1927-02-16

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Bouchard,
Church,
Coote,
Elliott,
Fraser,
Hocken,
Macdougall,
McIntosh,
Millar,
Preston,
Prevost,
R infret,
Young
(Saskatoon).-13.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of five members.

Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What is the form or wording of the pledge, if any, taken from those who have been appointed senators during the last two years with a view to Senate reform?
2.	How many have been thus pledged?


No. 13 ON THE LIBRARY
[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Bird,
Bourassa,
Carmichael,
Chevrier,
Cotnam,
Edwards
(Ottawa),
Forke,
Garland
(Carleton),
Geary,
Guthrie,
King
(Kootenay East),
McIntosh,
Marcil,
Neill,
Pouliot,
Prevost,
Quinn,
Rinfret,
Stirling,
Thompson,
Young (Toronto Northeast).-21
Mr. KING (Kootenay) moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) moved:: That the lists of members composing the select standing committees of the House under rule 10 be printed in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
32649-23J
Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	An assurance of support of such measure of Senate reform, in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, as may be introduced by the Liberal administration.
2.	This assurance has been given by all who have accepted appointment to the Senate within the time mentioned.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Was a royal commission appointed to investigate British Columbia fisheries in the year 1922?
2.	Did it make a report containing some twenty-eight recommendations?
3.	Was recommendation No. 11 recommending that the regulations be amended so as to prohibit the use of both drag and purse seines in Departure bay?
4.	Was this recommendation carried out?
5.	Was an order in council published recently allowing purse seines at Departure bay from January 26th to February 5th? If so, what was the date of such order in council and in what issue of the "Gazette," if any, did it appear ?
6.	On whose recommendation was this done.'
Questions

7.	Was any public notice given of the intention to make this change and was any attempt made to advise those who would be prejudicially affected, and was any opportunity given them or their representatives to be heard in the matter?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. Date of order in. council is January 27th, 1927. It is appearing in this week's Gazette.
6.	Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
7.	As is usual in such cases, notice of intention to make the change was not given. The time involved would make the desired change useless. The Nanaimo board of trade which originally favoured closing the bay to seining wired that there was a serious shortage in the catch of fish, that gill-netters were not availing themselves of their opportunities, that the main body of fish was in the bay, and recommending strongly that seining be allowed in the bay for the few days of the balance of this season. Only three gill-netters operated there this season. The change was favoured by the provincial Department of Fisheries, as well as the federal chief inspector.



ENFORCEMENT OF VOLSTEAD ACT

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Have the attorneys representing the government of Canada in the Customs inquiry Commission received any instructions which would enable them to obtain' information of considerable value to the government of United States of America in its enforcement of the Volstead Act?
2.	If so, will His Majesty's Canadian government instruct the Hon. Vincent Massey, the Canadian Ambassador at Washington, to make such representations to the government of the United States of America through the proper diplomatic channels as will induce the said government of the United States of America to reimburse His Majesty's Canadian government a proportion of the funds expended by its attorneys in the above mentioned enquiry?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No instructions to the end mentioned have been given to the attorneys representing the government of Canada in the customs inquiry.
2.	Answered by answer to No. 1.



DUTY ON USED PLANOS ENTERING CANADA

Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	Is a duty being levied under the antidumping act on used pianos entering Canada?
2.	If so, under what section of the act is such duty levied?

3.	Since there can be no uniform value of imported used pianos, how is the selling price in the country of origin determined?


Hon. Mr. EULER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Second-hand or used articles of all kinds are appraised on the basis of the replacement value when new with an allowance for depreciation in accordance with the actual condition of the imported article.



RELIEF OF HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

Hon. Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When did the Home Bank open for business and when did it close its doors?
2.	What amount was on deposit or in current account when the bank failed?
3.	What percentage of such amount did the creditors receive through the liquidator?
4.	What further percentage was voted by parliament and what was the amount voted?
5.	How much of the amount voted by parliament is still unpaid and why?
6.	Did parliament vote money for the relief of Home Bank depositors in recognition of any legal or moral claim of such depositors on the government ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Opened January 2,	1906; suspended
August 17, 1923.
2.	Savings and current deposits, $15,030,678.
3.	Dividend paid to date, 25 per cent.
4.	The Home Bank Creditors' Relief Act provided for payments to certain creditors, not to exceed in any case 35 per cent of the amount of claim; $3,000,000 was appropriated.
5.	$222,233.59; certain claims have not yet been dealt with by the commissioners.
6.	The act stands on the statutes as a relief measure. It will be recalled that the House adopted a report of the banking and commerce committee to the effect that it considered the investigation established "a moral claim in equity for compensation."



PERSECUTION OF UKRAINIANS IN POLAND

Mr. MALONEY:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Ukrainian population in Canada, that their relatives and fellow countrymen in Galicia and Volinia, now occupied by Poland, are imprisoned and persecuted by Polish authorities in their own country?
2.	Has the Prime Minister taken any action in respect of any such representations?
3.	If so, what action has been taken?
4.	Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to take action in respect of this matter?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. A number of copies have been received of a printed resolution signed on behalf of groups of citizens and residents of Canada of

Unopposed Motions for Papers
Ukrainian descent, protesting against what are represented to be acts of persecution and oppression of the Ukrainian population of Poland by the government of that country, and notably the condemnation to death of Mychailo Bilyj. The resolution asks the Canadian government to take up the matter with the Polish authorities. It also requests action by the government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. On the other hand, representations have been received from other quarters to the effect that Mychailo Bilyj was sentenced by a regular criminal court with a regular jury, and that an appeal against his sentence is now pending before the court of appeals.
2-4. The Canadian government does not consider that adequate grounds exist for the intervention which it is proposed should be taken through diplomatic channels in the affairs of a European country, on behalf of one section of its inhabitants.
It may also be pointed out that Poland, in common with other states of eastern Europe, has undertaken by treaty to ensure equal treatment of all Polish nationals, whether or not members of minorities, and to regard these stipulations as obligations of international concern placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. Procedure has been established by the treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919, and by the council of the league, for consideration of complaint from such minority, alleging violation of these obligations, and submitted in due form.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HAY:: 1.	In how many towns in Canada of 3,000 population and under is there an armoury building?
2.	What is the name of each such town, its population, and the cost of such building?
3.	What is the salary of the caretaker in each case, and the cost of the fuel for upkeep?
4.	What is the total cost for the dominion?


COST OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CUSTOMS
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What was the total cost of the parliamentary committee on customs which sat during the session of 1926?
2.	How much was paid in witness fees?
3.	How much was paid to accountants?
4.	How much was paid in counsel fees; (a) to Mr. Calder; (b) to any other attorneys?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and all other correspondence or communications between the government of Canada or any member thereof or their deputies or the Civil Service Commission or the officials thereof or any other person or persons or political organizations relating to the appointment of a postmaster at Stouffville, Ontario.



OTTAWA RIVER-POWER AND NAVIGATION RIGHTS

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all applications, letters, reports, orders in council, correspondence and all other communications between the government and any other person or persons as to the renewal of charters or agreements, or extension of the same, regarding the Ottawa, Montreal and Georgian Bay Canal Company for power and navigation rights on the Ottawa river.



MAJOR-GENERAL J. H. MACBRIEN

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents regarding the proposed retirement of Major-General J. H. MacBrien as chief of staff of the Militia department.



MR. G. T. HAMELIN

Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all reports on file in the Department of Marine and Fisheries with reference to the examination of eyesight and hearing of Mr. G. T. Hamelin, ex-pilot of the Quebec district, made by; (a) examiners appointed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries; (b) other medical practitioners. Also a return showing a description of the machine and method used by the examiners appointed by the department.



CALGARY LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE

Mr. KENNEDY:: For a copy of the regulations approved by the Minister of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture of the Calgary live stock exchange the Edmonton live stock exchange, the Winnipeg live stock exchange, and the Moose Jaw live stock exchange.



UNITED LIVE STOCK GROWERS LIMITED

Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and all other correspondence or communications between the Minister of Agriculture and the Calgary live stock exchange, and the United Live Stock Growers Limited, relating to violations of the Live Stock Act and the regulations of the Calgary live stock exchange.
Imperial Conference



CHINESE SITUATION

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence including letters, telegrams, reports, cables and all other documents between the government of Great Britain and Canada regarding the present trouble in China, showing what steps are or have been taken by the government to protect Canadians now in China and Canadian Trade and Commerce, and Canadian interest there.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: The communications of the British government on the situation in China are of a confidential nature, and certainly could not be brought down without the consent of the British government. I feel perfectly sure that the British government would not wish to have made public at this stage the correspondence, such as has passed between the home government and our own government on this matter, and I think I shall have to ask the hon. member not to press this motion, because the government would not be in a position to comply with it. I think the statement I gave the House the other day as to the position of the government in the matter ought to be sufficient for the purposes of the hon. member.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not think the answer of the minister is fair to the House or the public. There are many Canadian subjects in China, many people from my own city, missionaries, and their families do not know where they are. Considering the large trade which Canada carries on with China, I think it is the duty of the Prime Minister to inform the House as to the steps the government is taking to protect the lives of the subjects and the property of Canadians in that country, and of trade and commerce. If a Canadian missionary, for instance, loses his life, surely this country is very much interested in conditions in China. The new status of Canada will save no lives in China.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Suppose the motion were
amended and a clause inserted to the effect that documents which were not of an official character should be produced. Would that satisfy my right hon. friend?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Entirely. I
have no objection to bringing down any correspondence not confidential, but this relates to correspondence between the British government and the Canadian government, and I am perfectly sure the government of Great Britain would not desire at the present time to have made public to the world the correspondence relating to the Chinese situation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion is not debatable. It had better stand until it is amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, drop it. It cannot be carried.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1926

Thomas Langton Church: For a return containing the agenda and all reports, letters, agreement, orders in council, telegrams and all other correspondence and communications including complete record of proceedings of the Imperial conference, 1926, and all correspondence between the government of Great Britain and Canada or other oversea Dominion in relation to the said conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
here again I must draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that there has already been laid on the table the published report of the conference proceedings. True, it is an abbreviated report, and I moved an order the other day to have printed several appendices which contain additional data on the proceedings. I have laid on the table already as much of the proceedings of the conference as the British government has seen well to lay on the table of the British House. I am quite prepared to give to parliament all the data which the British government is prepared to give to the British parliament; but there are parts of the conference proceedings which, as hon. gentlemen know, are confidential, they have never been published heretofore, and I think as to the proceedings of the last conference we must follow the rule which has been adopted respecting all the preceding conferences. As to any correspondence relating to the agenda or other features of the conference, the government will gladly bring down whatever communications are available that the British government may not wish to have regarded as confidential.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence laid on the table of the British House is another matter. All the documents have not been brought down, for instance, a brief prepared by Canada House relating to economic questions concerning this country, and surely parliament is entitled to that information.

C.N.R. Hotel in Toronto


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I might make the position of the government clear by saying to my hon. friend that so far as we are concerned everything can be brought down, but wherever the correspondence has been between our government and another government, whether the British government or the government of any self-governing Dominion, the consent of the other government must be obtained before the correspondence is made public. With that understanding,
I am prepared to put on the table everything the hon. member could think of suggesting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, reports or agreements between the Canadian National Railways, Sir Henry Thornton, or the government, and any other person, or persons, regarding the erection of a new Canadian National railway hotel in Toronto, and the terms of such arrangement.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object to the passage of the motion calling for correspondence between the Canadian National Railways or the government and any other person or persons relating to the erection of a new Canadian National railway hotel in Toronto and the terms of such arrangement; but I deem it proper to point out to the House that it will embarrass the business of the Canadian National Railways if during any possible negotiations of any character hon. members move for the production of documents. The subject has been discussed at previous sessions, and I think it was generally agreed that it could not injure the business interests of the Canadian National Railways to call for information and documents with respect to any completed transaction, but that it would be unwise to force the management to expose through the medium of the House documents connected with any matter which may be in process of negotiation, as the resultant publicity might embarrass the Canadian National Railways. As I say, I shall not oppose the order now under discussion. I merely mention this general principle, that it is rather unfair to the management, which is conducting the Canadian National Railways along the ordinary lines of business, to ask for the production of papers and documents in connection with matters -which are still under negotiation.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is lost.


