the relief of John Henry Fisher.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Leo Bruce Burley.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Hilda Parker. -Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Gladys Ivy Turner.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Rose Ann Hill.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Annie Mary Ann McCulloch.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of George Melvil Fleet.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Wednesday, April 6, 1927