1931-07-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) presented the second and final report of the select standing committee on privileges and elections, as follows:
Your committee have had before them an order of reference of the house under date of June 4, 1931, namely:
"That all correspondence and other communications in the possession of the government relating to the preparation of the voters' list for the municipality of Port McNicoll, in the riding of East Simeoe, and a copy of the original list prepared by the enumerator, and of the revised list as prepared by him for use on election day, together with a copy of any communications exchanged between the chief electoral officer and the returning officer or any other person as to the conduct of the poll on election day, laid on the table of the house 22110-2431
on Wednesday, the 27th of May, 1931, be referred to the select standing committee on privileges and elections with instructions to inquire fully into the registration and polling of the votes or other related matter in connection with the election in the electoral division of East Simeoe, on July 28, 1930."
Your committee have inquired into the matters referred to them under the terms of the above reference and have held five meetings in the course of which they have heard twelve witnesses. After having perused the evidence adduced before them, your committee beg leave to report as follows:
That in the opinion of the committee, having regard to the fact that it is the intention of the Dominion Elections Act to enfranchise as many voters as possible under the residence provisions if they have the other qualifications, those in situations similar to that of Messrs. Chidwick and Campbell, should have been entitled to vote.
Your committee therefore recommend that the necessary amendments be made to the Dominion Elections Act to enable persons similarly situated to vote at future Dominion elections.
Your committee also recommend that the proceedings and evidence, a copy of which is submitted herewith for the information of parliament, be printed as an appendix to the journals of the house for the present session.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln) presented the third and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping, as follows:
Your committee, to whom was referred for consideration and for report to the house the estimates on the Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, the Canadian National (West Indies) Services, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act requirements, held thirteen meetings in the course of which they examined sundry witnesses, including:
Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., chairman of the Imard and president, Canadian National Railways;
V. I. Smart. Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals:
J. E. Labelle, director, Canadian National Railways;
S. J. Hungerford. vice-president, operation and construction departments, Canadian National Railways;
D. C. Grant, vice-president, finance department.. Canadian National Railways;
R. C. Vaughan, vice-president, purchases and stores department, Canadian National Railways ;
R.	L. Burnap, vice-president, traffic department, Canadian National Railways;
D. E. Galloway, assistant vice-president, Canadian National Railways;
S.	W. Kairweather, director, bureau of economics, Canadian National Railways;
J. B. McLaren, comptroller, Canadian National Railways;
T.	H. Cooper, assistant comptroller, Canadian National Railways;
C. B. Brown, chief engineer of operation, Canadian National Railways;
[Stage Direction]
Railways and Shipping Report
C. S. Gzowski, chief engineer of construction, Canadian National Railways;
Dr. W. J. Black, director of colonization, Canadian National Railways;
B. J. Roberts, comptroller of government guarantee branch. Department of Finance;
R. B. Teakle, vice-president, Canadian National Steamships;
A. H. Allan, general manager, Canadian National Steamships.
Canadian National Railways Bill 79
Your committee have had under consideration Bill 79. "An act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931" amounting to $68,500,000 and have agreed to report the same without amendment.
Bill 83
Your committee have also had under consideration Bill 83, "An act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1931" and beg leave to report the same without amendment.
The committee have considered the general report of last year's operations of the railway made by Sir Henry Thornton as president of the company and chairman of the board of directors and were partioidarly interested in his expressed intention to reduce the expenditures on capital account and wherever possible «n operation and maintenance. Yout committee heartily approve of such proposed action and recommend that for the present projects entailing capital expenditure be curtailed as far as possible.
Your committee desire to call the attention of the bouse to the proposal made by Sir Henry Thornton at one of the sessions of the committee. He referred to the serious position of the transportation business generally and recommended that a commission be appointed for the purpose of considering the whole question of Canadian transportation. Your committee regard such a recommendation coming from such a source at this time as worthy of the serious consideration of the government.
Canadian Government Merchant Marine
Your committee have had under consideration item 379 of the estimate's-loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, to be applied in payment of deficits in operation of the company and of the vessels under the company's control during the year ending December 31, 1931, amounting in all to $588,500.
Your committee also reviewed the balance sheet of the company and are of the opinion that the amount of $588,500 included under item 379 of the estimates, is required for the purposes of the company and should be granted by this house.
Your committee believe that the time has come when the government should very carefully consider the abandonment of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and the making of arrangements with other shipping companies so that the external trade of Canada will not be jeopardized. In this respect we wish to point out that the total original cost of this
(Mr. Chaplin.]
enterprise which was undertaken solely as a result of the exigencies of the war was approximately $80,000,000.
After almost ten years of operation there has not been a single year in which an operating profit has been shown by the merchant marine.
Throughout the whole period, a deficit of over $57,000,000 has accumulated, including depreciation on ships sold and interest due the government, but does not include accrued depreciation on vessels remaining in the fleet, which depreciation amounts to more than $17,000,000 in addition. Your committee has been informed that the ships are for the most part obsolete and only part of the fleet is now in operation.
Canadian National (West Indies) Services
Your committee have had under consideration item 380, loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, whose steamships provide the services called for by the West Indies Trade Agreement.
Your committee note that the operations for the year ending December 31, 1930, resulted in an operating loss of $523,136.98, which is partly offset by the fact that previously a subsidy equial to $380,000 per annum was paid to a private company by the Dominion government for a similar service.
Your committee further believe that the steamship service established on the Pacific coast and known as the Triangular Service between Vancouver, Seattle, and Victoria should not have been established as it does not earn its operating expenses. We, therefore, recommend that serious consideration be given to immediate action looking toward the elimination of this loss.
Maritime Freight Rates Act
Your committee have also had under consideration item 382 of the estimates, to provide for the payment to the Canadian National Railway Company as required by the Maritime Freight Rates Act, of the deficit incurred during 1931 on eastern lines, the amount of the estimated deficit being $6,631,856, and in addition the sum of $2,450,632, representing the estimated amount by which the revenues of the eastern lines will be lessened during the coming year by the reduced rates granted under the Maritime Freight Rates Act in accordance with the recommendations of the Duncan commission.
By reason of the special consideration involved in the maritime railway situation, with which the house is familiar, your committee are of the opinion that these amounts are necessary to give effect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act in the operation of the eastern lines.
Your committee have -also had under consideration item 381, to provide the sum of $900,000 from which privately owned railways operating in territory eoveTed by the Maritime Freight Rates Act shall be reimbursed the difference between normal tolls and special tolls provided by that act. Your committee are of the opinion that this amount is necessary to implement the provisions of the act in that regard and should be granted by this house.
Certain questions relating to the salaries and emoluments paid to executive officers of the company were asked by members of the committee. and were by resolution of the committee submitted to a sub-committee for consideration. The report of the sub-committee has been re-

3S25
Railways and Shipping Report
ceived accompanied by a statement from the president of all salaries of $15,000 per annum and over, together with the names of the officials receiving them. The president, Sir Henry Thornton, has expressed the opinion that it is not in the best interests of the railway that the list of such salaries and the names of the recipients be published.
Your committee, while of opinion that many of the salaries are much too generous, and in some instances excessive, accede to the expressed wish of the president that the list be not published for the reasons given by him.
Your committee, however, are of opinion that the salary of the president stands on a different footing as he 'has a term contract calling for the payment of $75,000 per annum from the National Railways and all its subsidiaries, besides legitimate out of pocket expenses, which wras negotiated by the previous government and approved by order in council. Therefore, to all intents and purposes the salary of the president is a matter of contract with the Dominion of Canada and is a public document.
Your committee also are informed that in addition to the contractual salary of the president above referred to, he is, with the approval of the former board of directors, in receipt of other substantial amounts in the form of salary and emoluments, which he receives in addition to his contractual salary.
It has also come to the knowledge of your committee that the late board of directors in the year 1929 passed a resolution recommending the payment of an annuity of $30,000 per annum for life to Sir Henry Thornton, if his services to the railway Should at any time be terminated. Your committee are of opinion that such resolution was unnecessary and should be rescinded forthwith. If later on the services of Sir Henry Thornton are discontinued and his contract terminated, the matter of a retiring allowance may then be discussed on its merits, by the directors and the government.
In view of the decreased revenues of the company, and the economies being made in other branches of the service, your committee are of the opinion that the executive committee of the board of directors should immediately consider the whole question of salaries, allowances, disbursements, pensions and retirement previsions for executive officers and officials of the company, receiving salaries of $5,000 and over in order that every reasonable and proper economy should be effected.	#
Your committee recommend thiat immediate action be taken in these matters and a report be made to the select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, at the next session of parliament.
Your committee strongly condemn the practice which has grown up under which the National railways are chargeable with large amounts for payment for the social entertainment and other activities of officials on other than official business. Your committee recommend that this practice should be discontinued forthwith. Expenditures for such purposes are in the opinion of your committee, wrong in principle and practice, and should never have been permitted.
When it is necessary in the interest of the business of the railway that moneys should be expended chargeable to the railway for entertainment, then it should be approved by the executive committee.
In reporting the result of the conferences of the committee with the president and officials of the railway, your committee would draw the attention of parliament to the magnitude of the task wdiieh was referred to them by the house. In the opinion of your committee, it is a practical impossibility to conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the affairs and management of the Canadian National Railways and Mercantile Marine within the time at the disposal of the committee. The result of the partial investigation conducted by the committee is by no means adequate, complete or satisfactory. Full justice cannot he done in respect, of an undertaking of so great magnitude without much greater time than the committee had at their disposal. The committee desire to emphasize this phase of the matter to the house, and recommend that in order that the operations of the company be fully scrutinized, a thorough audit by an independent auditor, appointed by the government, should be made from time to time of all such matters and accounts as may be designated by the minister.' and reported to him.	-
Your committee are glad to record that all the members present as hereinafter stated are unanimous in the foregoing report, namely:
Hon. R. J. Manion, Minister of Railways and Canals, Hon. J. D. Chaplin, chairman. I [on. Robert Rogers, Hon. W. D. Euler; and Messrs; Beaubien, Bell (St. Antoine), Botliwell, Cantley, Duff. Edset (Sir Eugene), Fraser (Cariboo), Gobeil, Gray, Hanbury, Hanson (York-Sun-bury), Heaps, Kennedy (Peace River), Mc-Gibbon, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Power, and Stewart (Lethbridge).
Your committee append hereto a copy of the proceedings and evidence adduced before your committee, for the information of the house and recommend that the same, together with this report be printed as an appendix to the journals of the house.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I was surprised to read in this morning's press the report of the special committee on railways and shipping. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some explanation of the matter.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Like the right hon. gentleman
opposite, I was greatly surprised to see the report published in the newspapers. I know nothing about the matter but I have asked that inquiries be made as to who is responsible for the publication of the document before it was laid before parliament. I am greatly annoyed that it should have happened. It is a reflection upon parliament, is an improper thing to have done, and whoever is responsible for the information having been given to the press is guilty of a gross error so far as the house is concerned.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: If any error has been
committed I must say to the house that I must take the responsibility myself. Unfortunately I gave to one of the press men a copy on the understanding that the report had not been presented to the house and that
3S21
Australian Trade Agreement

no use was to be made of it until it had been presented. I regret if any error had been committed, and 1 only and solely am to blame, and no other member of the committee.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Good sport.



SERVICE LOAN AND FINANCE CORPORATION

Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: I move, seconded by Mr. MacNicol, that Bill No. 118, Letter LI of the Senate, to incorporate Service Loan and Finance Corporation, the preamble of which has been returned as not proven, be placed on the order paper for consideration at the next sitting of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: The hon. member ought to give some reason for his motion.


James Earl Lawson: This is a private bill
which I undertook to sponsor, and having been engaged on another committee I was unable to be present when the bill came before the banking and commerce committee yesterday. I felt that it had not been presented to that *committee in the light in which I should like to have had it presented, and I make this motion merely in order that I may have an [DOT]opportunity to present the bill properly to the committee. If, when the bill is presented to the committee, the committee sees fit to withhold its support or still to regard the preamble as not proven, that will be the end of the matter.