Mr. MANION:: I understood the minister to accept the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The responsibility is on the House.


Mr. DUNNING:: I have no personal objection to the motion. I merely point out the responsibility of the House in calling for documents in connection with any matter relating to the Canadian National railways which is still under negotiation. For my hon. friend's information I may say that I have no knowledge personally of any such negotiations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not produce the papers?


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is lost.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the House. I was on my feet to answer the minister and I was not given an opportunity. With all due deference to Your Honour, I think there is too much haste. The Minister of Railways is very fond of making plausible excuses-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. This motion is
not debatable.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It is all very well for the minister to talk about embarrassing the management of the Canadian National railways by asking for the production of documents relating to matters still under negotiation, but my resolution asks for specific information in regard to a matter that has already been announced in six Toronto papers, and what they have published is just the opposite of what the minister has now told us, a statement of Sir Henry Thornton. It is quite true the government is not putting up any money, but the Canadian National railway management announced to the Board of Trade and other public bodies in the constituency from which I come that they will give their help to a lot of people to build a hotel and all the Canadian National Railways patronage.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. There is no question of privilege. The motion of the hon. gentleman is not debatable. If I have allowed him to proceed, it is out of regard for his inability to hear distinctly what was said. I repeat, the motion is not debatable.
Motion negatived.
360	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces



NATURAL RESOURCES-PRAIRIE PROVINCES

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the general interest of this Dominion that their natural resources should be transferred to the prairie provinces at the earliest possible moment and that such transfer should not interfere with, restrict or modify the right of the said provinces to complete control of their educational or other local affairs.


Hewitt Bostock: In putting this motion
to the House I may state that I have examined the question during the past few days and while I have come to a decision as to its right to be on the order paper, I should like to have an expression of opinion from the House on that point. In my judgment the motion is out of order, inasmuch as the question at issue is sub judice; it is a matter which at present is pending before the courts. However, as I say, I should like to be enlightened by the House as to the general feeling regarding the regularity of the motion before pronouncing upon it.


Mr. EDW  ARDS@Frontenac: Regarding
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I beg to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the reference to the courts is of a specific character conveyed in the following words:
. Is section 17 of the Alberta Act in whole or m Pa.Il*' ultfa vires of the parliament of Canada, and if so in what particular or particulars?
. Now, my resolution is general in its bearing. The reference to the courts, as I say, is specific, referring solely to Alberta in relation to sction 17 of the Alberta Act. The present motion is general in its application in that it relates to the three prairie provinces, and that makes a decided difference.
I might call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that Premier Brownlee of Alberta has expressed himself on this question-and this, I submit, might be taken as an opinion bearing on the point of order-that the reference to the courts is entirely different from the question of the transfer of resources. That is the opinion which he has given and which was quoted in thia House last session. Last year there was a government motion on the order paper with regard to this matter. On June 1 the government announced that they did not intend to proceed with the legislation promised in the speech from the throne at the opening of the session, but they kept that motion on the order paper and thereby prevented any discussion of the matter. So long as the government's motion remained on the order paper private 
members were precluded from introducing the subject. I repeat, my motion is general in its character, and it strikes me as subversive of democratic principles and of the liberties of members of the House that we should not be permitted to place on record our views on this important question.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am sorry I had no intimation
that this matter would come up this afternoon, because I have not prepared for it. I would however refer you, Mr. Speaker, to May, thirteenth edition, at page 323:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.
The same view is stated in Bourinot and of course in Beauchesne. All I have to say is that this question cannot be debated, at least in so far as the second part of it is concerned. As regards the first part of the resolution, as to the desirability of transferring Alberta's natural resources to the province. I think every one agrees on that point, because after all an agreement had been reached in the matter. That agreement, however, is subject to the qualification that it shall not interfere with, restrict or modify the right of the province to the complete control of its educational or other local affairs. That is where the disagreement comes in. I may add that an agreement has been entered into in that respect.
Had I known the matter would come up this afternoon I would have been prepared to refer the House to the statement I made last year, and which is in Hansard. However, I cannot debate the subject without referring to the very question which is submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada at the present time, and even if no rule existed to govern us in the matter I would not consider it proper, nor indeed would it be dignified on my part or on the part of any member of the House, to discuss a question which is actually pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. I think the motion is clearly out of order.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St George):: There is, I think, a dear distinction between the issue now before the Supreme Court of Canada and the issue raised in this resolution. This resolution proposes that it is in the general interest of this Dominion that their natural resources should be transferred to the prairie provinces. That has nothing to do with the question before the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether section 17 of the Alberta Constitutional Act

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
of 1905 is intra vires or ultra vires. The resolution then proceeds:
And that such transfer should not interfere with, restrict or modify the right of the said provinces to complete control of their educational or other local affairs.
The transfer itself will not interfere with the control of education. The contention underlying the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is that the Constitutional Act of Alberta of 1905 and the similar Saskatchewan Act, 1905, affect the question of the use by these provinces of certain educational funds and educational grants, I may simply state that I think there is a clear distinction. Every person knows my view on this; I state frankly that I cannot support this resolution in the terms in which it is expressed; but I do think that, unless Your Honour regards it as clearly out of order, it is inexpedient and not in the public interest that questions which were discussed on every platform in my province during the last election and questions which are being discussed1 daily in the public press should not be debated in this House, in order that the public may be fully informed as to their general merits. As I have said, my views are well .known and I am prepared to stand in this House or in any other place and vindicate them, but I think it prejudicial to the interest of Canada and to the interests of this parliament that we should now prevent a discussion on a question which is of such general interest to the whole Dominion. I am sure that if ample discussion were allowed it would eliminate many misunderstandings which now exist with regard to the merits of the question.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that the decision of the court as to the constitutionality of the act will clear things up better than a discussion in this House?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend will allow me to give him a frank answer, I will admit at once that a final decision on the issue placed before the court will decide as to whether or not, apart from this proposed transfer, certain restrictions placed upon the provinces with regard to the use of school funds are valid or not. To my mind, however, there is a clear distinction between a general term sulch as the transfer of natural resources to ithese several provinces and the transfer of the school funds and school lands. The term "natural resources", in its proper application, is a transfer to each of these provinces of those natural resources such as lands, mines and so on, which have not been appropriated under existing statutes. In regard to that transfer there is a subject for
discussion, in respect of which the maritime provinces and others have their own peculiar views.
Then with regard to these Dominion lands which have been set aside for school purposes in those provinces now comprising what were formerly the Northwest Territories, those lands have already been appropriated for the certain specific purposes, and already from the sale of those lands some 127,000,000 has accumulated, which amount is now held by the federal government in trust for educational purposes. Personally I do not think these school funds can be included, by any proper use of the words, in the natural resources of Alberta and Saskatchewan; I think that has been decided by parliament, and in respect of these school funds and school lands parliament is bound in honour to comply with the terms of the trust and to continue to administer it in accordance with those terms. Whether parliament shall decide that the crown in the right of the province or the crown in the right of the Dominion shall still continue to be trustee for these funds, my opinion is that the terms of the trust, whatever they may be, should be conserved.
What are the terms of the trust? It is true that a decision that section 17 of the Constitutional Acts of 1905 is ultra vires of parliament may, to a certain extent, modify the terms under which these funds are now held, and may affect to the same extent the terms by which they shall be held by the crown in the right of the province, in case that transfer is made. But apart from that one single issue there are broad questions which I am convinced, if discussed thoroughly in this House, would tend to remove many popular prejudices, sweep away a mass of misinformation now existing, and prove to be of great advantage not only to the government but to the whole of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: But does not my hon.
friend admit that all the trouble has arisen over the constitutionality of clause 17 of the Alberta act? If everyone admits that it is constitutional no one can object to the terms of the agreement or the terms of the resolution introduced last year. All the trouble is based on that, and it is in the interests of all parties to the discussion that this point should be made clear.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I rise to a
point of order. If this is sub judice so far as I am concerned, I am going to insist that it be sub judice as far as others are concerned.
362	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman ia
perfectly right; all remarks must be addressed to the point of order.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I am not prepared to deal at length with this point of order, and especially am I unable to quote the authorities against the point of order raised by Mr. Speaker, which some constitutional students may be able to do. However, I want to say that in my opinion it would be stretching a point to rule this out even though there may be technical reasons why that should be done. I believe the matter dhould be discussed and I think it is a far cry from the technical point of law which is before the courts to the general principle involved in this resolution.
There was one point in the argument of the Minister of Justice, however, which drew my attention; if I misunderstood him I have no doubt he will correct me. I understood him to say that the first part of the resolution which states the general principle that Alberta should be given her natural resources was all right and that there was no objection to it, but when we come to the second part of the resolution which states that there shall be no restrictions as to the control of schools that does not seem to be the case. Are we going to understand then that the court has been asked to decide as to whether or not Alberta has the right to take control of its educational facilities?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman must confine himself to the point of order. If I should decide that the motion is in order the hon. gentleman may then discuss the matter fully, but just now I have to decide whether or not the motion of the hon, member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), is in order, and all remarks must be confined to that point.


William Irvine: If I am out of order I shall be glad to cease dealing with the point, but I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I think perhaps Mr. Speaker misunderstood me. I am not arguing the case which is before the courts at all. I took my point from the remarks of the Minister of Justice, and if what he said was true, my inference must be equally so. I do not think that the point of the Minister of Justice was well taken. That is to say the court is not asked to decide whether Alberta has that right or not, but rather it is deciding as to whether or not a certain clause in a particular law is ultra vires.


Mr. KAISER:: Would Mr. Speaker kindly read the rule which he thinks is applicable in this case, and as to the application of which he appears to have some doubt?


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other gentlemen desire to speak upon the point of order?


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toionto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution ia identical in substance with the agreement that was laid on the table by the government at the beginning of last session. Of course they amended it afterward and to escape a rather embarrassing situation created by my hon. friend the member for Labelle (Mr. Bouras-sa). The question submitted to the court was as to whether clause 17 of the Alberta Act was valid. Now the only question before the court is the validity of section 17 of the Alberta Act. This resolution does net refer to that section; it says simply that the three prairie provinces should have their natural resources given to them, that those resources should come under their control without any restriction of their local autonomy Therefore I cannot for the life of me see how the question that is before the court at the present time has any special bearing upon this resolution. If the Supreme court holds that section 17 of the Alberta Act is intra vires, then I presume the government would hand over to Alberta and the other provinces their natural resources without any restrictions whatever-at least there would be no reason arising out of the judicial decisi< l why they should not. Now I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in that case the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the two former particularly, would be in exactly the same position as they would 'be if this resolution carried. If the resolution carried to-day, and were acted upon, the Autonomy Act of 1905 would still stand. If it is intra vires the situation as it exists would be quite satisfactory to the hon. member for Labc-He. If it is ultra vires, we should not prevent these provinces from enjoying their full provincial status the same as Ontario and Quebec. I am at a loss to see why this reso'ution is not in order in view of the circumstances surrounding it,, and I submit that we ought to go on with the discussion.
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):
I should like to bring just one or two points to the attention of Your Honour and the attention of the House. In the first place, I would remind Your Honour that there is no rule of the House governing this point; it is

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
a question, of practice,, a question which is cited largely in May, also in Beaudhesne's Parliamentary Rules in the following terms:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking must not:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.


Hewitt Bostock: From what page is the hon. member quoting?


Mr. STEVENS:: I am quoting from page 62 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, rule 19, sub-section (c). Behind these rules there is always some reason, and I think it is clear to all of us that the intention of this practice, whidh has now taken on the nature of a rule, was to prevent any person's case that might be before a court from being prejudiced because of a discussion in this House under the privileges of parliament. That is undoubtedly the case. Therefore I submit to Your Honour that in applying the rule or invoking the precedent there ought first to be inquiry whether any interest is to be prejudiced by the discussion of the matter proposed.
Now I wish to call Your Honour's attention and the attention of the House to the nature of the reference. The reference is, whether clause 17 of the Alberta Act is intra vires or ultra vires of this parliament. I notice that in a report which emanated from the Supreme court a few days ago their lordships expressed the desire to have the matter discussed before them. I think there is no doubt that it will be necessary to do that. It is not a matter of dispute between some individuals in the country whereby a discussion here would prejudice the right of a citizen in the court. That is not involved in this case. It is, I might say, a hypothetical question, it is a constitutional question being submitted to the Supreme court for their consideration. In order that their lordships may give due and proper consideration, there must be discussion before the court. Now I submit to this House that a discussion, even on the point itself, directly entered into, whether by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, and other able lawyers on that side of the House, or by my hon. leader (Mr. Guthrie), the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and other eminent lawyers and counsel on this side, would form very interesting matter that their lordships might profitably and properly peruse in order to arrive at a decision, together with the discussion before the court itself. But as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the point at issue before the court need not necessarily
be discussed here at all, and we can very properly trust Your Honour to bring any speaker here to order when he trespasses upon the rule. I can apprehend that this resolution could be discussed here from almost every angle without trespassing upon the rule.


Ernest Lapointe: I could not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, Your Honour would be quite competent, I think, to bring to order any member trespassing the rule or practice.
But what I want to point out further is this: This matter is being discussed in the legislature of Saskatchewan, it is being discussed all over the country on many political platforms and in other places, and surely this great forum of the people ought to have the right to discuss an important question of this kind just so long as no interest is placed in jeopardy, and the right of no man or citizen before the court is interfered with.


Hon. Mr. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Before Your Honour renders judgment I should like to direct attention to a matter that has a direct bearing upon the question whether or not the resolution is in order. The rule that my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has just referred to is of universal application. No high court of parliament should discuss a question that might prejudicially or otherwise, affect the interests of a litigant. That is the general rule. It therefore becomes necessary to inquire whether the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is or is not litigation within the sense of the correct use of that word. In the Privy Council in 1912, in the case of the Attorney General for Ontario versus the Attorney General for Canada, it became necessary to determine whether or not the courts were bound to answer hypothetical questions thus submitted to them by the executive, and after a very full argument Lord Chancellor Earl Loreburn, in the course of his judgment, speaking for the commitee said this:
But the answers are only advisory and will have no more effect than the opinions of the law officers. Perhaps another reason is that the act has resulted in asking a series of searching questions very difficult to answer exhaustively and accurately without so many qualifications and reservations as to make the answers of little value. The Supreme court itself can, however, either point out in its answer the3e or other considerations of a like kind, or can make the necessary representations to the Governor General in Council when it thinks right so to treat any question that may be put.
Then these significant words appear at the close of the sentence:
And the parliament of Canada can control the action of the executive.

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
If that be so, it appears to me to be a very grave question whether or not this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada can be said to be litigation. That is the first difficulty which I have in this matter. The second difficulty which I have is this, that the Privy Council has said that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in answer to the questions submitted will be of no more importance than the opinion of the law officers of the crown, and inasmuch as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) signed the first agreement for the transfer of the resources, we must take it that his opinion was that there was no violation of fundamental rights under the constitution by reason of the agreement being made effective.
The matter now having been submitted by the executive to the court and the opinion of the court being no more valuable than that of the Minister of Justice, whose opinion has been already delivered inasmuch as he has signed the agreement, it seems to me to be somewhat difficult to say that this matter is now sub judice. If it were I would have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that it was out of order. But my difficulty at the moment is whether or not this can be said to be litigation or sub judice in the sense in which those words have been used in the various rules of parliament dating from the earliest days down to the present. If it is sub judice in the sense in which those words are used, I have no doubt that Your Honour should rule it out of order. But the significant words to which I have directed the attention of hon. members-
And the parliament of Canada can control the action of the executive.
-would make it quite possible for the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) to drop this resolution and move a resolution deprecating the reference of this question to the courts. Such a resolution would place at large the whole issue that is now being or about to be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, inasmuch as the Privy Council has declared in the very terms I have used the right of this parliament to control the action of the executive.
I have the misfortune perhaps to differ from some of my colleagues with respect to one matter. I have no doubt the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada directly affects the question of the transfer of the resources for a reason that, I think, need only be stated to carry conviction. In the original agreement the transfer of the resources was

of course subject to the provisions of the Alberta act, and if the provisions of the Alberta act were intra vires, then obviously no further restrictions were necessary to preserve the rights of those who claim rights under its provisions on the school fund. But if on the other hand the provisions of the autonomy act, to which the transfer of the resources would be made subject, were ultra vires, it would follow that without restrictions or reservations the rights of minorities or majorities would be all the same and there would be no question with respect to the moneys under the school fund.
It is for that reason, I apprehend, that the matter has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada; for, as the Minister of Justice has very properly said, if section 17 of the Alberta act is intra vires, by common consent, it seems to me, there is no further matter for its consideration or decision. But if on the other hand that section should be ultra vires, then clearly the question to be considered is what action, if any, should be taken by this parliament with respect to the matter that is mentioned in section 17. That is the whole question in a nutshell as I appreciate it at this moment.
I am one of those who perhaps differ again from some of my colleagues. I do not think it is desirable that we should discuss the question in parliament if it is sub judice in the sense that the question of the merits or demerits of special claims are to be considered. But if on the other hand we are merely to discuss the action of the executive in referring this matter to the courts instead of accepting the responsibility which the law imposes upon them, then another set of considerations should prevail.
I am free to say, Mr. Speaker, that my opinion is so hesitant with respect to this matter that I cannot render any assistance to you other than merely to point out the observations that were made with respect to what would result if the question were put to the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly having regard to the fact that the province of Alberta has indicated its intention not to be represented before the court at that hearing. That being the case, the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) would seem to be very pertinent,' namely, that a discussion in this parliament would be quite as important as a discussion in the Supreme Court of Canada if the opinion of the Supreme court was of no more value than that of the Minister of Justice.

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces


Ernest Lapointe: I think the province of Alberta is being represented by counsel, but counsel is authorized not to take any part. He has merely a watching brief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: And counsel for that
province has even suggested to the court that the court should appoint counsel to represent the other side of the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had intended to refer
to the newspaper reports as to the court itself appointing counsel. What I should have said perhaps, to make the matter clear, was that counsel for Alberta had indicated that he had no intention of discussing the merits or demerits of the question referred, but was merely observing what was taking place in the court, and that it was competent for the court, if it so desired, without any complaint on his part, to appoint counsel to represent the other side.
That is the only difficulty I have in the matter, and I have no doubt if the matter can be said to be sub judice in this sense, it is a matter that should not be considered by this parliament. But if on the other hand the discussion would, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) said, elucidate or simplify the complexity of the problem that has otherwise to be dealt with, then a discussion in this parliament without the province of Alberta being represented by counsel, as is the case in the Supreme court, would be quite as relevant, helpful and illuminating as a discussion in that court, when, as I say, its opinion in answer to the question would have no more value than that of the Minister of Justice, who may one day adorn the Supreme Court of Canada itself.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I have just this to say. My resolution asks for the transfer of their resources to the provinces at the earliest moment without any modifications or restrictions. I am quite confident I am in line in that resolution with the Premier of Alberta. Whatever restrictions may be placed or modifications may occur after the Supreme court renders its judgment, is another matter. In other words I maintain that the transfer should take place without restrictions or modifications, no matter what restrictions or modifications the Supreme court may subsequently impose.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Inasmuch
as the agreement for the transfer provides that the school lands and school land funds
shall constitute part of the transfer from the federal government to the province, and inasmuch as there is a question involved as to the jurisdiction in the Autonomy Act of 1905, and particularly section 17, how can my hon. friend say that question is not involved in a discussion of this resolution?


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: As
I understand Your Honour's ruling, you are dealing with an objection taken to the notice of motion as being out of order because the motion deals with a subject that is before the court for adjudication-that is, pending for decision before some court. I know of no parliamentary rule that refers to this case at all, but I believe, by analogy with the civil courts, parliament has1 refused to discuss as being out of order a matter which was before the Supreme court for judgment at the same time. But that was only in a case I think, if Your Honour will look at the proceedings, where justice might be prejudiced somewhat by a discussion taking place in parliament. Where the publication does not tend to interfere with the courts of justice, then there is no such thing as a rule preventing this discussion because the matter is sub judice. There is no magic in the word, and there is no rule which says, except for good reason, that you cannot disouss here or anywhere else a matter that is before the courts. It may not be discussed, however, when it will tend to interfere with the course of justice. For instance, if you allowed discussion of an election before the time limited for bringing in a protest against that election, you might prejudice the courts of justice in regard to that election; you might intimidate witnesses, and might make it impossible to get a jury; or you might, for one reason or other, put it out of the reach of the courts to do common justice in the matter. But here there is no suich case as that. There is no plaintiff or defendant. There is an academic question being decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.
My hon. friend says that counsel for Alberta is not taking active part in the discussion. The case will be presented by the learned Solicitor General, who has with him, I believe, equally eminent counsel from the city of Montreal. Right will be done, irrespective of what this House may say, or what decision the House may come to, and I suggest to Your Honour that where the matter is brought up under such a vague and general proposal as this, or an objection so vague and general as this one of sub judice, it should be only in the clearest case that Your Honour would give effect to such an objection; because if Your
366	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
Honour lets it run too far there is a means ready to hand for the government or the opposition to put any matter out of the realm of discussion by referring it to the courts. I would suggest, in all deference, that it is a matter in which great care should be taken, because if you support the objection the effect of the ruling will be that it will remove a very live question from the realm of free discussion in this House, whereas it is now discussed in every legislature that wants to discuss it, in the press, and wherever two or three are gathered together in this whole Dominion. That we in this House should be permitted to discuss the matter is very important, and I know you will give that phase of the situation very serious consideration before acceding to the objection.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: You were here, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) were here, when the Autonomy Act was passed1 twenty-two years ago, and I am sure it makes us all feel much younger to hear the same discussion over again. The French translation of the word "sub judice" means, under the judgment of the court or under the court. One point only is involved here and that point is whether section 17 was ultra vires or intra vires. That question was discussed in 1905 and parliament decided that it was intra vires. My hon. friend from Frontenac-Ad-dington (Mr. Edwards) should have proceeded in the same way in which we proceed with judicial matters when we refer to the conduct of courts or judges. The hon. member from Frontenae should have brought in a motion condemning the action of the Minister of Justice or of the government in referring the matter to the court. That is the way in which we should proceed. Now that it is before the court it should be left there until a decision is obtained in the court, because I for one feel that until I have the decision of the court I am not in a position to say whether we should transfer these natural resources, independent of the provisions laid down in the statute of 1905.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: On
the point of order, and the point raised by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) it seems to me the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) have struck the right key. If the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), or any other member of the House, is not satisfied with the action taken by the government

in referring the matter to the court, let him proceed in the proper way and bring a motion of censure against the government for the action taken in their capacity as the executive of this country. But as regards the question whether we can discuss this motion without referring to the matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, perhaps because of the dulness of my intellect I do not see how we can deal with one without trenching on the other. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has insisted that the rule, or the parliamentary practice, which has for its object the protection of the rights of the people should not be so applied as to curtail the rights of parliament. I think that is absolutely right. I should be the last member of this House to sustain any procedure taken by any cabinet, to take away from parliament the right to discuss any question by referring it to a court of justice. I also agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence and St. George (Mr. Cahan) that from a broad point of view it might be just as well to'have the whole matter discussed now. But taking the situation as it stands, the hon. member for Frontenae wants the House to declare that the natural resources of the province of Alberta should be handed over to the government without any restriction whatever in regard to school matters. The hon. member for St. I.awrencoSt. George expressed the opinion that this parliament created some years ago a trust which must be respected by the government of Canada or by the government of the provinces, but this is precisely the place where it is impossible to discuss this question without discussing the reference to the Supreme court.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I ask Your Honour's judgment as to whether the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is properly discussing the point of order, or is trying to get in some of his views in regard to the merits of the question.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That point was raised
by my hop. friend, and to clear the ground, I might say I am not raising at all the merits of the question, but simply taking the arguments made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the Minister of Justice and the other members who have spoken already, wherein they admit that it is impossible to discuss the general question-and a fair one-raised by the hon. member for Fron-tenac, without discussing at the same time the question before the Supreme court. That is my argument. I am not at all discussing