William Irvine: May I point out that although the hon. member was not present in the committee, the company concerned was represented by learned counsel. The object of the bill was fully explained and the members of the committee present did not feel like supporting it. I do not believe that any explanation which the hon. member could give regarding the meaning of the provisions of this bill would differently impress the committee if composed of the same members who were then present. I do not think it is good parliamentary procedure to upset the actions of that committee, nor do I think the committee should be asked to go all over the matter again, especially when we are so near the end of the session.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Under standing order 111, the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) is within his rights in offering the resolution. Is the house ready for the question? All those in favour of the resolution will say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Opposed, nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


William Irvine: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the ayes
have it. The resolution is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 123, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia.
He said: The items that affect the Australian agreement having been passed in committee yesterday, perhaps it will be in order to introduce the bill and move its first reading. It is not proposed to go further than the first reading this afternoon, but we can advance it that stage.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the Prime
Minister give a word of explanation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
asks whether I propose to make an explanation at this point. I had not intended doing so, the idea being merely to advance it one stage. The resolutions, although passed, have not been formally adopted. We can advance the bill so far and on the second reading I shall make, not an extended but an adequate explanation of its provisions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
right hon. friend will tell us whether the bill which is now being introduced is in the nature of a short measure simply approving the agreement in its entirety.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill which is now
introduced is for the purpose of confirming and validating the agreement, making it part of the law of the country, and providing that it shall not come into force until proclamation is made to that effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreement is a schedule to the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The agreement is a
schedule to the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Rebecca Jacobs Wiseblatt.-Mr. Heaps.

Questions
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Ada Jane Woodhams Bush.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Marie Rose Agnes Belanger Gauron.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine) .
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Minnie Fagan Rabinovitch.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Annie Bick Barder.-Mr. Heaps.
On division.

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

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	In how many cases where the veterans' tribunal has recommended a pension to returned men has its decision been reversed by the pension board?
2.	What number for each province to date?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	The Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada (pension board) is not empowered to reverse a decision of the pension tribunal, nor does the pension tribunal make recommendations; it renders decisions, subject to appeal to the pension appeal court. The number of cases in which a decision of the pension tribunal granting a pension to an applicant has been reversed by the pension appeal court is 196, to the 14th of July, 1931.
2.
Nova Scotia	 13
New Brunswick	 7
Prince Edward	Island	 1
Quebec	 15
Ontario	 53
Manitoba	 19
Saskatchewan	 23
Alberta	 38
British Columbia	 27
Total	196


RURAL MAIL SERVICE-SAINT PAUL, MONTMAGNF
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What are the reasons for delaying the establishing of the rural mail service in the parish of St. Paul, county of Montmagny?
2.	How many boxes are required by the department before the service is started?
3.	How many boxes have been bought to date by those interested?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	A sufficient number of boxes have not been purchased to warrant department inaugurating the route.
2.	90.
3.	67.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-RETIREMENTS
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	How many employees of the Department of the Interior, who were above grade 4, have been given notice of retirement during the past three months and have not been taken into the employ of one of the western provinces nor subsequently been given employment of a permanent nature by the Dominion government in another position?
2.	What was the total yearly salary of these people at the date of their retirement?
3.	What is the total yearly superannuation of these people?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	123.
2.	$350,864.
3.	$149,912.50.
Note-In addition to the above there were sixteen contributors to the superannuation fund with less than ten years' service whose total salaries were $34,800, and who will receive gratuities amounting to $12,318.33. Also twelve contributors to the retirement fund whose total salaries were $33,045, and who will be refunded their contributions to that fund plus interest.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-PATROL BOATS
Mr. RALSTON:: What is the contract price being paid by the Department of National Revenue for each of two patrol boats for customs excise preventive service, one of which is being built by Manseau shipyards, Sorel, Quebec, and the other by Ditehburn Company, Gravenhurst, Ontario ?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: One hundred and two
thousand dollars each, $102,000.


RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was the proposal to build a new railway station at Riviere du Loup put before council?
2.	If so, at what date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it has been held that this is an improper question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question being
improper, it will be expunged from the order paper.
Question dropped.
Old Age Pensions Act



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DORION:: 1.	How much money was expended to relieve unemployment in the county of Quebec-Mont-morency ?
2.	How much for direct relief?
3.	How many man's days' work were provided ?
4.	How many families were granted relief thereby ?
5.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings carried out in the above county ?


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. SULLIVAN:: 1. How many men were employed by the Montreal harbour commisioners previous to July 28, 1930?
2.	How many men are now employed, and where do they live?
3.	How many men have been dismissed from the Montreal harbour commission since July 28, 1930: (a) and what were their names and addresses; (b) why were they dismissed?
4.	Were any permanent employees appointed by the Department of Public Works in the district of Montreal from 1926 to 1931, if so, how many were at the time of appointment over 35 years of age and not returned soldiers?
5.	Have any employees, not residents of the district of Montreal, been appointed to permanent positions at Montreal under the control of the federal government in the following departments: (a) National Revenue; (b) Public Works; (c) Post Office?
6.	Are there any positions in the federal government service in the different federal departments at Montreal not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. CAHAN:: I objected to clause 5 of
this question and the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan) agreed that the following words should be added: "since July 28, 1930."



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Old Age Pensions Act by increasing the amount of the payment to the provinces for old age pensions from one-half to seventy-five per cent of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions, and to provide for the examination and audit of expenditure in the province and the accounts relating thereto.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

RELIEF FOR THE WEST On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) which arises out of a telegram which I have received from Gravel'bourg, Saskatchewan. It is dated July 15 and reads as follows:
No hay or fodder available in the prairie provinces this year to supply needs. Suggest that federal government enter into agreement with provincial government granting free freight on fodder from Ontario and Quebec provinces.
Rural Municipality of Gravelbourg.
I know of one municipality having to import during June thirty carloads of hay in order to keep the stock alive. This was necessary during a season of the year when pastur-[DOT]age is ordinarily at the best, and I would ask the Prime Minister to have this matter looked into with a view to taking steps along the lines suggested.
Right Hon, R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, we have been advised that there has been a considerable improvement in this section of Saskatchewan by reason of recent rains, and that green feed possibly may be available because of that fact. I assure the hon. gentleman and the house that any proposals which may be made in that regard by the competent authority, namely, the province of Saskatchewan, will receive the most sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) asked a question yesterday in connection with the progress of the work at Churchill, and the possibility of shipping grain this season out of that port. I promised the hon. member that I would make a statement to-day.
I stated then, and I repeat now, that the work of developing the port is ahead of schedule, and there is no doubt but that by September 15, the date upon which the elevator is to be finished under the terms of the contract signed by the late minister, the elevator will be available. My officials state that the four-year construction program of the late government contemplated a test of facilities this coming autumn, and the completion of the port during the season of 1932.
As the responsible minister, I have taken every opportunity to press forward the work

Hudson Bay Railway
and we have reached the point where, barring accident, we will be in a position to handle sufficient grain out of Churchill between September 15 this year and the close of navigation to demonstrate the feasibility of the project.
There has been discussion in the press of western Canada as to the quantity of grain that should be handled in this test movement. I have made careful inquiry of my departmental officials, and the records have also been searched, and I am unable to find any statement as to quantity of grain to be moved in connection with the proposed test of terminal facilities. I am advised toy officials of the department who 'have been constantly in touch with the matter that, in view of the necessity as far as possible to avoid interference with the dredging and construction program, it was never contemplated that more than two or three cargoes should be attempted in this test movement. Pending organization of the port next season any grain moving for export through Churchill this fall will have certain advantages, as no elevator or storage charges, port charges, or pilotage fees will be exacted. Partly due to this it appears probable, from investigations by the department, that grain may be shipped via Hudson bay this season, notwithstanding relatively high insurance rates, as cheaply as it can be shipped to Europe through present recognized channels. On this basis, the department has endeavoured to interest the western grain trade in the proposed movement, so far without success, due probably to the demoralized state of the grain trade owing to world conditions.
The position of the matter at present, therefore, is this: the government has fulfilled the implied obligation of its predecessors and will have the terminal facilities at Churchill available on September 15 as planned. The railway, the dock, the elevator, and the necessary aids to navigation have been provided. Vessels will not proceed to Churchill to load unless grain is sold abroad for delivery via that port. The matter is thus in the hands of the grain exporters. It is no part of the business of the government to undertake the purchase and sale of grain for movement via Churchill, any more than for movement via any other Canadian port. If the test movement is to take place, the responsibility is therefore on the grain dealers of western Canada. The facilities will be available and if the grain interests are not in a position to take advantage of the opportunity to give them a practical test after September 15, it will be necessary to postpone the handling of grain through Churchill until the formal completion of work next year.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter I would direct the attention of the house to the following, which appeared in a western paper under date of July 9:
Vo official announcement has yet been made as to the terms under which the test shipments carrying between 500,000 and 750,000 bushels of wheat will be made.
The understanding is, however, that because of the route being new, the insurance rates consequently high, and the trips being of a special nature, as far as the ships participating are concerned, the charges per bushel in the ordinary course would be somewhat higher than via Montreal.
I have received a communication from the St. Boniface young men's board of trade under date of July 11, which reads in part as follows:
The Leader-Post from Regina states that it is expected that the government will assume this extra cost. We are not satisfied to guess on a question of such importance and would be glad if you would ask the Miister of Railways and Canals to give a definite statement as to whether the government will or will not absorb this extra cost.
This letter refers to the newspaper article I have just read. Can the minister give the house any information in this connection?


Robert James Manion: I think the statement I have given to the house will cover pretty well the question of extra cost. This will be absorbed by the absence of elevator and pilotage charges which will not be charged this year upon the test movements of grain. I think my statement covers pretty well the question asked by the hon. member.


William Richard Motherwell: Notwithstanding the likelihood of certain charges being eliminated as an offset to high insurance rates on grain, unless the government takes the initiative to see that a trial shipment is made through somebody, no shipment will be made at all, because nobody will take a chance in regard to the matter without some assurance as to the relative cost.


Robert James Manion: We have already inquired of some large interests in the grain trade and we have not succeeded in getting them interested in taking grain that way, even at a rate, insurance and everything else covered, equal to the through rate from other portions of the western country to Europe. We have made some efforts in that regard.


William Richard Motherwell: As far as I understand the insurance rates, they will block any shipment going that way.


Robert James Manion: Only if it happens that
they make the rates higher than those through other channels. It depends on the through rate, which way the grain goes.
3S28
Australian Trade Agreement



DOCTOR LYLE TELFORD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) which appears on page 3673 of Hansard, is that no action has been taken by the department or by anyone else on behalf of the department to prevent Doctor Telford from broadcasting over the radio in Vancouver, British Columbia.



GASOLINE DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In the morning papers a news item appears with the following heading:
Announcement of new duties on refined gasoline was made yesterday.
What new duties are referred to there?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am sorry that at the moment I cannot answer the hon. gentleman, but I shall make inquiries and refer to the matter again.



AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps with the consent of the house I may be permitted to lay on the table-I should have d|one so undeT
motions-certain added information for the benefit of members who are interested in the Australian trade agreement. This gives the rates and comparisons regarding, not all the items but such items as perhaps we are likely to do business in as coming under the British preferential rates, and not included in the schedule or the statement which was supplied the other day.


Mr. NEILL:: Will that appear in the votes and proceedings?


Henry Herbert Stevens: With the consent of the house I suggest that that should be done.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Customs tariff-586. Coal, anthracite, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 40 cents; general tariff, 40 cents.
Customs tariff-588a. Coal, n.o.p., including screenings, and coal dust of all kinds, por ton; British preferential tariff, 35 cents; intermediate tariff, 75 cents; general tariff, 75 cents.
Customs tariff-588b. Coal, lignite: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yesterday evening the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) asked for certain information regarding importations of anthracite coal by provinces. The bureau of statistics has not that information as yet, but I have secured it from the Customs department with, I think, approximate correctness. It may have to be verified, but in general it may be taken as being accurate. The statement is as fallows:

Statement showing the imports by countries of anthracite coal entered for consumption in each province of Canada during the fiscal year ended March 31st, 1931
Province	Great Britain	United States	French East Indies	Germany	Russia	Tons	Value	Tons	Value	Tons	Value	Tons	Value	Tons	Value$	$	s	$	$34 435	284 674	24,489	226,561	14,340	95,13545 59,8	246,464 4 758	34,575 7 Q74	308,470 58 866	17,744	116,134
836,693	5,123,055	683,674 1,973,552	4,530,192 14,949,251			11,480	58,542	252,187	1,649,353
										
			7 277	68,559						
			320	3,947						
			1	10	1,122	5,481				
										
Totals		918,252	5,658,951	2,731,862	20,145,856	1,122	5,481	11,480	58,542	284,271	1,860,622

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
In regard to the importation from Great Britain, the tonnage entering Nova Scotia is some 11,000 tons less than that entering New Brunswick, but there is a difference in value, the value of that entering Nova Scotia being some $30,000 greater than the value of that entering New Brunswick. This is apparently due to the quality of the coal.
It will be noted that according to the statement Quebec is the only province importing coal from Germany, while Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec are the only ones importing coal from the Soviet republic.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I want to thank the finance minister for producing those figures for me. I did not expect to get them so quickly, Mr. Chairman, and so in the meantime I did some figuring myself, and I do not think that my figures are very far out.
The finance minister informed the committee last night that the total amount of anthracite coal imported into this Dominion last year from the United States was 2,748,000 tons approximately. In order to arrive at some conclusion as to the amount that would go into the province of Ontario, and that is what I am more vitally interested in, I figured that 70 per cent of the total importations of anthracite coal from the United States last year found a market in the province of Ontario, and from the figures just given by the Minister of Finance I do not think I am very far out. Seventy per cent of 2,748,000 tons gives us the amount approximately of 1,950,000 tons of American anthracite which found a market in Ontario last year. If I am very far out one way or the other I hope the Minister of Finance will correct me, but I believe those figures are approximately correct. Now the duty of 40 cents a ton on the importation of 2,748,000 tons last year would bring in a revenue of SI,-
100,000	approximately, and taking 70 per cent of that we find that the people of the province of Ontario will have to pay in duty on coal, based on last year's importation, approximately $790,000. Again, if I am wrong in these figures, I hope the Minister of Finance will correct me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman would be wrong, would he not? Forty cents on 1,973,000 tons would hardly give the figure he mentioned, and 70 per cent of that would give a much lesser sum than he mentioned.


Frederick George Sanderson: For the sake of
argument I think I would be safe in calling

it three-quarters of a million dollars, $750,000. I do not think that would be very far out. In the province of Ontario and especially in the western part of the province, the fuel question is a very vital one. We are absolutely dependent upon fuel that has to be transported a long way to reach our market, and the supply from the United States, whether we like it or not, is the nearest to the market, and consequently transportation charges on American anthracite coming into Ontario are less than the transportation charges would be on coal from either eastern Canada or western Canada. As to the quality of the coal, I shall have something to say in a few minutes. So far as assistance to the coal industry is concerned, both in the eastern part of Canada and in the west, I think I am voicing the almost unanimous opinion of the people of western Ontario when I say that they are perfectly willing in any way possible to assist the coal industry in both the east and the west of this country. I find no fault with subsidies or bonuses or subventions or other assistance that can be given to the coal industry of both eastern and western Canada, but when, on top of such assistance, you impose a duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal, which burden is borne largely by the people of the province of Ontario, as the figures I have given show, it is piling on generosity a little too much.
I have not yet heard any explanation from the Minister of Finance why he imposed this 40 cents a ton duty. The finance minister has been very candid and frank in his explanations on all the other tariff items. Some of them I did not agree with, but I give the Minister of Finance credit for candour and frankness. To the best of my recollection he has not touched on this duty on anthracite coal. Although last night he did deliver a very instructive address to the committee on the coal industry, I do not think he referred to anthracite coal at all, and I should be very glad if, when I finish my remarks, he would give an explanation of just what reason he had for imposing this duty. He has already told the committee on several occasions of being interviewed by different people who. were asking for tariff increases on different commodities. He told the committee, for instance, about the interview' he had with an American citizen with regard to the silk industry. He also told the committee about an interview that he had with a gentleman from Montreal with regard to the safety pin industry, and with respect to those duties he was quite frank and gave the reasons for
3S3I

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
coming to his conclusions. I would be glad if he would tell the committee who interviewed him with respect to this duty on coal, and what were the arguments they advanced for imposing this duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) in his remarks last night referred, of course, to the coal industry in his own province, as did also the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald), and I find no fault with them at all in doing everything they can within reason to stimulate and develop the coal industry in their province. But the Minister of Fisheries said: "The people of Ontario can burn coke." In that he is not correct.


Mr. QUINN:: He is absolutely correct.


Frederick George Sanderson: Do you live in Ontario?


Felix Patrick Quinn: No, in Nova Scotia.


Frederick George Sanderson: In Halifax. I am
afraid my hon. friend from Halifax is somewhat prejudiced in his views.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Not a bit. I know what I
am talking about, that is all.


Mr. SHORT:: We use the same kind of
furnace as you do in Ontario.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I use a Hamilton-made
furnace, and burn Nova Scotia coke in it, and I get splendid satisfaction.


Harry Bernard Short: And so could you in Ontario.


Mr. GOTT:: What part of Ontario is the
hon. member speaking for?


Frederick George Sanderson: Not your part.


Eccles James Gott: I live in western Ontario.


Frederick George Sanderson: If there is one member I would not attempt to speak for-God forbid!-it is the hon. member for South Essex.


Eccles James Gott: Because you got enough when you came to South Essex; that is why.


Frederick George Sanderson: Getting back to the coal situation in the province of Ontario I wish to say to the Minister of Fisheries that there are some furnaces in that province in which coke cannot be burned; as a matter of fact there are very few places in that province where it can be burned. I should like to point out that in thousands and thousands,-yes, tens of thousands-of the homes in the province of Ontario, and
especially in western Ontario, there are no furnaces. In those homes they use the old fashioned coal stove which will not with any degree of satisfaction burn coke.


Harry Bernard Short: Has the hon. member ever tried it?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, I have tried it.


Harry Bernard Short: The hon. member has had experience?


Frederick George Sanderson: I know whereof I speak.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Apparently the education of the hon. member has been neglected.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, are you going to attempt to keep order in this committee.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say to the Minister of Fisheries that in most but not all of the furnaces in the province of Ontario one may burn a mixture of coke and anthracite coal. In very few that I have seen however can coke be burned alone. Going back to the question of stoves I will admit that one could burn in them a mixture of anthracite coal and coke. It is not always convenient however for people to do that. The natural fuel for the people of western Ontario, I am sorry to admit, is the anthracite from the United States. Last night the Minister of Fisheries stated that in thirty-five years the coal fields in the United States would be depleted.


Mr. RHODES:: Twenty-five years.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood the
minister to say thirty-five.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish to correct my hon. friend. I read from a statement published in the year 1921.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood the minister to say thirty-five; I am sorry if I am misquoting him. I do not know however that hon. members of the committee are particularly concerned whether in twenty-five or thirty-five year's the coal in the United States will be depleted. I think that is a matter for the consideration of governments following the present one-because I do not expect this government will be in power twenty-five or thirty-five years from now.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I think the hon. member has another guess coming.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Frederick George Sanderson: Owing to the advance in scientific methods and other like considerations I think the whole of the Dominion of Canada will be relieved from the necessity of using coal as a fuel. In the meantime however whether we like it or not we are dependent upon United States anthracite coal for fuel purposes. If it were pointed out to me that the imposition of this tariff of 40 cents per ton is for revenue purposes I do not know that I would raise any serious objection. So far however the Prime Minister has made no announcement whatever, and I wish to say to him that the proposed duty will not help the coal industry either in the east or in the west. As I understand it the coal in Nova Scotia is not adapted to the heating of houses as is the American anthracite coal. Then there is the further point of higher transportation charges. For years and years, even going back twelve or fifteen years, there have been commissions and committees which have investigated the matter of bringing Alberta coal to the province of Ontario. Trial shipments have been made, but the whole scheme has been abandoned for several reasons, one being the long haulage and transportation charges. A more vital reason however was that Alberta coal is not adapted to domestic uses. Had the people of the province of Ontario for purely patriotic reasons been able to burn Alberta coal they would have been glad to substitute it for the American product. That cannot be done however, and for that reason I say that in the present instance a duty or tax is being imposed on the people of the province of Ontario,-and why? I should be pleased to have the reason from the Prime Minister. He may be able to convince me that there is a reason, and if he succeeds I shall be very glad to tell him that I am convinced. At the moment however I protest vigorously not on behalf of my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) but on behalf of the people of South Perth whom I represent and who are opposed to the imposition of the duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) has been engaged in addressing the committee in his usual insipid manner.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: He has proven conclusively
that he knows nothing at all about coal.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, we will hear
something now.


Eccles James Gott: He has proven' he is not a
dealer in coal, and has also proven that he is not a dealer in common, decent every-day ethics or in political decency. The hon. member came into my riding, and I was pleased to see him there. I should like however to have just a few moments to discuss his manner when in that riding.
Knowing that the hon. member for South Perth would speak to-day and knowing that he always exaggerates his statements, last night I wired Mr. F. M. Falls at Amherst-burg, Ontario, as follows:
Informed that the new duties on coal were conducive to you obtaining Detroit prices. Please wire me day letter early Thursday.
To-day I received from him the following: wire:
Answering your wire. Detroit coke producers charged us 50 cents over Detroit price but reduced their prices to us from five ninety to five dollars when new duty added.
That wire is from a person who knows something about the coal business. Practically every furnace in western Ontario is built to use coke. The duty means a reduction of 90 cents a ton on coke used by the people of western Ontario.


Mr. EULER:: Does my hon. friend state
that Detroit dealers in coke or producers of coke have reduced the price 90 cents a ton to Canadians; is that right?


Eccles James Gott: Shall I read it again?


William Daum Euler: I wish to be clear; is that
the statement made by the hon. member?


Eccles James Gott: That is the statement which
came to me from F. W. Falls, a dealer in Amherstburg, Ontario.


William Daum Euler: That there is a reduction of 90 cents a ton on coke?


Eccles James Gott: Yes.


William Daum Euler: What about the $1 that the government is setting up against American coke; does that not wipe out the advantage?


Robert James Manion: It is being absorbed by
the American dealers.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to delay the
committee, and I am not going to-


Eccles James Gott: Does the hon. member wish
me to read the telegrams again?


William Daum Euler: No. Speaking last night 1
desired to learn from the Minister of Finance, if possible, just how the 40 cent duty on anthracite coal fitted in with his all-Canadian fuel policy. The Minister of Fisheries replied, but in all courtesy I am bound to say his

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
explanation was not convincing. I should like to have from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) some substantial reason why the people of Ontario and of parts of Quebec will undoubtedly have to pay more for their anthracite coal than would be the case if the duty had not been applied. I said last night also, that if by reason of placing this duty on anthracite coal you can promote the coal industry in any other part of Canada, then there is an argument in its favour. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) has not said so. He did say that he thought it would promote the use of coke in Ontario, and that the people of Ontario and elsewhere by using coke would save, I think he said, $2.34 a ton. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know very well that a good many people in my own city and district and in western Ontario generally are already using coke; they have done so ever since anthracite coal went sky high during the war when its quality was so bad that we could hardly use it; some of them have continued to use coke, and occasionally others are using it. But I submit that the people of my riding in particular are pretty thrifty folks and they are not going to pay $234 more per ton for a commodity if they can get a cheaper substitute. Yet the greater proportion of them still use hard coal and I think they will continue to do so.
Then my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries, proceeded, I think, to destroy his own argument, and some information came out from the Minister of Finance which had the same effect. The Minister of Fisheries said the people of Ontario should use coke as the people do in the maritime provinces. Am I right?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is quite
wrong. I did not make any comparison of the use of coke in the maritime provinces as a matter of quantity. I merely referred to its use there to illustrate that it could be used as a substitute for anthracite coal, that as a matter of science it was possible to do so.


William Daum Euler: Then my hon. friend's argument is that the people of Nova Scotia are using coke and now he is recommending that the people of Ontario do the same.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are using soft coal
largely.


William Daum Euler: His statement is rather contradicted by the Minister of Finance, who said that last year the province of Nova Scotia imported from Great Britain, the United States and Russia about 80,000 tons of anthracite coal. They are using it themselves.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It simply means that that coal was imported through Nova Scotian ports; it by no means follows that the coal was used in the province of Nova Scotia. It is true some of it was, but no doubt the bulk of it was transported by rail into other provinces.


William Daum Euler: We will let that go. But
the argument is very largely destroyed in this way. I take it that if we are to be discouraged in the use of anthracite coal in Ontario and Quebec, it is at least with this partial purpose in view-apart from revenue, perhaps-that coal from the maritimes shall be imported either in the form of coke produced there or to be converted into coke in Ontario.


Robert James Manion: Not necessarily. Why not give employment to the people who are producing the coke, even if it is produced from American soft coal.


William Daum Euler: But that does not touch
the question of a national fuel policy. That deals with unemployment-an entirely different matter.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


William Daum Euler: If it is the intention to develop a national fuel policy, and by discouraging the people of Ontario and Quebec in the use of American anthracite lead to the use of Nova Scotia soft coal in the form of coke produced there or in the form of coke produced in Ontario from Nova Scotia coal, then why does he say, as he did last night, that so far as the people of Ontario are concerned they need not use Nova Scotia coal at all, they can still bring in soft coal from the United States and get a drawback on the duty they pay on it? That merely means you are going to develop the soft coal fields of the United States, if you like, but it has not anything to do with developing a national fuel policy, and I think my hon. friend will admit this if he looks at it from that point of view. That does not help the Nova Scotia coal industry. And I am sure every member of the house, including those who come from Alberta, will admit that it has been absolutely proven to be impracticable to transport Alberta coal to the province of Ontario, to say nothing of the province of Quebec. I wish the Minister of Finance would give a reasonable explanation of how this policy of placing a duty on hard coal, which is not produced in Canada at all, fits in with the development of a national fuel policy. If there are no better arguments to be advanced than have been advanced so far,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I submit the whole effect of the policy will be that the people of my province and the people of Quebec will be obliged to pay higher prices for their hard coal at a time when they can little afford to do so. If it is a matter of revenue, I say again, as I said yesterday, that that revenue might very well be raised in some other way.