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
the merits of the question either as raised by the hon. member or as submitted to the Supreme court.
But the other point I want to insist upon, and I do not think it has been touched yet, is the right of members of parliament to be enlightened. I do not take it for granted that we know all things, I do not take it for granted that we are prepared to discuss all questions without being enlightened by [DOT]opinions of the highest tribunals. I do not believe in parliament abdicating its rights in favour of any tribunal, whether it be the Supreme Court or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and I entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the quotation he gave us of Lord Loreburn's opinion. Of course, no decision of the Supreme court nor of the Privy Council could abridge the right of this parliament to do justice or injustice, to maintain its engagements or to violate them. Parliament is supreme. But rightly or wrongly after the discussion of last year, or rather after the divergence of view which developed around this question, the government decided to consult the Supreme court. For what purpose? For the enlightenment of parliament in order to make it clear whether a certain section of a certain act of this parliament is intra or ultra vires. We could decide right at once that it is intra or ultra vires, but that would not prevent any individual or group of individuals in the future challenging its validity. Just as we are supreme in deciding what we should do, the courts are also supreme in deciding whether we have acted constitutionally or not. Therefore the question before the Supreme court is, first, one that may affect the rights of all citizens, present and future, who may be interested in the question at issue; and, second, it is one which affects, I think, the right of this parliament to receive the benefit of that opinion of the Supreme court. If the member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) thinks the government was wrong in making that reference to the court, of course he has a way open to him in the suggestion of the hon. member for West Calgary; let him bring a motion of censure against the government. But there I disagree with the member from Toronto who last spoke.


Mr. EDW  ARDS@Frontenac: May I ask
a question?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Suppose I
did that, the quest,ion being still before the Supreme court, would I not be precluded from referring to or arguing the point?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As far as I am concerned I do not know, but the hon. member would certainly not be embarrassed in anything he might say blaming the government for its attitude upon that question. It would again be for the Speaker to decide whether the debate might not infringe upon the rule or the practice. But, I repeat, I think the application of that rule or of that practice is of advantage to parliament. Of course, it can be abused by a government-everything can be abused-but the right exists. Nobody challenges the right of a government to refer a question for enlightenment to the highest tribunals of the land. No one questions the right of this parliament to ask for opinions. Every day in committees of this House we ask for expert opinion. When we call upon engineers to come before committees, when we refer a question to a committee in order to get expert advice, we do not abandon our sovereign authority-


Alexander McKay Edwards: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but may I have your ruling? The hon. gentleman is indulging himself, as he always does, in a speech that, I submit, has not any reference to the point of oirder before the House.


Hewitt Bostock: On the contrary, for a
layman, I think the hon. member for Labelle is making a very good argument and one bearing on the question of order. In my view his remarks are distinctly on the point of order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to be diverted by any personal argument. I disdain that. I have not received the kind of education that has been given my hon. friend and I will not follow him. I was making the comparison to demonstrate by analogy that when parliament refers any question, which beyond any doulbt is under its jurisdiction, to get expert advice, it owes it to itself to wait until it has received that expert advice before forming its judgment. You refer certain questions to a body of engineers in order to enlighten yourselves as to certain public works; you refer certain other questions to accountants in order to find out what are the merits of a certain contract involving a large expenditure of money; would you be abdicating your right as a sovereign parliament if you waited until you had received that expert advice before you passed any legislation? Or do you want to put yourselves in the position of saying: We are not only supreme, we are infallible?
But at the same time we have to admit that the tribunals exist to decide whether or
368	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
not our legislation is within our jurisdiction. We all have to admit that. Many pieces of federal or provincial legislation have been set aside by decisions of various tribunals. Did that mean that this parliament or that provincial legislature had abdicated its jurisdiction? I do not think so. I think that is the point, and the most interesting point from the parliamentary point of view. Of course, with regard to litigants I quite admit that this question cannot be compared with the intervention of parliament in a question which may affect the immediate right of one or more individuals before the courts to have certain things adjudicated.
But I think it is still more important whether or not we shall oppose the decision of the government to submit this question to the Supreme court in order to receive the enlightenment that we may be in need of not to commit an injustice or not to pass any legislation which may be in its turn ultra vires. It 'may be that with the intention of doing the right thing either by the province or by the minority we would again pass legislation that might be challenged. Now that the question is before the Supreme court in order to decide whether or not what we did twenty-two years ago is intra vires, I think before we do something else connected with this we should clear the decks with regard to that basic question at issue. After that it will be for the House to take its full responsibility to accept or reject the opinion of the Supreme court in so far as we can deal with those natural resources. That is an entirely different question from that raised before the Supreme court. In that I agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), but the way in which the motion is before us, I think, dearly puts us in this position, that we pronounce ourselves upon a question intimately connected with one now before the Supreme court.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I put a question to
my hon. friend before he sits down?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He and some other hon. members have advised the hon member for Frontenac as an alternative to the motion now before the House to introduce a motion censuring the government for submitting this question to the Supreme court. Now, the cabinet when in doubt surely has a right to ask the -court for its interpretation of a statute. So that if my hon. friend put his motion in that form he would have no ground to debate the question in the House, inasmuch as he would be attacking the government for doing something which he would have to admit they have a perfect right to do.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then if the government was right in referring the question to the Supreme court, the House would be wrong in not awaiting -the outcome of the proceeding.


Hugh Guthrie: I have just a word to add,
strictly in regard to the point of order. I doubt very much whether this question is now before the Supreme court in such a way * as to preclude discussion of it in this House on the present motion. I doubt the right or the propriety of any government to refer a hypothetical question for the adjudication *or the -opinion of the court for the purpose .)f preventing discussion, or with that end in view. The rule in regard to the discussion in parliament of matters which are pending in the courts was established for the protection -of -litigants in order that their rights might not be prejudiced in any way. So far as I can -ascertain, there is no other reason for the rule, and it was never intended to apply to hypothetical questions. If the government can submit of its own motion such a question for the opinion of the court and thereby preclude its discussion in parliament, as it seeks to do in t-his instance, why can it not, on the question of maritime rights for example, submit a question for the opinion of the court and thus avoid discussion of it in the House for the remainder of the session? No one is asking the government tc do so. There is no litigation on the subject. There are no litigants involved in the matter, and such a reference would be on a purely hypothetical -question on motioa of the government. But if the discussion of this subject is out of order by reason of the reference to the court of a hypothetical question, so would the discussion of the Dum-an report be out of order and the session would conclude without- any word upon that subject having been spoken. If -any awkward or embarrassing question came up in the House at any time, the government of its own motion would need only to frame a hypothetical question and submit it to the court and oarliament's hands would be tied-. We could not discuss the subject. I am satisfied that- our common sense will convince us that these rules must have reasonable application; indeed, they were founded in -common sense. And this particular rule was intended to benefit and protect litigants whose causes might be pending in the courts. What application has it to a case of this kind? I must say that at first I had some doubt on the subject. I consulted the authorities in so far as 1 was able to find any. But applying our own common

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
sense to the situation, I submit that the reference of this question in the form in which it is referred, where the rights of the individuals are not involved and where the judgment, no matter what it may be, cannot be binding on this parliament-for we can act not withstanding it-should not preclude us from a full! discussion of the motion as presented to-day. I cannot come to any other conclusion on the point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Prior to the introduction of the motion this afternoon I had an opportunity of carefully examining this matter, and I am glad to have had the benefit of the opinion of the House on both sides. The question, I admit, is somewhat involved; yet taking, as I generally do, the English language as it is written and spoken I find it perfectly clear and simple. And I think it is a great compliment to the English language to say that it is simple. Now I consult the best British authorities on a subject of this nature, and 1 govern myself accordingly. One hon. gentleman, the genial member for South Ontario, asked a very pertinent question: "Under what rule, Mr. Speaker, would you declare this motion out of order?" There is no rule in the Canadian House by which we may be governed in the matter, but if the hon. member will refer to rule 1, citing the "procedure in unprovided cases", he will find the following:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the rules, usages and forms of proceeding of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed.
When, therefore, we have no rule applicable to a case arising in the course of debate in the Canadian House of Commons we govern ourselves by the British practice. And it has happened many times during my term of office as Speaker that I have had recourse to the practice in the British parliament.
Before ruling on this point of order I may perhaps make this prefatory statement. A resolution was introduced last year by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and later on a reference was ordered by the government to the Supreme Court of Canada of the question involved in that resolution. There is a statute authorizing the government to refer particular cases to the Supreme Court for adjudication or for the purpose of clearing any doubts that may exist as to the interpretation of any act of parliament. The reference, as I say, was made to the Supreme Court of Canada in the present instance, and parliament thereafter was dissolved. Some time
ago, a question was put by an hon. member asking for a copy of that reference, the text of which was later on laid upon the table by the Minister of Justice. I shall read it and the House, listening to its terms, will realize just how the question stands at the present moment:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 24th June, 1926, from tile Minister of Justice, stating that as the result of certain negotiations looking to the, transfer to the province of Alberta of the public lands within that province, now vested in the crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, an agreement was entered into on the 9th January, 1926, between the governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the province of Alberta, respectively, whereby it was agreed that certain provisions of the Alberta Act should be modified to the intent that all crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties within the province, and sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties should, from and after the coining into force of the said agreement, belong to the province, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to the several other terms and conditions particularly set forth in said agreement. Subsequently the two governments agreed upon certain additional provisions to be inserted in the said agreement relative to the transfer and administration of the school lands fund and certain specified school lands, to parks and forest reserves affected by the agreement, and to the rights and properties of the Hudson's Bay Company. Notice was given by a resolution that a bill would be introduced into parliament, at its present session, to approve and give effect to the said agreement as so modified, but a question having been raised as to the constitutional validity of section 17 of the Alberta Act, relative to the subject of education and schools within the said province, it was decided not to proceed with the proposed legislation as drafted until this question of doubt could be authoritatively settled.
The minister, therefore, recommends that the following question be referred by Your Excellency in Council to the Supreme Court, of Canada for hearing and consideration, pursuant to section 60 of the Supreme Court Act:-
Is section 17 of the Alberta act, in whole or in part, ultra vires of the parliament of Canada, and, if so, in what particular or particulars?
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
That is the question referred to the Privy Council. Then the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the general interest of this Dominion that their natural resources should be transferred to the prairie provinces at the earliest possible moment and that such transfer should not interfere with, restrict or modify the right of the said provinces to complete control of their educational or other local affairs.
There again are two questions, the question of the transfer of lands and the question of control of education. The hon. member stated

370	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces
a moment ago that his motion as drafted was general in its terms, and concluded from that that as the other motion only affected one province and his motion dealt with the three prairie provinces, there was no analogy between the two cases. There is a good old rule of logic which says that the general includes the particular; there are only three prairie provinces, so what affects one with regard to the transfer of natural resources and educational powers affects the others unless there are special statutes governing 'the other provinces.
What do we find in Bourinot? At page 301 we have the following:
A matter which is under adjudication by a court of law cannot be brought before the House by motion or otherwise.
Bourinot does not state, as the leader of the opposition said a moment ago, that the matter before the court must be one which would affect an individual, in connection which any discussion might abridge or prejudice any rights he might have.
Bourinot makes no such distinction. Whether an individual or a collectivity of individuals is before the court, the case is not altered. The rule is that when a matter is under adjudication by a court of law, whether it affects an individual or a collectivity of individuals, whether it affects one man or one province, it cannot be brought before the House by motion or otherwise. In this connection May says, at page 323:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate. This rule was observed by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, both by the wording of the speech from the throne and by their procedure in the House regarding Mr. O'Connell's case, and has been maintained by rulings from the chair.
Redlich, at page 59 of volume 3, says:
Nothing has been done to weaken the force of another rule of a similar kind, that no reference must be made in debate to matters before the courts of law in some pending litigation.
And Beauchesne says, in par. 234 under rule 19:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) referred a moment ago to past parliamentary experience. I remember a case in point which I am sure will be recalled by the leader of the opposition as well. Some years ago, after a Dominion census, the representation of the maritime provinces as well as that of Ontario was reduced, affecting the 
maritime provinces to a greater extent. That result raised a storm in the maritime provinces, because they felt rather aggrieved in view of that reduction. The matter was brought up in the House, and as a doubt was expressed with regard to the terms of the compact at the time of confederation, since which time the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec were enlarged and the other new provinces of the west came into existence, the govern' ment of the day decided to refer the matter to the Supreme court from where it went to the Privy Council. I had the honour to represent the Department of Justice in a minor capacity as Solicitor General and had with me as counsel Mr. Justice Newcombe and Air. Edward Blake. If I remember well, during the session of parliament, while the case was pending, a member representing one of the counties in the maritimes brought up the question in order to give vent to the grievances of his province. The point was raised that the matter was then pending before the courts, and that point of order was sustained. I cannot cite the exact dates, but the occurrence is quite within my memory, and that is a case in point.
Under these circumstances I must declare the present motion out of order, because it refers to a matter which is sub judice, awaiting adjudication before the courts of the land, and I so rule.



NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA

Thomas Langton Church: That, in the opinion of this House, in the best interest of confederation, the time has now arrived in view of the proper economic development of western Canada, when the province of Alberta should be given its natural resources free of restrictions.


Hewitt Bostock: The same ruling applies
in the present case. The ruling is not debatable, but the hon. gentleman has the privilege of discussing the point of order.


Thomas Langton Church: With all due deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this resolution is not the same as the one just disposed of. My resolution contains a declaration of policy; it does not deal with matters of law at all. This is supposed to be a free parliament under the British constitution, and we should be perfectly free to discuss such public questions as these. This is a British country and one of the cardinal principles of the British constitution is that the courts are subservient to the legislature. May I point out that the subject matter of my resolution was introduced in the speech from the throne at the last session

Natural Resources-Alberta
of parliament when it was declared that its natural resources would be handed back to Alberta. There has never been any doubt as to the. validity of either the Alberta or the Saskatchewan Acts of 1905, at present neither the province of Alberta nor the government of Canada question the validity of the Alberta Act of 1905 or of clause 17. While litigation was pending before the Privy Council re the Industrial Disputes Act in 1924, an act was passed amending it and signed by the Governor General. At that very time litigation was in progress between the hydroelectric commission and the federal government and an appeal was argued before the Privy Council after this parliament had prorogued. I think every member owes a duty to his constituents which is paramount, and therefore is entitled to bring forward questions of this character, if this is a free parliament. I have great respect for the ruling of the Chair, but if the ruling in this instance was sound it would be open to the government of the day to refer to the courts any question which it did not wish to have discussed by parliament. Every member has an inherent right to discuss public questions on the floor of parliament, and in contesting your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I think I am asserting a great principle of provincial rights. It has been admitted here, as well as by the Department of Justice, that the validity of clause 17 of the Alberta Act is not in dispute. The Minister of the Interior also informed the House that neither the federal nor the provincial authorities were contesting its validity. The Autonomy Acts of 1905 have stood the test of time. They were passed after six months' discussion in parliament, and there were no less than twenty divisions. Some of these divisions related to litigation and to rulings given by the courts of this country and by the Privy Council. Each of the western provinces when it entered confederation had a school system of its own manufacture, and clause 17 which was made applicable to them was taken from the old Northwest Territories Act. The act has been on the statute books for over twenty years and the validity until recently was never disputed until some implied doubts were expressed by some unknown persons to the Minister of Justice.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think the hon.
gentleman has raised any new point. I have already ruled that his resolution is substantially the same as the one which has already been pronounced out of order. Therefore the hon. member may not proceed; he is not in order.	I
32649-24J


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member for
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was permitted to debate for half an hour all phases of the subject to-day ar.d the policy involved.


Hewitt Bostock: Order, order. A ruling
of the chair is not debatable.


Thomas Langton Church: Then I will appeal from
your ruling to the House, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference. I think that in doing so I am asserting a great principle and asserting the rights and privileges of a member and a duty to my constituents.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Mr. Church
moves, seconded by-who seconds the motion?


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. McGregor will second it.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. McGregor-


Mr. McGREGOR:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has
no seconder.


Thomas Langton Church: My seconder Mr. Garland went out, I can give the name of an hon. member in a minute. You allowed, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Labelle last session, a few moments to find a seconder and to redraft his motion. I ask any of the Toronto members present to second my motion. I [DOT] ask Mr. Matthews or Mr. Anderson or Mr. Geary or Mr. Spence to second it. It is only a matter of courtesy to second it.


Hewitt Bostock: There being no seconder to the motion, and the motion itself having been declared out of order, the House will proceed to the next item of business.



NATIONAL COAL POLICY


Thomas Langton Church: That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for Canada to have a national policy in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on United States for such supply.
That, the government should immediately consider the initiation of an all British and Canadian coal supply, and that such a policy is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the future of Canada.
That, the government should consider the advisability of placing a duty on coal from the United States to insure an all British supply for Canada and thus afford adequate protection to coal mined and coked under the British flag.
That, whereas coal is a necessity in effect equal to that of food, the government should consider the advisability of having it carried on
National Coal Policy

a preferential toll basis by the railways on the same basis as grain and flour, and of granting subsidies and subventions to this industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: As you read the motion, Mr. Speaker, it was not as it appears on the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the sitting opened I made some representations to the hon. gentleman to the effect that his motion was against the rules in so far as it committed the House, to begin with, to a tariff policy, and in the second place to certain freight rates. In consequence the hon. member agreed to amend his motion. It is quite customary to amend resolutions of which hon. members have given notice so as to conform with the rules of the House.


Charles Avery Dunning: Could we be supplied
with copies of the amended resolution?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes. I may say that the change made was to the effect that the government should consider the advisability of carrying out the policy recommended. This had the effect of imparting to the resolution an abstract character.


Thomas Langton Church: The subject of this resolution has been before the House now for six sessions. It urges the adoption of a national coal policy. It has never been possible to make any headway with the matter because we are so hemmed in by rules and regulations derived from the middle ages that it is practically impossible to make any headway in solving the economic problems of this country. What, we want at the present time is a Mussolini to try and solve some of these problems.
In my opinion we have the- most impractical form of government of any country in the civilized world. It is impossible to make any headway in Canada to solve economic problems and give relief. We have spent $2,000,000,000 on a national railway and a merchant marine, and to-day we are absolutely at the mercy of a foreign country for our fuel supplies. When every pound of coal we use can be mined and coked under the British flag, whether it be from Wales or the maritime provinces or Alberta, we have a ready market for United States coal foisted upon the people of this country by the directors of the Canadian National Railways who are entirely responsible for their failure to solve this problem.
I do not see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) in the chamber to-day. He is the understudy, I might say, of the head of this system. After all is said and done, the coal question is 95 per cent a transportation problem, and after all these expenditures on a
[Mr. Church.1
national railway and a merchant marine we find that we might just as well own nothing when the question comes to solving any of the economic problems of the country.
The first clause of the resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for Canada to have a national poliey in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on United States for such supply.
This principle has been adopted for six sessions by this House and nothing has been done by the government to give effect to it. The second clause reads:
That the government should immediately consider the initiation of an all British and Canadian coal supply, and that such a policy is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the future of Canada.
This clause has been adopted now five or six times for this House and never carried out. The third clause reads:
That, the government should consider the advisability of placing a duty on coal from the United States to insure an all British supply for Canada and thus afford adequate protection to coal mined and coked under the British flag.
This clause of the resolution was adopted but never carried out. The only way in which this question can be solved is by adequate protection for coal mined in Alberta, the maritime provinces and Wales. The four native industries of Canada are the mining industry, the fisheries, agriculture and lumber, and they can be placed on their feet in this country only by a proper application of the gospel of protection, namely subsidies or subventions and bonuses. Although I come from the protectionist province of Ontario which votes Conservative, every time a resolution of this importance comes before the House we find that a large number of the members from that province absent themselves from the chamber. It is all very well to get up and support our national coal policy in the cities and towns of the province when the elections are on; but when they come to Ottawa-oh! what a difference to try and get action.
What is suggested in this resolution is that the principle of protection, subsidies, bonuses and subventions, should be applied to solve the problem of the coal industry in the maritime provinces and Alberta. The fourth clause of the resolution reads:
That, whereas coal is a necessity in effect equal to that of food, the government should consider the advisability of having it carried on a preferential toll basis by the railways on the same basis as grain and flour, and of granting subsidies and subventions to this industry.

National Cool Policy
This has been approved by two premiers, the premiers of Alberta and Ontario, and the problem will never be solved in any other way than by the gospel of protection. The United States could starve this country out of fuel in one winter. During a coal strike sve are absolutely at the mercy of the people of the United States for a pound of coal. During one of the coal strikes in that country, Canada was exhibited to the people of the United States as a Lazarus sitting around the coal sidings of the United States railways begging for a few lumps of coal. That was a humiliating position for the people of this country to be in, and after we have sipent $2,000,000,000 on railways we find the directors of the Canadian National Railways to-day folding their arms and saying that they will have practically nothing to do with the matter. If there were anything to test the size and ability of the Minister of Railways to administer his department it would be his ability to solve this matter which has been made a political football of by the directors of the national railways, by the railway commission, by the Minister of Railways and the government generally. This question has been referred to the railway commission. I am surprised that Your Honour has not ruled this motion out of order also on the ground that the question is before the judiciary. Any matter is not to be discussed here if sub judice before a police magistrate, a judge or court of record. The courts might as well take parliament's duties over. Is this a free parliament or is it not? Are we to sdt here like a lot of rubber stamps for the directors of the national railways and have our front benchers run out of the chamber whenever an economic question like this comes up for solution? What are we sitting here for? Why are we elected? Do the people or the courts or the railway commission rule in this country? A year ago the minister Said in this House that he would refer this question to the railway commission. What happened to the application? They made a political football out of dt. They killed a whole year's time. They declined to give a hearing until a week ago. The Premier of Ontario had lawyers before the commission for the past year, and the Premier of Alberta also had lawyers before the commission. A proper application had been made but the railway commission fell down. The government of this country should reorganize that commission in the public interest, so that whenever a reference is made by the high court of parliament a special sitting of that commission should be held a week after the reference is received and it should take precedence over
all other business. They should have heard the application of Ontario and Alberta and given a decision.
The national railways should agree to carry coal for $7 a ton. I am not criticising Sir Henry Thornton personally, but his action in coming over here and practically telling the people that, as regards the coal problem, they can stew in their own juice and that, so far as he is concerned, we can continue to buy coal in Alberta and pay the freight rate of $9 a ton. He might as well have said $22 a ton, because it would be just as prohibitive. The directors of the national railways are content that we should depend upon the United States and American coal barons for our coal supply They are willing to see Canada continue in the future as it has done in the past to be virtually a Lazarus sitting at the feet of the Pennsylvania railways and coal barons waiting for a few lumps of coal. You will never get this question solved as long as the present board of directors are in office, as long as the present Minister of Railways is in office or as long as the present railway commission is in office. The Minister of Railways to-day has all his powers taken away from him by legislation. He has practically no functions, no duties to perform except to act as an understudy for Sir Henry Thornton and the directors of the Canadian National Railways, to introduce what bills they hand to him and to administer the affairs of the Newmarket canal and the Trent canal. The great powers that were in the hands of the Minister of Railways in the past have been transferred to the railway commission,. The administration of the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the other railways, has been taken from him and handed! over to Sir Henry Thornton, and the board of directors of the national railways. The portfolio of railways, so far as any active-functions are concerned might just as well be abolished.
What did Mr. Carvell, the late chairman of the railway commission say? He said practically that he did not believe the railway commission had any jurisdiction in view of the new Canadian National Railways acts, over the component parts of the Canadian National Railways or over that system. It is no wonder that even some of the good Liberals and Liberal papers are getting tired. The Globe, George Brown's own paper, is a good Liberal paper and it has not deserted the Liberal party. It is the Liberal party that has deserted the principles of George Brown and the Globe. The Globe,
National Coal Policy