Eccles James Gott: May I inform my hon. friend that negotiations are under way at the present time for the establishment of two coke plants in western Ontario.


William Daum Euler: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this-and in what I am about to say there is a criticism of the action of the former government of which I was a member-an action to which I was never a consenting party, if I may say so, as my hon. friend the former Minister otf the Interior (Mr. Stewart) knows. I stated last night that there was discrimination in the production of coke in Ontario. My hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) said a moment ago that there is in contemplation the establishment of two more coke ovens in western Ontario. If the producers use a certain process, as I suppose they will, they will get a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty which they pay on American coal. Am I right in that assumption? But as I pointed out last night, there is discrimination in Ontario. For instance, there is a coke oven of the kind at Hamilton, and I think there is another at Montreal. And by the way, I think when the Montreal people received the privilege of the drawback it was never really intended that they should continue to use American soft coal; it was intended that they should1 use Nova Scotia coal. But they are still using American coal and getting the drawback of the duty they pay on that coal, and thus it is working against the interests of the Nova Scotia coal producers. But the matter I wish to come to is this. The coke producers at Hamilton receive the drawback of the duty paid on the soft coal from which their coke is produced. We have in western Ontario a considerable number of municipalities that own their gas plants as well as several other public utilities. That is true of my home city of Kitchener. They produce a very good quality of coke as a by-product of their gas. They import the soft coal from the United States in order to produce their gas and coke, but they get no drawback as do their competitors in the city of Hamilton. I submit that that injustice ought to be remedied, either by way of refusing the drawback to the Hamilton people-and I have no desire to offend my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Bell) nor of saying anything that might in-
jure a legitimate industry, or, what would be fairer, by extending the same privilege of the drawback to the municipalities of Ontario that are using American coal in the production of coke.


Mr. STANLEY:: I have no intention of entering into the dispute with regard to the relative fuel merits of coke and anthracite coal. The statement has been made that the domestic coal of Alberta cannot be transported economically to Ontario. I cannot allow that statement to go uncontradieted. Of course, that coal could not be brought here economically when the rates were up to $8 or $10 a ton; but now we have practically an assured rate of $6.75 a ton, and Alberta domestic coal can be sold on the markets of Ontario to provide a substantial portion of the fuel requirements of the people of this province.


William Daum Euler: That is not anthracite coal.


George Douglass Stanley: No, but it is a lot better than any anthracite coal that comes into Ontario. It has been abundantly proved that it gives far better results. It gives more for the money than any other coal that can be burned.


William Daum Euler: More than coke?


George Douglass Stanley: It is better than coke,
but I am not going to enter into that dispute; hon. members can fight it out among themselves. The domestic coal of Alberta is superior to coke or to the anthracite coal that comes from the United States. This has been proved by test shipments which were brought down here by the government some years ago, when 33,000 tons were placed in the homes of Ontario. That supply gave splendid results. There has been no difficulty because of any complaint about the quality of the coal, nor was there the slightest objection on the part of the people of Ontario to the use of that coal; for in fact those who received it were highly gratified with the results and were extremely anxious to have further supplies. The difficulty was that there was no stability in the market; the $6.75 rate per ton was not fixed; it was only spasmodic. But recently this rate-I am not going into any details-has been established on a more permanent basis; and with a permanent rate of $6.75 we can secure a stable market. With such a market the dealers here would take Alberta coal and dispose of it to Ontario householders.
The difficulty in the past has been this. When the coal was shipped here and marketed the householder, having used it, was so sati3-field with the results that later on he tried to

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
get further supplies of Alberta coal. But he found that the dealer did not have it; he could not bring it in on account of the freight rates, which had gone up in the meantime. Once a permanent rate is fixed and stability established in handling the coal shipped to the dealers, the dealers will keep supplies of it; and we have every hope that, under these circumstances, Alberta domestic coal will take its place in the markets of Ontario. Let me repeat that it gives better results, as has been proved. The experiments carried out by the Ontario government and the Dominion Fuel Board have shown this.
The rate has now been fixed at $6.75 per ton until March 31 next, and I may say to the house and to the administration that in the meantime we intend to do everything humanly possibly to bring pressure to bear upon the government with a view to having that rate made a fixture for all time to come, as a maximum at any rate. In that event the dealers in Ontario, through such means as will be taken by the Alberta operators, by the government of that province and otherwise, will keep permanent supplies so that they may be able to meet the demands of regular customers.
I should like the hon. member for North W aterloo (Mr. Euler) to pass the news on to the many citizens of his excellent constituency and particularly to the people in the manufacturing city of Kitchener. I hope he will inform them that there is no fuel on the continent equal to Alberta coal. Those of us who have lived in Ontario where we burned American anthracite, and who have since been burning Alberta coal, know the difference. There is no comparison between Alberta domestic coal and other supplies; and, as I have said, we get better results.
Perhaps I might refer to the situation in Winnipeg. I have confidence in the use of tariffs; I have confidence in the dumping clause, and so on. They serve their purpose. But at the same time I submit that in Ontario, and in other parts of Canada, there must be a spirit of loyalty and a-desire to help the producers of this country, wherever they may operate, to sell their commodities to the consuming public. In Winnipeg there is a large public utility in the central heating plant, and recently that concern purchased 43,000 tons of coal from the United States. I am subject to correction, but I believe that this coal was brought in a considerable time ago; and those who are interested in these plants in Winnipeg- they are American interests-gave the Alberta operators to understand that they proposed
to purchase bituminous coal for their purposes. When the time came for their purchase, without giving the Alberta operators an opportunity to tender, they placed their orders with their friends in Virginia. Now, they made no money; they saved nothing; and they did not get as good coal as the Alberta operators could have given them. All they did was to assist some American friends in Virginia. And while they helped their American friends to the extent of 43,000 tons, they withdrew that much business from the coal mines of southern Alberta, at a time when the miners of that district are very much in need of employment in face of the coming winter.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I wish
to refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister last night with regard to the Saskatchewan coal field. I fear it is misleading, although I do not suggest that he made it intentionally. The fact is, however, that those who do not understand the situation will probably be misled by that statement. It appears at page 3817 of Hansard:
In Saskatchewan and Manitoba there is a further deposit of lignite coal. Scientists tell us that the quality of that coal is not as high as that of the lignite coal to which I have previously referred. It is now being briquetted. During the war and after we spent a substantial sum of money in experiments, in this connection, as a result of which, supplemented by more recent scientific knowledge, that area or measure of coal has been developed by the production of briquettes and a substantial market has been created in the city of Winnipeg and elsewhere in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the products of those mines.
From that statement, those who do not understand the conditions might think that the only -market we find for that lignite coal of southern Saskatchewan is the demand for the briquetted product. There is quite an extensive market in Winnipeg for the raw lignite, and that which is processed by briquetting is only a very small proportion of the coal mined in that area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I desired to say was that as a result of the expenditure of over a million dollars during and after the war, it was found that the coal could not be readily transported without briquetting. It is a friable coal and briquetting was resorted to in order to enable it to be carried considerable distances.


Robert McKenzie: I understand that. But we have found a steady improvement in that coal, so that it is possible to market it now without fear of any appre-

3836	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ciable disintegration as suggested by the Prime Minister. Moreover, as I said last night, even though it does disintegrate there is a mechanical device, now used extensively in furnaces, which creates a greater draft, with the result that this coal can be burned much more satisfactorily than before.
Does the one-seventh of a cent per ton per mile mentioned in the budget speech apply to briquettes as well as to the raw coal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some question has been raised with respect to this, and the matter is now in the hands of the Minister of Mines. I think it was intended that this subvention should apply to all the products of these mines, but the matter is being investigated by the fuel board and action will be taken at an early date.


Robert McKenzie: I believe the one-seventh of a cent per mile will give some assistance in the case of briquettes, but I would again draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that when the subventions of last year were put into force, a subvention of SO cents was given to the Saskatchewan lignite coal in the Manitoba market. One-seventh of a cent per mile on 280 miles would mean approximately 40 cents, a reduction of ten cents. My information is that the subvention allowed on Alberta coal will increase the old subvention by from 12 to 14 cents, which means that the Saskatchewan fields are being discriminated against to the extent of some 22 or 24 cents per ton. This is rather unfair and it will mean that the miners of southern Saskatchewan will not be able to hold the market which they have gained in Winnipeg. I hope the Prime Minister will take into serious consideration the suggestion I made last night when I said that I thought it would be nothing more than fair, considering the quality of coal produced, that the same subvention be given to Saskatchewan as is given to Nova Scotia. This amounts to one-fifth of a cent per mile which would mean approximately 56 cents instead of 40 cents to the Winnipeg market. This would be no more than justice to the coal miners of southern Saskatchewan.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I notice the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has retired and is now carbonizing tobacco by induced draft in back behind the curtains. I presume the hon. member knows that gas coke is a by-product fuel of relatively low heating value.


William Daum Euler: I will not admit that.


Thomas Cantley: This fuel runs about one hundred cubic feet to the ton. By-product coke runs from 45 to 50 cubic feet to the ton, anthracite from 30 to 35 and bituminous coal about 40 cubic feet. The value of these fuels can be estimated roughly from the cubical contents. Coke can be burned in any stove in which bituminous or anthracite coal can be burned.


Mr. YOUNG:: No, it cannot.


Thomas Cantley: I say it can.


Edward James Young: We say no.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member does not know.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The hon. member burns only wood.


Thomas Cantley: All that is required to burn coke in any stove which will burn any other kind of fuel is a sufficient supply of oxygen.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I ask-


Thomas Cantley: I did not interrupt the
hon. member and he should wait until I have finished. If he has any question to ask at that time, I will answer it, but in the meantime I intend to proceed with my lecture. The best anthracite coal from the United States does not run over 88 to 98 per cent fixed carbon. The coke manufactured in Nova Scotia, and I presume it is made equally as well in Hamilton, will run from 92 to 93 per cent in fixed carbon, and the fuel value is determined by the amount of carbon. The secret of burning coke, as in burning other forms of fuel, is to provide sufficient oxygen to burn the fixed carbon; the higher the percentage of fixed carbon, the more oxygen required to burn it. If this fuel is dealt with intelligently there will be no difficulty. I will admit that there is a little technique in addition to providing a sufficient supply of air, or oxygen; if it is continuously stirred up there will be difficulty; all that is required is to put fresh coke on top, keeping a relatively deep incandescent fuel body, withdraw what little ash or clinker there may be in the bottom, and supply sufficient oxygen. That is the whole story.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, while
this item was being discussed last night, I laid before the committee as briefly as possible the situation obtaining in certain coal areas in the province of Alberta which supply steam coal to the Canadian railways. I asked at that time that some consideration be given to these miners, not by way of tariff changes because that would raise unfairly the price

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of coal to the railways who are forced to buy as cheaply as possible; not by way of freight subvention because this coal is used by the railways themselves and a subvention would be of no value, but rather by way of some form of bonus to equalize the difference in cost between Canadian and American coal.
The greatest handicap facing the miners of steam coal in this particular area, as well as in others, is the fact that coal is brought in from the United States at a slightly lower cost. When the Prime Minister was speaking, I had hoped that he would have made some reference to the matter and indicated that at least serious consideration would be given to this situation. I may offend the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) by saying that I am subject to corruption, although I would not go as far as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and say that I was willing to wallow in iniquity to secure some assistance for the people in my riding, but there are times when one's convictions as to what is economically sound must be put aside, especially when facing certain facts. The facts in this case are that many of these people are out of work, and those who are working are working only part time and are not in receipt of sufficient wages to keep themselves and their families in decency. The little town of Nordegg, situated in the Brazeau coal district, is isolated from all other parts of the country. This is a country town which has no source of income save from the mines. When these mines are not working to capacity, the men suffer most severely.
It is not often that I bring up events which happened during the last elections, because such a course is not often relevant to the discussion nor is it of much value, but I would suggest that because of the very definite promises made, not by the Prime Minister, but on his behalf during the last election, I lost about four-fifths of the votes in that area. The miners were convinced that if the Conservative party was returned to power they would receive such assistance as would enable them to carry on. While it is true that these men voted against me, none the less, having been elected, my duty is to see that they should receive such consideration as will enable them to carry on and survive in this struggle for existence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the limited
market for steam coal, what assistance does the hon. member suggest? This steam coal is absorbed by the two railways-in the case of Brazeau, it is only the Canadian National Railways-so what could be done short of granting a bonus on every ton produced?
22110-244J


Alfred Speakman: That is the only thing that would be possible. The Canadian mines are not over producing; they are producing economically, but they are supplying only a part of the coal being used, the balance coming from across the line. Not as a matter of general or continuous policy, but in this time of emergency of which we have so often spoken, while unemployment is rife and those people are suffering, I would suggest that a definite bonus be paid which would absorb the difference in cost to the national railways between the use of Canadian coal and the use of United States coal which would supplant it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask a further
question?-'because I feel curious about this matter. United States coal comes in at Fort William and is used to a point west that meets the point to which western coal is used. There must come a point from which western coal would cease to go east and to which eastern coal would be used. That point by these subventions is extended as far east as Ignace, which is the divisional point between Winnipeg and Fort William. How could we carry steam coal from Nordegg in the Brazeau field any further east on the Canadian National ?