which for years was and is the backbone of the Liberal party in Ontario, had this to say last Saturday:
Trifling with the Coal Rates
It is a year since the order in council was passed calling for a hearing by the Dominion railway board on the question of freight rates on coal from Alberta to central Canada. When at last the case came up on Thursday it developed that the parties interested did not have necessarjr statistics prepared. Adjournment had to be taken until June 7. If at that time a favorable rate is granted, coal from the western mines cannot be moved east before February of next year, which means two years from the date of the order in council. Thus the ponderous machinery of rate investigation drags itself along.
Possibly it has not been forgotten that an insistent demand for Alberta coal arose in Ontario during the course of the United States anthracite strike, when a temporary rate of nine dollars a ton was allowed. This, the railway experts contended at the time, was an irreducible minimum. There was no doubt in their minds about it. Presumably they were speaking from knowledge of statistics. Both Alberta and Ontario disputed the figures, but the railwayman stood pat. Yet on Thursday representatives of both the C.P.R. and C.N.R. revealed the fact that they had no data available from which to present arguments, and that the necessary information could not be compiled in less than two months.
Did hon. members ever hear of such a thing, that in two years they were not able to compile the figures?
This looks pretty much like trifling with the whole question. Granted that the general freight rates question occupied much time, could not the railways have been prepared to meet the provincial representatives on Thursday if they were really anxious to do so? Are they of the opinion that delays and adjournments will push the coal question into the background until another strike brigs it to the fore? There seems no good reason for this, nor is there any reason for believing that the interested prov-vinees are going to let the matter drop until they know what it should cost to lay western coal down in this province. The consumers here want to know, and the dealers want to know'. If the cost is satisfactory it will be good business for the country to have this outlet for the Alberta product. Would it not be equally good business for the railways?
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the railway commission has allowed the two railways to trifle with the situation. For the past five or 3ix years we have had a select committee of the House endeavouring to deal with the situation. They took the evidence of experts, and made their report to the high court of parliament, which showed that the seven dollar rate or less was a fair one, and practically no objection was raised to it. Now here we have a railway on which two billion dollars were spent, and we have special trains and private cars running all over the country, and

thousands of cars sometimes empty at the head of the lakes in the slack season and we have very few cam operating between Alberta and Ontario to carry coal. Now, what is the position in Canada? The people of this country are looking for a Mussolini to arise in Canada and to solve some of our economic problems. I will read to the House what Mussolini has said:
My colleagues m the cabinet and the undersecretaries of states know that the government business must be handled with enthusiasm and promptitude. Our work must be intensive and productive. They know my requirements in this regard. They know that they cannot approach me unless their mission is one of government business. There is no time to joke. Everything must be to the point and must be worth discussing. Each usually has his business well-defined, and when he sees me, need stay but a few minutes. They have acquired skill in condensation which enables me to go quickly to the matter in hand and to settle it.
I am fortunately blessed with a faculty for quick decision which permits me to accomplish an immense amount of work. I cannot stand vacillating and procrastinating executives. Ministers of a professional type are useless as administrators. They take so much time for decision that the -whole business of their department is delayed. This cannot be tolerated in any branch of my government. Ministers, before we came into power, deliberated and vacillated for years before putting into operation. We have created an aptitude for quick decision in our public affairs which, coupled with our intensive efforts, has achieved things not dreamed of before our advent to power.
Another paragraph in his remarks reads as follows:
We have settled our debts with England and America, stiffened Italian finance, strengthened the lira and now have consolidated the public debt by the launching of the Lictoral loan. For our sea commerce we built the Roma, the biggest ship in the Mediterranean service, and will build two new liners, Rex and Dux, the fastest in the world, 40 knots an hour, taking only four to five days from Italy to New York and seven to Buenos Aires.
Fascism constructed in two years the Rome-Ostia electric line, a project planned for twenty years, designed to give the people of Rome access to their own seashore. Fascism constructed the Apulia aqueduct to supply forty communes with an -aggregate population of 3,000,000 with water; is building the longest tunnel in the world between Florence and Bologna-15 miles long-is completing the Rome to Naples direct line to reduce the running time by one-half, and undertaking numerous projects to be brought to successful consummation under Fascist initiative and drive.
He -goes on to point out:
Government, to be good, must be efficient. It must achieve the greatest net result with the minimum of lost effort. If there be wastage of labour, duplication, overlapping or lack of co-ordination, then there are serious defects in the government machinery. There must be unity of policy, unity of responsibility and

National Coal Policy
unity of direction. Without these, government becomes a slipshod, haphazard, hit-or-miss business, able to continue only because it can demand tribute from the entire nation.
A private business must be efficient or die. It has no reserve on which to call unless it has created that reserve itself. It must sustain itself by its own merits. Its manager must avoid wastage, duplication, overlapping and must co-ordinate all the parts of his organization in a smooth-running machine. He is responsible and held to strict account for its success. He directs it with a single aim and single policy, his policy.
That is what this country wants to-day- a modern Mussolini. We require efficient men to manage our railways. People have put their money into the country and into the railways, and we want a board of directors who will not build up Canada for Americans, but will build up the country for Canadians. I have criticised the board of directors of that railway and the Minister of Railways in regard to the management of the concern and their failure to carry out parliament's orders to initiate a national coal supply.
Then we have had a committee of this hon. House which took hundreds of pages of evidence on the coal question every session, and what have they done? Have the railway commission carried out the orders of parliament? Parliament has adopted a resolution on four or five different occasions for a national coal supply. Has the board of directors of the railway given effect to it? Has the railway commission carried it out? Have they done anything to jput in the seven dollar rate? No. They have carried grain and flour at a few cents a bushel, under the Crowsnest pass tolls, but when it comes to giving a rate for coal they decline to give it, and they make this question a political football. A day of reckoning to the railway commission is coming and also a day of reckoning for the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway.
I have here a letter from William Buchanan, a coal merchant of London. He has been reading statements in the press about the movement to establish coking plants for Canadian coal. He says that there are several coking plants in Canada, but very few of them are using their own coal. He also states that he is willing to put up a bond of $30,000 to guarantee the payment of all freight charges and the cost of all coal ordered from the province of Alberta. He says:
This coal would be bought and sold by me and I would guarantee the quality of same and also the service to be the very best.
He sold 5,000 tons of Alberta coal in the London district and says it is good material.
I observe my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) is present. He has taken an active part in this matter and I want to thank him and the representatives from Alberta for their assistance in this matter. I do not say it is the fault of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). He had tried to do his part, but he has been handicapped, and by whom? By the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. Sir Henry Thornton and his directors are content to have the people of this country hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Pennsylvania coal barons. The Canadian National Railways might as well have fixed twenty dollars a ton instead of nine, because nothing has been carried at the nine dollar rate lately.
I do not expect the government of to-day will do anything. They will do nothing. I have brought up this matter several times, and as long as I am in this chamber I will present the matter to parliament. The province of Ontario's application has been made a football of by the government. The Canadian National Railways have sold our merchant marine ships which cost a million and a half for a few thousand dollars. Many of these ships could be utilized for five months of the year. They could be converted into lake and ocean carriers. They could have brought coal from Wales as they brought it from the maritimes. They have brought 560,000 tons of coal from Wales and the maritimes this past season into the port of Montreal to save that port from a coal famine. I contend that if the board of directors of the National railways had any conception of their duty they would utilize those ships to bring coal past Montreal up to the head of the lakes. The national railways, in its turn, should have done its part to help the people of Alberta send their coal to Ontario and central Canada. The people of Ontario want Alberta coal. A united effort would result in mutual benefit to the people of both provinces. The Ontario government has had its representatives before the railway commission in.an attempt to get the commission to deal with the subject for a year. I think it is the duty of the Minister of Railways to instruct the chairman of that commission that they hold sittings forthwith from day to day to hear the evidence which has been taken before the coal committee of this House and find a solution for this particular problem.
I have almost given up hope of getting anything practical accomplished in this country. Notwithstanding our various legislatures we are not a practical people. I believe the Canadian people are the most impractical in
National Coal Policy

the world-except in time of war. You can mobilize the transportation system of the country in time of war. Why cannot you do it in time of peace? Simply because this parliament seems to have no jurisdiction over the president and management of the Canadian National Railways, who are in law and fact beyond our control evidently.
In solving this problem I think we can apply the principle of protection as did Mr. Stanley Baldwin to put the native industry of the old country on its feet. He applied there the principle of bonuses and subventions. I think a transportation rate of from $6 to S6.50 a ton in trainload1 lots should be given by the Canadian National railways. This should not be charged, or any part of it, to the provincial governments of Ontario and Alberta. This House very readily voted $35,000,000 to bondholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific without requiring them to prove their claims in the Exchequer court; we ignored the Exchequer court and the railway commission; but when it comes to giving a subvention of a few thousand dollars, oh my, what a difference 1
This is the case in a nutshell. Are the people of Canada after all these expenditures on railways and on our government merchant marine to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the coal millionaires of Pennsylvania? You will never solve this problem until you take it out of the hands of the railway commission and Sir Henry Thornton and have parliament compel the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways to give a proper rate for the transportation of this particular commodity. Parliament should amend the Railway Act. There should be special rates granted for the movement of coal just as there are for the movement of grain and flour. I am glad that I have a new supporter for my views of the past six years in the person of the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Ferguson. I am very glad to have his support for the policy of protecting our four great basic industries-mining, lumbering, agriculture and fishing-and that they should be given preferential rates on our railways. This is not the first time that the railways have given preferential treatment to certain commodities. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Railways said the other night, I can prove every statement I have made. I proved everything last June before Sir Henry Thornton in the committee on railways and shipping.
The minister made statements the other night here which he cannot back up. I never referred to the Chateau; I did to the Vancouver hotel. I referred to special tolls and special rates on certain basic products. I 
challenge a searching inquiry into this whole railway. When the railway commission has fallen down it should be reorganized, and if the board of directors of the national railways cannot solve this problem, the sooner we have a new board of directors the better.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am very much disappointed that nothing has been done in the past twelve months. Notwithstanding that this is the most important problem before us to-day we are just m the same position as we were two or three years ago.