Alfred Speakman: Am I to understand
that the subvention is to apply to the steam coal used by the railway, thus extending the area in which Alberta coal can be used? If that be the case, my point is met and the subvention will take the place of that bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The subvention does not apply to the railway. The hon. member is right.


Alfred Speakman: I did not understand
the subvention to apply to the railway and therefore I suggested that to take the place of that subvention a bonus should be paid- not sufficient to enable them to use coal throughout the whole area, because that would be economically unsound, but at least sufficient to extend the area eastward within which Alberta coal could be used, and before it came into competition with United States coal which takes its place I think a little bit west of Winnipeg; it is a varying point. It is a matter of policy, of administration, as to the extent of the bonus, as to the distance east to which this coal can be carried. But I believe a comparatively small amount would make up the difference between the cost of the two coals, particularly as I am not pleading for collieries which are working under any handicap as to cheap and economic production. Those mines are being operated
3838	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
very economically; the nature of the mines has provided that the coal itself is cheap, so that this is not a matter of bonusing a system that is economically unsound. There is no submarine mining there, no natural causes which would militate against the use of that coal. I am simply suggesting that a very small difference would be sufficient almost to double the output of those mines without imposing any undue burden upon the federal treasury; it would provide employment and thus would render unnecessary a good deal of relief which otherwise must be given next winter. As long as this proposal is not carried to an extreme, it is a sound one. It would meet the situation there; it would fulfil the implied obligation of the government as stated during the election, and it would restore to those collieries work which they have hitherto carried on. It would extend their contracts and enable them to employ more men and to employ them steadily. The men who are left there are not to any extent transient workers; they have their homes and families there. It is not a question of bringing in transient labour; it is one of providing for a settled community which is in need of assistance.
I am not asking for an immediate pronouncement, because this is a matter of serious policy, but in the interest of those whose situation I know and with whose situation the Prime Minister is familiar, I am asking that this question be given very serious consideration with a view to seeing whether or not this cannot be done on a sound basis, so that those men may be provided with work and the pledge made by my opponent on behalf of the government may be fulfilled. I should like to get some assurance in this regard.


James Layton Ralston: I think it was one year and eight months from to-day that the Prime Minister was speaking at Inverness, and he delivered himself of the policies which would be put into force by his party. At that time he called attention to the steel industry and to the fact that $1,000,000 a day was being spent in the purchase of iron and steel products in the United States Republic. He said:
"Think what the expenditure of one-half of that money in this country, would have been to Nova Scotia, to Canada!"
The coal industry was in the same category and a samilar question could be asked. More than $56,000,000 for coal and coke had been spent last year in the United States, giving employment to workmen of another country. . . "Is there any way to meet it? Well I will undertake to meet it."


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Layton Ralston: The undertaking is being carried out to-day, as was announced by the Minister of Finance in the budget speech, to the exent that he hopes that possibly in three years' time 1,800,000 tons of coal, which now come from the United States, or about 10 per cent of the total importation, may be produced in Canada. That was the full extent to which he hoped by any possibility to implement that promise. As a matter of fact I said before, and I repeat, that I do not believe the policy which he has brought down will move 600,000 tons, or even 500,000 tons more of Nova Scotia coal. To prove that, all I have to do is to go down to Nova Scotia and quote the speech of the hon. member for South Essex who tells us that what will happen is this: The United States will simply reduce their price, United States coal will keep coming in and this duty will be shouldered by United States dealers while the Nova Scotia miner will be left in the position he occupied before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was ooke the hon. member mentioned.


James Layton Ralston: The same thing applies to coal. The United States dealer will no doubt reduce the price on the anthracite in the same way so as to hold the market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the hon. member's answer to the hon. member for South Essex.


James Layton Ralston: One of two things will happen: either the price of United States anthracite goes up in Ontario or the United States dealer absorbs the duty and the price remains the same; in either case Nova Scotia coal will not be used.


Eccles James Gott: Ontario does not lose anything.


James Layton Ralston: I am not talking of Ontario. My right hon. friend did not make this speech in Ontario; it was in Nova Scotia.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in Ontario.


James Layton Ralston: Well, in Ontario. You cannot play both ends and the middle in connection with this matter.


Eccles James Gott: That is what the hon. member is trying to do.


James Layton Ralston: I am pointing out that I shall be able to cite as a comment on this fuel policy, the fact that as regards the $1 a ton on coke, the United States dealer will simply reduce his price on coke and coke wili keep on coming in as before. In fact it is not necessary to do that. All that is needed
3S39

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
is to import United States coal, manufacture it into coke and get a rebate on the duty. I was pilloried in Nova Scotia because the then government did not repeal section 1049 and see that a duty was placed on United States coal for coking purposes. That is still missing in this budget and I rather suspect this is going to continue notwithstanding the protests of some of my hon. friends from Nova Scotia. I admire the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) for his support of the government, because there is nobody more heart-broken over this so-called national policy than that hon. member. He knows it is an empty gesture. The mountain has conceived and brought forth a mouse; there is nothing worth while in this policy for the Nova Scotia industry. At the same time he was sport enough to stand up and do the best tie could, and I admire him for doing so. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) feel the same way about the matter, because they know it is a policy that will be of no benefit to them. There is the promise that was made: "I will undertake to meet the situation." How has it been met? By imposing a duty of 25 cents a ton on bituminous coal, an action that will move practically no Nova Scotia coal. In addition to that, he is imposing a duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal, which, however, will not permit Nova Scotia coal to take the place of American anthracite. He is also putting one dollar a ton duty on coke. I repeat, the answer of my hon. friend from South Essex. It simply means: My friends put on the duty they had previously taken off.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he opposed to the duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal and one dollar a ton on coke?


James Layton Ralston: My friend need not be asking questions at all. I am opposed to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister coming down to Nova Scotia and telling us that he is going to meet the situation, and then trying to make us believe he is meeting it by this policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is typical of the hon. gentleman.


James Layton Ralston: I certainly am opposed to it. I am going to point out the history of this matter. My right hon. friend made that statement in Inverness,'and what has happened since? He was not so enthusiastic after he got into power. He met a delegation soon after from the Canadian chambers of commerce, I think, and he talked about national problems, and this is what he said to that delegation in January, 1931, about six months after he made the statement in Inverness that he was going to undertake to meet the fuel situation:
Working out of a national fuel policy was an easier matter on paper than in actual practice, said the Prime Minister.
He is finding that out now. Why did he not tell the people of Inverness at the time he was speaking there that it was a difficult thing to work out? But then there was no trouble about it. I will undertake to meet the situation, he said. Then he met the delegation from Nova Scotia, headed by his friend the present premier of Nova Scotia, and according to a report in the Montreal Gazette of February 14, 1981, it was not a very enthusiastic reception which he gave them. The report says:
It had been expected that the Prime Minister would be in a position to make a definite statement this morning to the deputation as to the government's intentions regarding the coal industry.
Why should it not be expected? He had been seven months in power. He had made that speech in Inverness, and had put a fuel policy in his pledges. It was one of the eight pledges. Here it is:
We pledge ourselves to the development of interprovincial trade and of a Canadian fuel policy.
Quoting again from the Gazette:
But the deputation had to be satisfied with the intimation that the problem of the coal and steel industries was a very difficult problem and could not be solved in piecemeal fashion.
Why did he not tell the people of Inverness and Sydney that? But he told the deputation:
The present government, with its determination to do everything to develop the natural resources of this country first, could be depended upon to evolve a policy that would be in the best interests of coal and steel producers throughout the Dominion.
And this is the way he is going to do it:
The fuel policy was not incapable of solution, said Premier Bennett.
One would not have thought that it was from what he said in Inverness:
But the formulation of a fuel policy required a great deal of study and he favourably commented upon the results of the study given it already by Dr. Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines.
That study has been going on for some years, and my right hon. friend does not
3S40	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
seem to have done much in this policy which he has brought down as a result of that study:
He had, he said, listened in London to rather convincing arguments as to the success of rationalization of the British steel industry and it was worth considering whether or not a similar system of limiting the production of various kinds of steel output in Canada and of thereby removing needless and costly competition could not be devised for this Dominion.
He concluded by reassuring the delegation that the government would give early and sympathetic consideration to the demands contained in their memorandum, which was explained to the federal cabinet at length by Premier Harrington.
One of the demands was that this subvention should be increased to half a cent per ton mile instead of one-fifth of a cent, and that the alll-rail rate on coal should be reduced to two dollars, and that section 1049 should be abolished. But none of these things are being done. Instead, this very piecemeal legislation has been brought down.
What is the condition in Sydney, in respect to which the premier of Nova Scotia was speaking, and it is the condition which exists in Sydnej' every year. Their problem is a problem of winter employment, and that problem the former government tried to meet by the all-rail subventions. I have in my hand a statement by the chairman of the relief committee in Sydney last February. These were the conditions:
The chief demand is for food, Dr. Black says, and our supplies are running low. All who can do so are requested to donate food and money instead of clothing. Local merchants have risen to the occasion with famine packages which contain an assortment of groceries necessary to provide a balanced diet for a family, and many citizens simply buy these and turn them over to the committee.
Dr. Black discounted utterances made recently to the effect that there was no real need among the unemployed.
"There is real need," he declared. "We have met with some eases actually on the verge of starvation and are now dealing with them."
As a result of that, the representatives of the miners met and passed a resolution of which this is the preamble:
Whereas, the unfortunate position in which employees of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation find themselves has been brought to the attention of the provincial and federal governments on different occasions; particularly the serious situation of the nail and wire mill, which has been practically closed down for the past six months, and the yard department, getting from one to two days' work each week; and the workers of the city suffering in general;
And whereas all the departments are working on short time, with the result that all the employees are in reduced circumstances and many families bordering on starvation;
And whereas the present Premier of Canada and his supporters in this constituency, including our federal representative, as well as Hon. 
E. N. Rhodes, now Minister of Fisheries, and Hon. G. S. Harrington, now prime minister of Nova Scotia, in public addresses throughout the constituency promised adequate protection to the coal and steel industries and assured the electors of this riding that if Hon. R. B. Bennett were returned to power immediate steps would be taken to end unemployment and procure steady work for the workers;
Therefore be it resolved, that these gentlemen get in touch with their respective governments and place before them the urgent need for protection for the steel and coal industries, thus fulfilling their solemn pledges given before the election in July last, and giving the workers of this city that which they are after-work, not the dole.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: What is the date of that?


James Layton Ralston: February 11, 1931. That was the situation in Sydney, and that is the resolution that was passed. We have had since then three changes in connection with the coal policy, culminating in the policy now before us. We had a temporary sort of fixation of prices for duty purposes on slack and run of mine, $1 and $155. That was reduced, and then this policy was brought down. Now I understand that the value which has been fixed on slack and run of mine for duty purposes is being taken off altogether. I want to ask the Prime Minister what he thinks the result would have been if at that time he had said at Sydney: I can only give you 25 cents on bituminous coal and restore the duty on anthracite to the extent of 40 cents, and I presume the American dealers will reduce their prices in order to meet that duty, and on coke I will put back the one dollar per ton that we took off the duty years ago, and I will do a little better in the matter of subventions- what does he think would have been the response?
What did he do? He did this: Under the former government the subventions on all-rail coal coming to Ontario and Quebec were figured in this way: the government undertook to pay all the freight on coal above three dollars. That meant that in some cases the bonus contributed by the government went as high as $3.70. What has my right hon. friend done? He has said that the maximum amount which shall be contributed in connection with all-rail coal shall be $2. He has taken off the maximum in that respect and made the contribution less. He has increased the maximum on one item. He has added 75 cents to the maximum on coal, water-hauled to Montreal and forwarded by rail to Ontario. In other words, he has taken off the bonus with one hand, and he is paying it out with the other. If he had proposed that policy at Inverness and Sydney, does he think that
3S41

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
there would have been any enthusiastic response? Would the people have regarded that as meeting the situation whereby $56,000,000 was going every year to the United States for coal? ' I do not think so. He was faced with that position. He knew when he made that promise that there were difficulties in the situation with regard to the coal industry, and I believe that the people of Sydney are looking askance at the policy which my right hon. friend has brought down at this time and are asking: After all the delegations that we have sent to Ottawa, and after all the promises made, can this, after all be the national fuel policy? It amounts to two things. First, it puts the seal of approval on the Liberal policy of granting subventions by way of freight rates. It reduces the subventions in the one case but it increases them in the other. It puts on a paltry 25 cents a ton duty on bituminous coal, to assist my hon. friend from Pictou, my hon. friend from Cumberland and my hon. friend from Cape Breton South, in order that they may be able to say: We have done something. But, Mr. Chairman, it amounts to nothing so far as the moving of any substantial quantity of coal is concerned.
So I say to my right hon. friend that that is the situation in which this house finds itself to-day, and I do not think the country ought to be in any way deceived by the policy which has been brought down and by the items in the budget resolution that we are considering.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I just
wish to say a preliminary word with respect to the attitudes assumed by my hon. friends from South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) and North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who called in question the position I took with respect to the use of coke as compared with the use of anthracite. Apparently they dealt with it from the point of view that it was a matter of their opinions against mine. I wish only to make it very clear that the position I took last night was merely to place before the committee the results of scientific investigations by the fuel board. In that respect I was not asserting my own opinions at all. Probably it is just as well that the discussion has developed so extensively. It will at least spare the necessity of making a formal answer to the hon. member for South Perth, who has complained that the people of Ontario would have to pay an additional duty of 40 cents on anthracite coal. My hon. friend from North Waterloo took the same position.


William Daum Euler: They are doing it now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Now Mr. Chairman-


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: They are doing it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Now we have the answer from the official financial critic, who states emphatically that the people of Ontario will not pay the duty of 40 cents per ton, but that the price will be lowered to that extent by the people of the United States. So we are in the very happy position of having 40 cents per ton or an aggregate sum of about 81,000,000 handed to our treasury by the citizens of the United States. Surely that policy ought to be satisfactory to all hon. members. So my hon. friends have their answer from the financial critic of the opposition.
I rather enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), because in more respects than one his remarks reminded me of old times. Many a time and oft in the old days have I heard him preach the doctrine of freer trade and holding out the goal of free trade and lower tariffs. Now he refers to an increase of 50 per cent as a "paltry" 25 cents. In his budget speech my hon. friend referred to this increase of 50 per cent in duty as a mere gesture. Verily he has gone far from the political faith of his fathers since he left Nova Scotia and established himself as a citizen of the city of Montreal. I fear his becoming speedily contaminated by contact with those Tory barons of finance against whom in days gone by he inveighed so heatedly and forcibly. I do not purpose to labour the argument, so far as the general merits of the policy are concerned-


James Layton Ralston: I did not think you
would.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: How typical of my hon.
friend to cite a resolution of a union in Sydney, if you please, passed before the present policy was brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It appeared only after my hon. friend was asked the date of the meeting at which this resolution was passed calling for action.


James Layton Ralston: I hope my hon. friend
will permit me to correct him. He will find on Hansard that when I first referred to it I stated it was passed in February.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Even so, I do not see what purpose could be served by reciting that resolution.


James Layton Ralston: I was stating the conditions which have to be met.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My answer is this: After
this fuel policy was brought down the very people who passed that resolution, speaking

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
not only as individuals but through the president of their organization-Mayor Morrison of Glace Bay, who is the head of the United Mine Workers organization in Nova Scotia -came out and announced the fuel policy as a great step forward. In Nova Scotia we take our politics more or less seriously, but to my knowledge this is the only time in the history of that province when Liberals, Conservatives and Labourites were of one voice in their approval of this policy.
I do not think the Prime Minister, who is more than capable of speaking for himself, for one moment would contend that the policy so far announced by this government has by any means gone the full distance in providing a full and complete national fuel policy for Canada. This government has made rapid strides in very many respects, but it must walk before it runs. I say to my hon. friends opposite that in the proposals so far placed before parliament we have taken very pronounced steps forward, and as time goes on and opportunities present themselves whereby we can take a further step to complete the national fuel policy I have no hesitation in saying I have no doubt that the government will bring down full and adequate additional measures.


William Richard Motherwell: Replying to the
minister who has just taken his seat, I should say that the fuel policy of the present government consists largely in following in the footsteps of their predecessors. Certainly so far as subventions are concerned that is the case. I understand the policy of the present government is intended to go a little farther than that of the late government. That seems to be the contention so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, and I shall not discuss that point further. So far as Saskatchewan is concerned, however, the conditions will be worse. How can I go back to Saskatchewan and extol the national fuel policy when, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, the subventions are not as satisfactory as they were under the former government? As I understood the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) last night, the matter is still under consideration, and I believe the Prime Minister expressed himself in similar terms. I hope they will take the matter into serious consideration because in that province there is good lignite coal of a much better quality than that which the farmers travelled thirty or forty miles to get. At that time they were getting only the out-cropping of comparatively low grade lignite, but now when 
they are down several hundred feet they are getting good quality coal. In spite of the fact that it has a high water content and in spite of the small subvention it has been forcing itself on the markets in competition with other coals. Unless he has very good cause, I hope the Prime Minister will not discriminate against Saskatchewan coal. If he has any reasons to submit to the committee as to why he even proposes a lower rate in Saskatchewan as compared with that in Alberta, I should like to hear them.


Finlay MacDonald: There
are some observations I should like to make concerning the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston).


James Layton Ralston: Thank you.


Finlay MacDonald: I
think he typified the difference between the two political parties in this committee.


James Layton Ralston: I hope so.


Finlay MacDonald: Last
year when we were on the other side of the house asking for maritime rights we gave him credit when some concessions were made by the government of which he formed a part. We praised him and held up his hands. The time has now come when the present government has done something my hon. friend could not get his government to do. Does he come forward and give credit to the present government? No. Is he not actuated by a mean spirit of political partisanship? Is he playing the part of a true Nova Scotian or a great politician?


James Layton Ralston: I am trying to hold this
government to the promises it made to Nova Scotia.


Finlay MacDonald: I would ask my hon. friend this question: Are not the increased duties and increased subventions the two fundamental elements in a Canadian fuel policy? I say they are. As the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) has said, they do not constitute a complete fuel policy, but they are two important elements in it, and those steps have been taken by the present government. The last government was given credit for its action. This government has gone farther; will my hon. friends opposite give credit for what it is doing? No, they discount and minimize the action of this government. Why are they not fair, honest and above board? Why do they refer to conditions in Sydney? Let me tell the committee about the conditions that existed in Sydney at the time the resolution was passed and

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the interview was given by Dr. Black. The people in Sydney, like the people in many other parts of Canada, are too fond of running to the government to do anything; they ask the government to do this and to do that. In the city of Sydney we took another course altogether. We appointed a community committee to handle the unemployment relief, and that committee headed by Dr. Black- a very patriotic spirited gentleman indeed- undertook the collection of clothing, food and cash. So well did they do their work that at the end of the season they had not called on the city of Sydney for one dollar, they had met every demand for relief from every source and they closed their accounts in the spring with a considerable cash balance. Not one dollar was obtained from the municipality, nor from this government, nor from the provincial government. That shows what can be done by a proper community spirit. All we want in this country is that that spirit shall prevail in every community. We do not want these demoralizing cries of, 'What are you going to do about unemployment"? 'When are you going to bring down your unemployment policy"? Our friends opposite are glorifying themselves by emphasizing the distress through which we are passing to-day, and they are trying to make political capital out of the poverty that unfortunately exists in certain districts.


Mr. COOTE:: I have listened patiently to
the debate and I think there are one or two points in connection with it which should be brought to the attention of the government. The case for the bituminous coal operators in Alberta has been very well placed before the committee by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), and I will not go further into it. 1 would impress upon the Prime Minister that in order to give the bituminous coal mining industry of Alberta a fair chance to secure the Manitoba market, some reduction should be made in the freight rates between the mountain division and Winnipeg. The freight rate from Blairmore to Winnipeg, 846 miles, is S5.10, while from Sydney to Montreal, 980 miles, it is $4.50 a ton. If the rate from the mountains to Winnipeg were on a comparative mileage basis with the rate between Sydney and Montreal, the bituminous coal operators would not have very much trouble getting their coal into the Winnipeg market.
I was glad to hear what the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) said in regard to the national fuel policy of the government. I have no criticism to make of what they have
done so far. I did not expect the Prime Minister would be able to fulfil some of the promises made by certain of his supporters in the campaign because in my constituency my opponent used this placard:
Vote for J. D. Matheson and steady work for Canadian miners. The fuel policy of the Conservative party will accomplish this.
Of course, I told the miners at the time that the Conservative party could not at this stage bring down a fuel policy which would give all of them steady work. I still feel I was right in making that statement.
I desire to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the unfortunate conditions which are confronting the miners in my district. In 1929 the Bellevue mine worked 172 days, and some of the other mines for a slightly longer period. An outside man drawing $4.40 a day would earn that year $750. In 1930 I think the mine worked 126 days, and at the same rate of pay that man would earn S504. Some of the men have large families, and I am sure that members of the committee will agree that no man could maintain a family on such small earnings. Last winter when I was in Blairmore I secured a statement of the wages earned by about twenty of the miners for the previous month, and I find the average is $29.82. One man with eight children earned $29.10; another with nine children earned S27.50. That will give hon. members some indication of the very small wages with which these miners have been trying to carry on. Some of them have been out of work altogether and have been granted relief. I have before me a statement, signed by the mayor of the town of Blairmore, in regard to some of the men who were getting relief work. One of them with a family of five or six children had a balance due him from the Home bank of $1,513; another one with six children had a balance of $643 due him from the Home bank; another one with six children had a balance of $937 due him from the Home bank. I mention these bank balances to show that some of these men are of a very thrifty type. But no matter how thrifty they may have been, the lean years have wiped out any savings they had, even though they were fortunate enough to deposit them in some other bank. I bring this to the attention of the government in the hope that they will be prepared to give some direct relief unless more work is provided for the miners; and I do not think it will be possible to provide sufficient work in the mines to enable those men to make a livelihood. Just a week ago
3844	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I received a letter from the secretary of the Bellevue miners' union, in which he states:
The mine here is still working very poor- we only worked fourteen days in May and eleven days in June with 100 of the crew not working.
Then he goes on to stress the need of some other relief work being started to deal with the unemployment situation.
The Canadian Pacific Railway take 90 per cent of the coal from that area, and there is only one way of giving these people material relief-more days' work in the mine. This can be done only by encouraging production on the farms of western Canada, because there is the source of the traffic which the Canadian Pacific Railway handle; and the volume of the coal which can be mined in that area depends very largely on the traffic which the railway can secure. The best method of encouraging production of more farm products in western Canada would be to adopt the amendment to the budget moved from this comer of the house. A suspension of the redemption of our notes in gold at this time would, I am sure, bring about a depreciation of our currency, which would put us on a basis where we could fairly compete with Australia and the Argentine; this in turn would encourage further production an our farms. That is the only way of dealing with the deplorable situation which faces us in western Canada, particularly in the mining area. The wheat crop this year is estimated to be about half that of last year, so we can look for comparatively little employment in the mining areas this winter. I desire to give the government credit for the efforts they have made to improve conditions in the coal industry, but at the same time I want to point out that it will be absolutely necessary that some unemployment relief be provided for that area this winter.


James Layton Ralston: Just a word, Mr. Chairman, in reply to my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald). I listened with interest to his lecture on non-partisanship. It is really a new doctrine to come from him, but we accept lectures of that kind whatever their source may be. It is not so long since the hon. gentleman went about his constituenc}r with a lump of Russian coal in his pocket, exhibiting it to the meetings there and telling everybody that these horrid Grits were destroying the coal industry of Cape Breton by permitting something like 100,000 tons of Russian coal to come in annually. And that representation I will not designate as mean partisanship-that, I believe, was the expression he used-but I will be charit-

able and call it enthusiastic party loyalty. I find no fault with him if he thinks it good politics to do that. But at the same time he must not lecture others on partisanship. We find, in fact, that the 100,000 tons of Russian anthracite coal, which did not compete with Canadian coal, has been embargoed by the government, but that 156,000,000 worth of American will still come in. Yet my hon. friend, in that spirit of non-partisanship of which we have had evidence, accepts that situation. In other words, he strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.


William Richard Motherwell: Hoof and all.


James Layton Ralston: Another instance of his
non-partisanship appeared in the fact that the other night he refrained from taking part in a debate when my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre suggested that tariffs on certain articles might be accompanied by a condition as to hours of labour and rates of wages. It was only last year that my hon. friend, when he was on this side of the house, in that spirit of non-partisanship which always actuates him, stood up and proposed to the then government a resolution that this should be done. It was due to the steel workers, he said.