Mr. HAY:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question for information? He has dealt with the matter largely as applying to the Canadian National Railways. I wonder if he has any figures of the tonnage drawn by the competitive transcontinental line, the Canadian Pacific? It would be interesting to the House to know the relative tonnage of coal drawn by these two roads from eastern and western Canada to Ontario.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this is a hardy
annual, and we are indebted to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) for its periodical introduction. I think his resolution would have been better worded had he made it apply to the railway commission. A national coal policy is a very vital question, and I may point out to the House that the government has given it a great deal of thought and in 1922 appointed a board to study it. That board has been doing so almost continuously since that time with a view frankly to avoid the imposition of a duty, as suggested by my hon. friend. I may say that he did not hold that opinion at one time, as quotations from Hansard will show. It was felt, just as my hon. friend has stated, that as coal was as important as bread to the consumers of this country, no undue disability should be placed upon it to enhance its price. Not only that, but the most earnest advocates of the bringing of coal from Alberta have never asked that any subvention be applied towards the cost of its haulage, but rather that the real cost of the transportation of this commodity be ascertained and that a rate based on that cost be applied over the two railway systems, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National.
Now, as I say, we have made some study of the question, and my further remarks will diverge somewhat from the clear definition of the motion itself, nevertheless I think it important that they should be put on# Hansard for the information of every member of the

National Coal Policy
House of Commons who is interested in this question. For that purpose I have prepared the following statement:
In dealing with the question raised by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest, it is necessary that consideration be given to certain fundamental facts which more or less control the situation as it exists in Canada to-day. It is evident to all who have studied the political and economic geography of the world that nature has not distributed her resources in raw materials in such a way as to meet the needs of all the nations of the earth or to fully meet their economic requirements. That condition prevails in regard to food supplies, forest resources, mineral resources and all other raw materials. In other words, no nation is so bountifully provided by nature with all raw materials to the extent that she is entirely self-supporting and independent of all other nations.
The political boundaries of most countries were defined long ago; long before the demand for raw materials became as acute as it is to-day. These boundaries were defined to conform to physical features and on account of consideration of national defence rather than with the object of embracing supplies of those raw materials that have now become so essential to the economic life of a people. And when you get this more or less accidental location of international boundaries combined with the extremely sporadic distribution of raw materials you get a condition which is the cause of uneasiness and even alarm among those nations lacking certain essential resources.
We see this condition very well exemplified in the case of minerals. In all cases the distribution of mineral resources over the face of the earth is extremely erratic. In some cases the occurrence of important mineral supplies is so limited as to constitute natural national monopolies of that mineral.
Take the case of nickel-a highly important industrial metal. We find nickel1 only in Canada and in New Caledonia, but such a large share of the nickel resources lies in Canada that we practically have a national monopoly of that mineral. Chile had a monopoly on nitrate supplies until the discovery was made that nitrogen could be obtained from the air. Potash, another important mineral used as a fertilizer, occurs mainly in Germany and Alsace; asbestos in Canada and Rhodesia; mercury only in Spain, and so on.
When we come to coal supplies we find the conditions somewhat better, for nature has been more generous in distributing her coal resources over the face of the earth. Even in
this resource-one which is perhaps the most important of all mineral resources-we find this condition, namely, the United States with fifty per cent of the world supply, China with about thirteen per cent, Canada with about seventeen per cent and the whole of the rest of the world with the small balance remaining. We find also many countries, some of them highly developed industrially, with little or no coal resources at all. Norway, Sweden, Finland, several of the African and most of the South American countries have no coal resources at all and such countries as Italy, Spain -and other European countries are largely dependent upon outside sources of supply.
The result of this condition is that no country, with the exception of Great Britain and possibly Germany is wholly independent of foreign sources of coal supply. Even the United States with fifty per cent of the world supply imports a considerable quantity of coal from Canada into the northwestern states, and Australian coal is marketed in California. This condition, namely, the erratic distribution of coal fields is the root of the coal problem of Canada.
The question of how to overcome the irregular distribution of raw materials has been considered by the economists of many nations and has been raised and discussed by the League of Nations in Geneva. A committee of the league, after giving careful consideration to the various aspects of this situation, has come to the conclusion that the most feasible means of overcoming the disabilities under which various nations labour through lack of supplies of essential raw materials is by the ado'ption of complete free trade in all these materials. They recognize, however, the difficulties in the way of persuading all nations to adopt this policy, particularly those nations most favoured by nature with an abundance of these materials.
If we look at the coal situation of the world we find that three countries dominate the coal trade, namely, United States, Great Britain and Germany, because the great producing coalfields of the world are situated within their boundaries. They produce normally over 80 per cent of the total world production and, in addition to being the chief consuming countries, they are the countries having the largest exportable surplus. The chief deficit countries, on the other hand, are France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Spain and the Scandinivian countries on the east of the Atlantic; and Canada, Brazil, Argentine and other South American states on the other side. Of the exporting countries
National Coal Policy

Germany normally dominated the land trade of central Europe, while British coal controlled the maritime trade of the Atlantic, providing fuel for the countries- bordering the North Sea, Baltic, Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts of Spain and Prance. A small trade is done with the Sputh American countries. United States sends the major portion of her exportable surplus to Canada and the remainder goes to Central and South America and only a small portion crosses the Atlantic, mainly to Italy.
Such are the broad features of coal production and movement in the world. If we were to go into the question of the zones controlled by the different producing fields we would find that the controlling factors for each field are:
(1)	Geographical location,
(2)	Cost of production, and
(3)	Quality of coal.
Governed by these factors each field under normal conditions of trade has its own recognized and fairly well defined market and this market is determined not by proximity to the coal field, but primarily by the cost of transportation, and only to a minor extent by political boundaries. Por example, under present freight rates, it costs no more to carry coal three thousand miles across the Atlantic than it does to transport it two hundred miles by rail over here. This is what gives Great Britain, whose coalfields are only a few milea from the sea, so much wider range for her coals than the United States whose coalfields are two hundred to four hundred miles from the sea. Fluctuation in costs of production, changes in transportation rates, or industrial disturbances, will cause some shifting of the zones controlled by each field, as was the case when American coal went to Great Britain during the strike of 1921 and again during the recent strike in 1926; and when British coal came to the United States in 1922. But unless substantial tariffs are applied against certain coals, political boundaries do not affect the shifting of the market zones.
A study of the coal trade of the world indicates clearly that except as it may be affected to a limited degree by tariff barriers, coal from each field moves freely into definite markets which are determined primarily by the cost of transportation, to some extent by cost of mining and the quality of coal, but only slightly by political boundaries.
An appreciation of this fact makes it easy to understand why we are importing coal from a foreign country when we have an abundance of our own. It is one of the

consequences of the uneven distribution of the natural resources of the earth and of laying out political boundaries in defiance of natural conditions.
An inspection o-f the -tariffs of the three largest coal-producing countries of the world shows that they place coal in the duty-free list. In the case of Great Britain and Germany there is no import duty on coal, and in the United States coal is in the dutyfree list, but with a proviso that on coal coming from any country which levies a duty on United States coal an equal duty will be levied on coal imported into the United States from such country. For example, United States duty on Canadian coal is determined by the duty which Canada imposes on United States coal.
Although France is a deficit country as regards coal requirements there are in that country important coal mining industries. The French tariff of 1910, which is the basic tariff still in force, imposed a duty of 12 centimes per hundred kilogrammes on coal. With the exchange value of the franc at 19.3 cents Canadian money, which was its value in 1910, this was equivalent to about 25 cents Canadian money per metric ton of 2,240 pounds. The original rate of 12 centimes is now increased by a co-efficient of 1.7 making 20.4 centimes. With the franc at its present exchange value of four cents this is the equivalent of about eight cents per metric ton.
An instance of a high tariff on coal is found in Spain, a country whose coal requirements are not large. In the Spanish first tariff-higher tariff-there is a duty of 22.50 pesetas per metric ton on all grades of coal. The corresponding rate under the second tariff is 7.50 pesetas. These are gold pesetas. The equivalent in Canadian money per metric -ton would be about $4.35 first tariff, and $1.45 second tariff. There is a conventional rate to England of four pesetas per metric ton on pit coal, that is, about 73 cents.
Italy, a fairly large importer of coal, imposes no duty. In Canada we admit anthracite, lignite and coke free of duty. The general tariff on bituminous coal, all grades, imposes an import duty of 50 cents per net ton. On bituminous coal imported for the manufacture of coke by operators of by-product coke ovens, a rebate of 99 per cent of the duty is allowed. Under the provisions of the British preferential tariff bituminous coal coming to Canada direct from those British countries or possessions admitted to the benefit of the British

National Coal Policy
preferential tariff in Canada, is subject to an import duty of 35 cents per net ton. The intermediate tariff, which is a conventional tariff, provides for a duty of 45 cents per net ton on bituminous coal coming from countries to which the benefits of such intermediate tariff shall have been extended. Very little, if any, coal enters Canada under the provisions of this tariff.
A study of the underlying fundamentals of Canada's fuel problem takes us back a considerable number of years to the time when American anthracite was in the initial stages of being established as a staple household fuel in certain parts of Canada. A? far back as 1880 we find that Canada was importing half a million tons a year of this coal. Although it was probably not recognized at that time that the seeds of an acute fuel problem had been sown, subsequent events prove that such was the case. As our population increased, importations of American anthracite mto the cities and towns of central Canada had corresponding growth. The furnace equipment installed in the homes was adapted to the use of this coal, and considering the high degree of efficiency of anthracite as a household fuel, particularly when a better quality was coming into Canada than is the case to-day, it was only natural that the people using it became prejudiced in its favour. A large percentage of the population did so to the extent of believing it to be the only suitable fuel available for warming the home. The situation developed into one of dependency upon a single source of supply, and to accentuate the position this was a monopolistic source in a foreign country, although a very friendly one.
The coal strike in the United States coai fields in 1902-03 when supplies to Canada were interrupted was a serious warning to us of the precariousness of our fuel position. Then there were intermittent interruptions, though lesse serious, owing to freight embargoes and other transportation tie-ups in the United States, but it was the strike in the anthracite fields in 1922, synchronizing as it did with the railway shopmen's strike, that was the event that brought us to a true realization of our position. As an additional incentive for us to seek fuels that would replace American anthracite, unofficial intimation had been received from the United States Bureau of Mines that owing to the limited life of the Pennsylvania anthracite fields, Canada would have to work out her own solution for replacing the anthracite now imported from the United States. In recent years several bills have been introduced before the United States congress advocating an embargo on the export of anthracite to Canada. These did not pass, but they were an indication of growing uneasiness over the anthracite supplies in the United States.
Those were the events, in summary, which aroused publie attention to the extent of making the subject one of national interest and which prompted the government to institute action leading to a sustained effoi-t to satisfactorily solve this fuel problem.
We 'have also, in connection with our own coal mining industry, a number of problems relating to the industrial situation and to the distribution of Canadian coal. Some of these, however, are of local importance while others must be met and solved by the industry itself.
The coal industry of Vancouver island, for example, is faced with a problem brought about by the competition of cheap fuel oil from California, Mexico and Peru.
Alberta's problem is to extend her markets to absorb the production she is capable of making and so permit of more uniform production throughout the year. The capacity of her mines is estimated to be from ten to twelve million tons per year, while her present markets will absorb only about six million tons. It appears as if Alberta will have this problem with her always because of her enormous resources and the ease with which new mines can be opened. She will be constantly striving to secure new markets for the production she is capable of making unless steps are taken to prevent the opening up of new mines that are not necessary to supply existing demand. This is a problem arising out of a superabundance of coal resources. The provincial government has already met, with distinct success in extending the markets for Alberta coal.
In Saskatchewan there is the problem of the utilization of the great lignite beds.
In New Brunswick the industry is faced with a problem of how best to mine their thin seams and make the greatest possible recovery.
In Nova Scotia there are problems of markets, of submarine mining and of adjusting production to meet present and potential demands of our eastern provinces. These are some of the internal problems with which we are faced, and in striving for a solution we naturally look first to the underlying causes.
As a part of the process generally termed fluctuation in the realms of trade there is a constant succession of action and reaction. Periods of prosperity, with business expansion and rising prices, are followed by periods of depression with falling prices and deflation of
National Coal Policy

business. Abnormal demands for all sorts of manufactured goods arise at times, and manufacturing plants are enlarged to meet these peak conditions. Consequently when a reaction sets in and the demand falls off we have to face conditions of over production and the resultant unemployment in industrial areas.
The coal mining industry, as well as industries having to do with manufactured commodities, does not escape the penalties following conditions of over-production. In the case of our coal mining industries in Canada, however, over-development of the mines and capacity to produce far in excess of normal market requirements cannot in all respects be attributed to the rise and fall of the trade barometer.
In the case of Alberta the ease with which new mines can be opened has been one of the chief causes of over-development. An inspection of figures relating to the number of mines opened, and abandonments, will show that nearly two-thirds of the mines have been abandoned.
In the bituminous field over-development as regards number of mines is not so great, but the aggregate present capacity is about double the maximum output yet achieved. In this field there seems less danger in opening new mines because of the great expense involved.
In the sub-bituminous mines the number of operating units is likewise not great, and the rated capacity of these mines on the basis of 150 days operation per year does not show a very great excess over the output achieved, but on a full year of 300 days operation the output would, like that of the bituminous mines, be more than double.
In the lignite field, the over capacity of the present mines on a full year basis is between two and two and a half times the market requirements. It is in the lignite field that the over-development in numbers rather than in capacity is such a marked feature. Under the present system of marketing the lignite mines supplying the domestic trade are subject to sharp peaks of demand, and for a few weeks during the winter season work to capacity. This condition seems to be caused by the dealer and consumer buying only for immediate needs. Although such a system as this obviates the necessity for stocking coal and may be in itself an economical method of distribution, the apparent advantages are offset by too many disadvantages to the coal mining industry of the province.
In the case of Nova Scotia, over-capacity of the mines as relates to present market requirements is largely attributable to a set of unusual circumstances arising in connection