Finlay MacDonald: I was
not in favour of that; I do not think it is possible. I should be only too strongly in favour of it if it were possible, but I do not see how you can couple such a condition with the tariff.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has seen
the light; since he has moved across to the other side he realizes the impossibility of it. That is the spirit of non-partisanship that moves him.
Now, Mr. Chairman^ I suggest that it might be just as well for the hon. gentleman not to lecture other people about running down the country, implying that they glory in misery, and so on. I put on Hansard the other night a few statements made by the Prime Minister during his election campaign last year, and if anyone wishes to take the trouble to read those statements he can judge for himself whether or not what the Prime Minister described as the country's extremity was being exploited by him for political purposes. Let us give the right hon. gentleman credit for the highest motives; but do not let us have any lectures to other people when they happen to bring to the attention of the house conditions as they exist. Does not my hon. friend from South Cape Breton think that when the Prime Minister made a declaration about the cry of women and children being heard across the country-women and children

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
calling upon us to ease their pain-he was rather encroaching upon the preserves which the hon. gentleman now regards as inviolable in debate? I have simply brought to the attention of the committee conditions as they exist, and I may tell my hon. friend, if he does not know it, that the same conditions that prevailed in Sydney last winter will occur again next winter. I give all credit to the community effort down there to meet the situation. But I repeat that there is a great difference between the promise given the people of Nova Scotia with regard to a national fuel policy and this first step, to use the words of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), towards the fulfilment of that undertaking. When the Prime Minister made his speeches there he did not suggest anything like a progressive implementing of promises; it was the reverse: he was going to meet the situation at once. What he said was, "Put me in office and I will end unemployment". It is a year since these promises were given and we are no nearer their fulfilment than when they were made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must answer two or
three questions asked by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Last evening I did not deal with matters discussed by preceding speakers but confined myself to a general statement of the coal situation and the measures which this administration had taken in the circumstances. I pointed out, so far as subventions were concerned, that during the war very large sums had been expended to develop our natural resources in coal. This afternoon the hon. member for North Waterloo asks for an explanation with respect to certain questions, and the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) has raised the same issues. These issues were raised differently by other speakers as well. My hon. friend from North Waterloo has been answered by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). One of these hon. gentlemen says that the result of this anthracite tariff will be to increase the price in Ontario, and the hon. member for South Perth says the same thing. The answer given by the hon. member for Shclburne-Yarmouth is that the American producer will absorb the 40 cents.


William Daum Euler: What is your answer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman from North Waterloo pointed out that in cabinet he had had occasion to differ from his colleagues, and he called upon one of his former colleagues to witness to that statement. Whether or not it is intended this afternoon that we
shall have an entire repudiation of doctrines which the hon. gentleman formerly held, I know not. But we have had a striking example of what one might call the remnants of a left-over administration. I have never in my lifetime listened to such severe condemnation of the policies of a government of which an hon. gentleman was a member. I have never heard so severe a condemnation as that which he made this afternoon, ant my only wonder is that he did not resign from the administration which he so much opposed within and so violently supported without. At any rate, the answer given by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth is that the American producer will absorb the 40 cents for the purpose of retaining the market.
Now, there are three reasons for this tax.


William Daum Euler: The hard coal tax.
Mi-. BENNETT: The hard coal tax. First, it is part of a national endeavour to establish and maintain a fuel policy in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The admitted coail resources of the country have been referred to this afternoon by many hon. gentlemen, particularly the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley); and when I said last night that the prodution of coal had reached over 6,000.000 tons in Alberta. I but stated a fact which everyone knows. And the quality of that coal is such that I have no doubt it will one day be the fuel used in Ontario. The first reason for the tax is, therefore, the fact that we are endeavouring to establish and maintain that policy. And when I say we are endeavouring, I mean just what I said in Inverness. At that time I stated that if elected we would meet the situation. And we have met it. Whether we have met it successfully or not will be evident hereafter; but we did say that we would meet it, and at the first session of parliament we have done so.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Fisheries says you have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not intimate to the delegation what the policy of the government would be, for the simple and obvious reason that had I done so I should not have done my duty by parliament. For this was a matter with respect to which parliament had a right to be informed. It involved the revenues of the country; and, as I have been reminded so frequently by constitutionalists who are not lawyers, the duty of the government is to make these matters known to the house before they are disclosed to anyone else. I said, however, that I would take the
3846	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
matter under consideration, and we did so at the first regular session of parliament. We have not been in office a year and we have met the situation which I said at Inverness that we would meet. Whether or not it has been met successfully, time will tell; but at least we have met it, and we have not apologized for inaction, as for nine long years our predecessors had reason to do.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth always runs true to form; and, with eyes shut, if one did not recognize his voice one would still be able to identify him by his observations; for there is no one so querulous, and no one whose cynicism touching poverty and unemployment and this fuel question is so well known. This afternoon he is again running true to form. He quotes something from February to prove that what was done in June was not adequate. He said that the measure taken in June was not a fulfilment of the promise made in January to the delegation that came here. He quotes some resolutions, passing over others, content to leave by half truths the impression he always tries to leave with audiences whom he addressses. And the result of his campaign in Nova Scotia during the last election is fully understood by those who have listened to his speeches in this house.
The second reason is that we are endeavouring to do something to promote inter-empire trade. When I heard hon. gentleman opposite mentioning $28,000,000 and $50,000,000 and other sums as being the value of the coal imported from the United States, I can only say that they could not have been in the committee this afternoon when I gave the importations of anthracite from the United States for the twelve months ended March 31, 1931, as being $20,145,000. But I might have gone further. I want to give to the committee a comparison in tons, because there has been a decrease in values. The following are the importations of anthracite coal from the United States:
Tons
1929		 4,000,000
1930		 3,710,000
1931		 2,731,000
The reason for the decrease shown is very plain. The following are the importations of anthracite coal from the United Kingdom:
Tons
1929		 553,000
1930		 786,000
1931		 918,000
When it is stated that the province of Quebec will have to pay 40 cents more per ton, I would tell the committee that the 
duty upon Welsh anthracite is nil, and Quebec as well as Ontario will be able to purchase its requirements of United Kingdom coal free of duty. Last year the province of Quebec purchased from Great Britain 836,693 tons of anthracite coal. This year the encouragement to buy this coal will be still greater, and we are certain that over one million tons of coal will be purchased from Great Britain to supply the anthracite requirements of this Dominion.
Last evening the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) indicated a further benefit which would be derived. He mentioned the direct benefit which would accrue to every member of the rural constituencies in western Canada, namely, the reduction of the rate in the handling of grain brought about by' the bringing of coal to this country. Instead, of vessels being forced to come to Montreal empty in order to obtain a return cargo of grain, they will now have cargoes of anthracite coal which will ensure a lower freight rate on grain than has prevailed heretofore. Is not that worth while?
There is a third reason, the encouraging of the production of coke in this country. Right here, let me ask the hon. memlber for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart): when the coke plant on the canal at Montreal was given assistance by his government, why was it permitted to be placed where a ship laden with Nova Scotia coal could not unload its cargo? Why was it, instead of giving some assistance and support to Canadian coal, this LaSalle plant was located so that only American coal could be used? Why, under these circumstances, was a bonus paid to this coke plant? These questions are being asked by everyone, but no answer has been given.


Edward James Young: Cannot one ship go into the same place as another?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not if they draw different depths of water. You cannot take a ship drawing fifteen feet of water into a 12-foot dock. I thought the hon. gentleman knew that, but apparently he is only a landlubber. He has not his life buoy with himi-silk socks. As I say, the third reason is to encourage the production of coke, but I do not propose to enter into this matter at great length.


William Daum Euler: From what kind of coal, Nova Scotia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both or either.


William Daum Euler: Not as long as there are plants in Ontario which obtain a drawback of duty on the American soft coal which they
use.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter for consideration. It may well be that as the people of Ontario become more fully accustomed to these fuels-the hon. gentleman has said that they are willing and ready to bear their part of the burden in every national purpose, and I believe that is true-then the situation alluded to may well take place. What I said last night, I repeat. If the scientific efforts now being made in laboratories result as I believe they will, in a complete revolution in the utilization of coal, I feel confident that an increasing quantity of Canadian coal will be used in the province of Ontario.
The hon. gentleman mentioned another reason, the necessity for revenue. In view of the subventions given to other parts of the country, this does provide some revenue. Just prior to June 1, a strong agitation was being carried on by representative citizens of the province of Nova Scotia. The contention was that all the benefits accruing from the tariff policy of this country were going to the people in upper Canada. It was contended that the people of Ontario and Quebec had no understanding or appreciation of their problems and had shown no willingness to help the province of Nova Scotia which consumed in such large quantities the manufactured products of the other provinces. The answer made was: has there ever been an appeal made to us when we have received protection for our industrial and manufacturing life and which involved our making a contribution for a national purpose or a national need, that we have not responded? The hon. member for North Waterloo has said that that is still the attitude of the people of Ontario, and I believe it is. Here is accorded one more opportunity with respect to revenue. Compensating adjustments are being made for the people of the lower provinces and far west who are large consumers of the products of central Canada, and the people of that section of the country are glad to avail themselves of the opportunity to advance the common interests of Canada as a whole.
These are the factors which have actuated this government in its effort to establish a national policy. I have never been blind to the difficulties which present themselves, and I have never indicated that I was blind to them. I said we would meet the situation. Do hon. members know of any government which has met its difficulties and the situations with which it was confronted during its life-time, as has this government during the last year?
We are making an effort to overcome the accumulated miseiy caused by the policies of preceding years. We have not dodged the issue.


James Layton Ralston: There is no world depression now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a world depression, and there being a world depression, we are endeavouring 'all the more to meet the difficulties of the situation. To hear hon. gentlemen talk, one would think that they and they alone knew what difficulties were. I know that there are those among them who say: How pleasant it is to think that the responsibility is not ours! That is their conception of their obligations. They were glad to be in power in the yearn of bounty and plenty; when there was no world depression they were willing to talk about their difficulties, but now that there is a world depression, they say: We are glad we are not over there. That is their idea of service to the commonwealth. They are glad to be in power in good times, and to be out in bad times. I said at Inverness, and I said last year, that if we came into power we would meet this difficulty. There is not an hon. member in this committee, or elsewhere, who can say that we have not met it. Whether or not we have met it successfully is a matter which time will tell.


James Layton Ralston: When my right hon.
friend said he would meet the difficulty, did he mean he would meet it successfully or unsuccessfully?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said he would endeavour to overcome the difficulties, but no man can predicate success except upon effort.


James Layton Ralston: What does "meet" mean,
successfully?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows


James Layton Ralston: To meet successfully, of
course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say any such
thing.


James Layton Ralston: Or unsuccessfully.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What could better typify the type of mind possessed by hon. members opposite than the observation just made by the hon. member? What a spectacle for the gods!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is no wonder his friends laugh. He asks: What do you mean by it? It is something, I am prepared to admit,
3S4S	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
my hon. friends opposite are unaible to understand, for they always dodge every issue and never meet any. There was not a time when they did not run around the corner and cut circles for the purpose of meeting no issue. When they were in power and the then Prime Minister went out for dinner, sometimes we did not know when he came back whether he would be able to proceed or not. I know why they do not meet issues. The hon. member for North Waterloo told us this afternoon. He said: "My colleagues knew I did not agree with that; that I did not sympathize with that; I kept my stand firmly and valiantly." We know the former Minister of Labour has been going around the country and saying what he fought for. He was the bold Horatio who kept the bridge for the unemployed. But that was all in the days when they were all together. They did not want to separate one from another, fearing they might hang separately, and so they hung together. There is the glorious spectacle we have this afternoon
Without trespassing too much upon the time of the committee I have given to hon. gentlemen some of the reasons why this duty has been placed on anthracite coal. Shall I say more? We have taken action in regard to bituminous coal for the same reason, and lignite we have made free for the reasons I mentioned last evening. I say again to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the coal to which he referred in regard to the countervailing duty which he said might apiply against British Columbia, is not lignite coal, and I understand on proper investigation it does not seem to qualify as lignite.


Alan Webster Neill: I was talking then about bituminous coal, not lignite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is classified as lignite.


Alan Webster Neill: But there are two issues;
lignite and bituminous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was talking about the issue with respect to lignite.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a minor matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A mining matter. Last evening I pointed out to the bon. member for Red Doer what he apparently did not understand, namely, that you cannot move Alberta steam coal by carload lots east beyond a point wthere you encounter coal that is moving west from Fort William and other points. There must come a point beyond which it cannot be moved further east. If he suggests that a bonus be given to encourage this movement further east, I can only say to him that matter did, at our instance, carefully engage the attention of the fuel board.