with the Great war. In the years 1912 and 1913 before the extra demands of the war had appeared Nova Scotia coal mines were producing from seven and three-quarter million to eight million tons of coal per annum. But in 1917 when there was a greatly increased demand for coal throughout the world, production in Nova Scotia had fallen off to about six and a half million tons. This was mainly due to labour shortage occasioned by the absence of so many miners who had enlisted for overseas service. Among these men were many skilled miners who occupied key positions in the mines and whose positions could not be filled. As a consequence of this and on account of ships being requisitioned for transatlantic service, a large part of the St. Lawrence trade was lost.
I w'ish to pass on now to what is the apparent cost of replacing United States coal, if I may do so without tiring the House. Over the years 1923-24-25 the average annual importations of American anthracite into the maritime provinces, the Quebec city district and Montreal district aggregated 1,276,425 tons. It is estimated that this imported coal could be replaced by British anthracite and coke manufactured from maritime province coals, provided that a market could be found for the surplus gas which is the most important by-product of the coking process. This replacement would absorb the surplus British anthracite accruing from our estimated importation of 600,000 tons, and would draw on maritime province coal production to the extent of 1,465,000 tons of coal.
Having regard to the normal consumption of maritime province coal, this extra tonnage for coking purposes would be applied to the surplus coming from the estimated 10,000,000 ton production. On this basis, therefore, and after dealing with the domestic requirements of the maritime provinces, Quebec city and Montreal districts, there would still be a surplus of 2,700,000 tons of maritime coal to be applied elsewhere.
Coking plants already in existence in Ontario and Quebec are importing about 1,500,000 tons annually of coking coal from the United States, and supplies to these plants would have to be allocated from the surplus of
2,700,000	tons of maritime coal, leaving 1,200,000 tons as a remainder.
Giving consideration to the fact that the extra production from the maritime province mines must necessarily be nearly all suitable for the manufacture of domestic coke, this remainder of 1,200,000 tons will be applied against replacement of some 200,000 tons of United States industrial coal imported into

National Coal Policy
the maritime provinces, 227,000 tons imported into the Quebec district and about 2,000,000 tons imported into the Montreal district. Together with 1,000,000 tons of British bituminous coal, the balance from the maritime provinces would fall short of filling these requirements by about 280,000 tons, which means that the discrepancy would have to be made up by bringing that amount of Alberta industrial coal to Montreal.
Now, the significance of this distribution of supplies is that, apart from the maritime province coals allocated to coking plants in Ontario, there would be no supplies of maritime coal available for the districts west of Montreal. It may be taken, therefore, that Alberta coal would be required for both domestic and industrial requirements in the area from Ottawa to the head of the lakes. In arriving at figures showing the cost of this replacement scheme, the calculation has been based upon a selling price of coke as 82 per ton less than that of anthracite, and also that notwithstanding an increase in the tariff to the point of excluding United States coals, the prices of Canadian coals in eastern Canada would not rise above normal market levels. Provided that such would be the case, the replacement of United States coal in the maritime provinces, the Quebec city district and Montreal district would effect a saving to the public of $1,300,000.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Whose
report is this?


Charles A. Stewart: It is a
report from the Fuel board.


George Reginald Geary: Are copies of the report
available?


Charles A. Stewart: I will have
copies of the report placed on the table for the information of members. I am not reading the report in its entirety because it is somewhat lengthy.


George Reginald Geary: I thought you were reading it all.


Charles A. Stewart: The whole
report will be made available to members; I will table it.
The Toronto district, on the other hand, which would require 2,348,000 tons of Alberta domestic coal, and 4,176,000 tons of Alberta industrial coal, would show an extra cost to the public of $25,300,000. Extra cost to the public would likewise result in the other districts comprised of Ottawa, Kingston, North Bay, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and head of the lakes the aggregate of the extra cost amounting to $32,000,000. Summing up the
total cost of replacement, the net result is an annual extra cost to the public of $56,000,000. There would also be an annual loss in customs revenue amounting to $7,000,000. While this would be a high price indeed to levy on the coal-consuming public, let us consider what would be the advantages by way of compensation.
It is easy to appreciate the advantages that would be derived from a complete rehabilitation of the coal mining industry in the maritime provinces. The greatly increased production which would probably result in the mines working to capacity throughout the year would be of utmost importance to the industry, and indeed to the other lines of trade in those provinces. Increased demands of the St. Lawrence markets, particularly for coking coals, would remove many of the contentious issues that are now connected with banking and disposal of slack coal. A plan which would make it practicable to mine and bank coal in the winter for transportation by water during the season of navigation would be the means of overcoming the problem of unemployment during the winter months, and a difficulty in the Nova Scotia fields is to keep winter employment regular.
The advantages to the coal mining industry in the maritimes could be summed up under the statement that there would not only be a complete rehabilitation of the industry in those provinces, but it would probably enjoy a prosperity greater than has been the case in its history. The coal mining industry in Alberta would likewise benefit. The mines producing domestic coal would send down to Ontario nearly three and a half million tons annually, which would represent an increase of about one hundred per cent in the present combined production of the lignite and sub-bituminous mines. The bituminous coal fields would send down about ten million tons which would represent an output nearly three times that of the highest yearly total yet achieved. As the rated capacity of the Alberta bituminous mines is about double the present output, this greatly increased demand would probably necessitate the opening of new bituminous mines.
Unemployment periods in Alberta coal fields are perhaps subject to as much if not mors frequency than is the case in the maritimes. The great number of mines in operation and peak demands for coal are the very essence of unemployment periods, as well as tending to high cost of production. While it is recognized that there would be difficulties connected with the steady transportation of coal over the long haul to Ontario throughout all seasons
National Coal Policy

of the year, the stimulus to conditions in Alberta should put the industry on a well sustained basis.
Then there is consideration of the advantage to be derived from the annual diversion of some $75,000,000 or $80,000,000 from United States to Canadian channels of trade, the advantage being in connection with keeping this money in circulation within our own country rather than sending it abroad. Also, we have frequently heard expression of advantages that would accrue from the transfer of the source of supply of a large part of our coal requirements, from the United States to our own coal resources within the Dominion. The contention has been that such a procedure would remove our dependency upon neighbourly goodwill and the uncertainty of industrial peace in the United States coal fields. While in itself this would appear to be a desirable condition, another view can be taken of the situation; one that has to do with the conservation of our natural resources. Even allowing for the immensity of our coal resources, we are perhaps a little prone to measure the value of such things in terms of our own lifetime. Recent developments in low temperature carbonization processes indicate immense possibilities for the utilization of coal in the recovery of motor fuels and oils. In the face of the enormous and increasing consumption of petroleum products together with the rapid exploitation of the world's known oil reserves, the day when we shall turn to coal to supply our oil requirements may be nearer at hand than is readily appreciated. In the meanwhile Canada is not dependent upon the United States nor upon any other country as regards actual coal supplies. Our importations of coal are for economic reasons.
Probably the greatest disadvantage that would result from the institution of this replacement policy would be the annual levy of some fifty-six million dollars owing to increased price of coal to the consuming areas in central Canada. First of all we must consider what amount the tariff must be raised in order to exclude United States coal. It has been demonstrated that Ontario would have to bring coal from Alberta, and that the cost of industrial coal from Alberta would be $10.75 or $11 per ton laid down in Ontario, as against $5 to $7 American coal, and the bulk of the sales of American coal are closer to the $5 figure. The import duty on industrial coal, therefore, would have to be raised to approximately $6 per ton. The lowest effective duty on foreign anthracite and coke would probably have to be finally determined by

experiment stages. Based on the freight rate mentioned, I may say that I did not include that freight rate. This calculation is based on a $7 freight rate from Alberta. The information will, however, appear in the report; I was unable to take the time to incorporate it in my statement to-day.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I suppose you are coming to the end of the report.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are the possibilities of
peat available for supplying the needs of the central provinces taken into consideration?
M,r. STEWART (Edmonton): The report takes into consideration all sources of supplies.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much is available for sale in Ontario?


Charles A. Stewart: Not more
than 25,000 tons at any time.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is there anything in
the report to show the importations of coal from the maritime provinces by the central provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: I think all such matters are dealt with in the report, as well as the exportations to the United States. Based on the freight rate mentioned-and the price mentioned1 was $7 a ton-Alberta domestic coals could be laid down in Ontario at a cost lower than that of American anthracite, but taking the factors of heating efficiency of the two fuels into account, as well as those of storage, the price at which the Alberta product would permanently hold the market could only be determined by actual demonstration. In the case of coals for coking purposes, there are also various factors to consider. The situation is complicated owing to the varying distances of our Ontario coke plants from the Nova Scotia coal fields and the requisites necessary in coals for the manufacture of domestic coke. To exclude American coals for this purpose, the duty would probably amount to at least $2.50 per ton. Take the effect of this increase of duty on industrial coal. It would immediately place the maritime province coal operators in a monopolistic position and enable them to fix a price, practically double the present price, which they would be in a position to demand and which the consumers in central Canada would have no alternative but to pay. They could also adjust their prices in the maritimes to the new market conditions and thus impose an increase in the annual fuel bill to the people of those provinces.

Private Bills


Edward Joseph Garland: I suggest
there is a contradiction in the report. In a previous part of the report it was stated quite clearly the price would not be raised by virtue of the imposition of a protective tariff. Now it is alleged that there is a provision by which the price would be doubled.


Charles A. Stewart: There must be some mistake. I did not so read the report. The fact that if a duty was imposed, the price would be increased has, I think, been made apparent throughout the whole report.
The major portion of the burden of the price increase on industrial coal would fall on the railways. The Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways are together using about 3,800,000 tons of United States coal per year, most of which is consumed on locomotives operating in central Canada.
The steel industry in Canada has to meet severe competition from other countries. A higher cost of coal or its derivative coke, would tend to increase the difficulties of meeting this competition in the case of steel companies who are not proprietors of coal supplies.
Generally, the increased cost of industrial coal would increase cost of production of manufactured goods wherein coal is used in the manufacturing process. This would probably be productive of a movement for more protection for the manufacturing industries, and hence a cycle of tariff revision.
In seeking remedial measures for the domestic fuel situation, the Dominion fuel board has encouraged the introduction of a variety of competitive fuels for supplying the needs of central Canada, the object being to secure a surety of supply at reasonable prices. In these coalless areas of central Canada, the only natural fuel, apart from the wood fuel resources, is found in the peat bogs. These peat areas are very extensive and although the use of peat has not achieved much commercial success up to the present time, the fuel board is convinced of the future importance of this fuel as a substitute for coal during the fall and spring months, but the board does not recommend it as a substitute for coal during the severe winter months.
With the permission of the House I will lay on the table a copy of this report, which is very comprehensive, covering the fuel situation in Canada. It does not advocate the imposition of a duty. It does not advocate the payment of bounties or subsidies to the railways. It recommends simply the development of a reasonably national policy. The report goes on to show that we have in a very large way reduced importations! from outside and foreign fields for our coal supply. For example, in 1923 we were importing 5,000,000 tons of anthracite. In 1925 we imported just about 3,000,000 tons or a reduction of 2,000,000 tons. Therefore I say 'that we are in a very large way rapidly developing a national coal policy in Canada.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 17, 1927