He will recall that a meeting was held in Ottawa at which the presidents of both the railway companies appeared, and a statement was made by each of them as to how far east that steam coal might be moved. The action taken was predicated upon the view of the fuel board as to how far we could move that coal east. I shall bear in mind what the hon. gentleman has said; that is all one can do. There is much in his contention that if direct relief has to be afforded, it would be of great assistance to that province to see that men are engaged in activities useful to the province and to Canada generally rather than that they should receive a dole which will undermine the morale of the people more than any other single thing to which reference can be made.


George Gibson Coote: It is clear, then, no bonus is to be paid on railway coal east of Winnipeg?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking only from memory, but my understanding is-and I read the statement-the railways are not getting a bonus on the coal they consume; that is their coal.


Mr. VENIOT:: They have no right to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Peter John Veniot: I hesitate to rise after
listening to the lecture that has been delivered from the other side to members on this side of the house. I feel, however, I have a duty to perform, and notwithstanding the fear of receiving another of the lectures that have been so frequently given from the other side, I am going to venture into what is perhaps dangerous ground.	*
I notice an effort was made this afternoon to credit the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth with laying down the principle that the United States people would absorb the duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite coal. Let me draw the attention of the committee to the record, so that we may have it clear. The Minister of Fisheries is the hon. gentleman who first propounded this principle. Speaking on the budget, he made this statement:
I submit that that tax, which was held up as a burden placed upon the people of Ontario and Quebec, need not be paid at all by the people of those provinces. In the first place, even if they buy anthracite coal, the treasury gets the benefit of the tax. It remains to be seen, however, how much of that tax will be paid by the producer. I venture to say, owing to the highly competitive nature of the business, that the larger portion, if not the whole of that tax, will be paid by the producer in the United States.
Now hon. members are attributing that to the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He said so.


Peter John Veniot: He said so only in referring to what was said by the hon. member for South Essex, who stated this afternoon that the United States producer, in order to retain the market, would absorb the duty. The Minister of Fisheries agrees. I wish to ask him: If this duty is to be absorbed by the United States producers, so that they can keep the market they have in Canada to-day, how is this going to help the coal producer's in Nova Scotia or even encourage the use of their coal?	.
Let me point out something else. The Prime Minister has just made the statement: "No man will dare say we have not met the situation." That is a point-blank, determined, absolute statement that they have met the situation. Then we have the statement of the Minister of Fisheries: "We have not met the situation as fully as it should be met, but I am convinced that as time goes on this government will meet it."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no exception to
take to the latter part of the quotation, but the first portion is not in my words. I never said we had not met the situation.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that. I said the minister stated: We have not met the situation fully.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we have not.


Peter John Veniot: I am using (the words of the hon. gentleman. Hansard to-morrow will show who is right. Let me go further. We have the statement of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), who, speaking on the budget, said that the situation was not met. When he was in opposition he asked 'for $1.50 a ton, and he still believes there should be a higher tariff on importations of bituminous coal; but he was pleased to accept as a beginning what had been given. Place those two statements against those made this afternoon 'by the Prime Minister. No man will dare say that we have failed to meet the situation. Whom are we to believe? The Minister of Fisheries, the member for Pictou, or the Prime Minister of Canada?


Thomas Cantley: Quote the member for Pictou correctly.


Peter John Veniot: I did.


Thomas Cantley: You did not.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend went further and said he wanted to advise the house that Nova Scotia would come back in the future for a higher tariff than 75 cents on bituminous coal. Is not that absolute proof that the hon. gentleman believes that the situation has not been met? If it had been met, why would he make the threat thalt the people of Nova Scotia would come back at a future date and ask for a higher duty on coal? No doubt he expects they will ask for the duty that he asked the Liberal government to puit on, when he was sitting in opposition. He then asked for a duty of $1.50 a ton, and1 he said that the people of Nova Scotia would never be satisfied until they got it. But now he is satisfied with a measly 25 cents of an increase in the tariff.
In closing his remarks the right hon. the Prime Minister, in reply to an interjection that I made, said that was right, that it must be conclusive since I had made the statement. I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that I have been enabled to give something conclusive to the Prime Minister, because since the opening of the session we have not obtained anything from him of a conclusive nature in connection with the tariff. The tariff as introduced on
3850	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the first of June will not be recognized after the Prime Minister gets through making all the changes that he has been forced to make in it; so I think he sttands in need of someone to give him something conclusive.


William Daum Euler: I think perhaps I might congratulate myself in at last drawing out the Prime Minister and inducing him to give some reason for the placing of the 40 cent duty on hard coal, even if I did draw upon myself the usual lecture that he administers to those who do not agree with him. That is his invariable custom. I also gave him the opportunity of reflecting rather extravagantly upon myself, because I had not been always in agreement with my colleagues. I suppose it is quite natural for him to be surprised at that, because while he usually boasts of his own frankness he cannot understand that anybody on this side of the house might possess the quality of frankness to the same degree as himself. But I am not going to dwell on these personal matters or speak at length.
I	asked the Prime Minister to give the reason why he placed the duty of 40 cents a ton on hard coal, and to tell the committee how it fits into any scheme for the development of a national fuel policy. I said the other day that the Prime Minister always makes a very good speech when he has a good case, and sometimes a pretty good speech when his case is not so good. His case to-day I think comes within the latter category. He has not to my mind made a case for the placing of 40 cents a ton duty on hard coal. The only attempt he made to show that this duty fits in with the development of a national fuel policy was when he tried to make out that it will mean ultimately -it certainly will not this year or next year-that Alberta coal will be sold in the province of Ontario and thus take the place of hard coal from the United States. He gave another reason, one that I myself suggested last night as possibly having moved him, and that is that it helps in the development of inter-empire trade, that it may bring more Welsh coal to Canada. That, however, I contend is not a factor in the development of a national fuel policy. Lastly, he said that he wanted to encourage the production and consumption of coke in this country. In order for that to fit in with a national fuel policy, it must mean the further development of the coal areas of Nova Scotia and in the west. I say to the Prime Miinster, in just a few words that there is nothing in that argument because just so long as he allows 
United States soft coal to come in here for the purpose of making coke, he is doing nothing to develop the soft coal business of the maritime provinces or of the west.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend as
usual has indulged in a good deal of recrimination, squirming and wriggling, and blustering and scolding, but it does not phase anybody on this side of the house a bit. We are quite used to it, and if the Prime Minister wants to indulge in that sort of thing I suppose that we can. just wait here till he gets over it. What we are dealing with is a particular item of the tariff. I commend his leader's speech to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) who is so keen on non-partisanship. I commend to him the statements made by the Prime Minister, having nothing whatever to do with this item-in fact, he went out of his way to lecture and criticize members of the former government in connection with the way they administered public affairs generally. But I want to point out to the Prime Minister that after he has gotten all through, we come back to the position from which I began when I made my few remarks. It was this: The Prime Minister said at Inverness that he would undertake to meet this situation. His Minister of Fisheries admits quite frankly that he has not met the situation. The Minister of Fisheries says:	"This is one
step," and then turning to the Prime Minister he said, "I do not think the Prime Minister himself would say that this is the complete national fuel policy, but it is one step in that direction." The hon. member for Cape Breton South said exactly the same thing, but the Prime Minister stands up and says: "No man in this house will undertake to say that we have not met the situation." Then later he interrupts and says, "I did not mean when I said, we will meet the situation, that we would meet it successfully."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. The hon. gentleman has no right to misquote; as usual-true to form again.


James Layton Ralston: Hansard will show what he said. I repeat, and will be subject to the correction of Hansard, that he said, "I did not say that we would meet it successfully, but we would meet it." I do not know then, what you mean by meeting a promissory note, whether you mean not paying it or paying it, but I have always been given to understand by those who hold my notes that meeting a promissory note means paying it, and that is what the people of Nova Scotia

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and of Canada expect the Prime Minister to do. They expect him to meet the situation successfully, and not to make half a dozen bites, as he is doing now, or to dodge and abuse members when they direct his attention to the fact that he has not met the situation. Either let him meet the situation man-fashion, or admit, as his Minister of Fisheries does, that "we are not meeting it now, but we will later." The Prime Minister is faced with the situation that I presented to him in the first place, and all the bluster and bluff and lecturing is not going to assist him or get him any further.
My right hon. friend speaks of cast of mind. For a gentleman of his standing at the bar and knowledge of the English language to start cheese-paring over the word "meet" and say it does not mean to meet successfully-well, that indicates the cast of mind that he has displayed in connection with this debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I forgot to say to the committee, when my hon. friend attacked the hon. member for Cape Breton South in connection with Russian coal, that during the year ending March 31, 1931, 14,340 tons of Russian coal were imported into Nova Scotia, valued at 895,000, so that the hon. member for Cape Breton South was correct.


James Layton Ralston: He never mentioned
Russian coal that I know of. I mentioned Russian coal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said that the hon. member for Cape Breton South had been running around with pieces of Russian coal saying that it was displacing Nova Scotia coal, and I am now giving the amount of Russian importations into Nova Scotia.


James Layton Ralston: That does not say it displaces Nova Scotia coal.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: I have listened
with a great deal of amusement, and I know the miners of Nova Scotia will read with amusement, the remarks indicating the sudden change of attitude on the part of the hon member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). Never was the conversion of Saul of Tarsus better exemplified. The hon. member stands in his place to-day asking parliament, and the 13,000 miners of Nova Scotia to believe that he and he alone is the champion of their rights, that to-day when he speaks with a sob in his voice and a tear in his eye his heart is bleeding for them. May I point, out, Mr. Chairman, that when my hon.
friend was minister in the late government he did nothing for those miners, and again last winter when the miners were anxious to find a solution for their difficulties he did nothing. He in common with all other federal members from the province of Nova Scotia was invited by the head of the United Mine Workers' Association to attend a nonpartisan gathering held at the city of Halifax to discuss this question and to devise means of solving it. There was the place and the time to make his suggestions; but where was he then?


James Layton Ralston: This government will
tell us.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He was asked to
attend that meeting, but he did not go. You were asked then-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: -in common with other federal members, because the meeting was non-partisan. Of course my hon. friend is non-partisan in his remarks.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He was asked
subsequently to go with that delegation to Ottawa, and it would not have been difficult for him to do so because at that time he was in the city of Montreal. He would not go that far even in the interests of the miners for whom to-day his heart is bleeding. I ask this question of my hon. friend:	Are not
the provisions in this budget dealing with coal the best provisions yet brought down in any parliament since confederation?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He refuses to
answer.


James Layton Ralston: I said that they were
not.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The only answer he can give is "Yes".


James Layton Ralston: I said "No".


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Show me a budget where they were better.


James Layton Ralston: I shall wait until my
hon. friend is through.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You will wait a long time. My hon. friend spoke about the millions of tons of American coal coming into Canada. Surely we are opposed to that; but he stands up in his place and votes against a measure which will make more



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
difficult the entrance of that coal into this country. He would have a tariff of 50 cents instead of 75 cents on American coal. If 50 cents helps to keep out American coal, surely 75 cents will help to keep it out to an even greater degree. All this eye wash and repentance after the fact is not going to deceive the miners of Nova Scota. They know where he stood when he was a member of the late government; they know where he stood when they asked him to attend a nonpartisan gathering, which he would not do. They know where he stood when they asked him to come to Ottawa to help place their case before the government, which he would not do. Now he has decided to stand up and attempt to plead the case of those 13,000 miners.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I did not
happen to be in the chamber when the Prime Minister made some criticism concerning the location of the coking plant in the city of Montreal. May I say to him that the late government took no responsibility for the locations of either the plant at Hamilton or the one at Montreal. We are very glad to think that they located alt all because of the effect their output would have on the price of anthracite coal.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: May I ask a
question?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Does my hon.
friend suggest that there is any objection to the location of the Hamilton plant?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say so. I wish merely to point out to the house that so far as the late government is concerned we take no responsibility for the location of those plants. We had nothing to do with bringing the companies into Canada; they came and located the same as other industrial concerns.


Leslie Gordon Bell: My hon. friend is not offering any criticism.


Charles A. Stewart: No; not at all. I am answering a statement purported to have been made by the Prime Minister respecting the location of the Montreal plant, and suggesting that because it was located on the canal its location was detrimental ;to the unloading of Nova Scotia coal.
As I said before when speaking to this matter, I wish to congratulate the government upon their extension of the subsidies for the movement of coal. When criticized by hon. members opposite in this connection I said on many occasions that this was the

only solution for the movement of coal both east and west. I repeat now that I think 50 cents a ton tax was ample to take from ithe people of Ontario. We received over 86,000,000 a year from the people of Ontario and Quebec through the duties collected on the importation of coal. To the extent to which you increase the subsidies on railways and steamships for the movement of coal both east and west, to that extent you will occupy the market. The additional 25 cents a ton placed upon bituminous coal will have the effect of jeopardizing the coal industry at Fernie; it will help the coal industry in the constituency of Red Deer, and to a very limited extent it will help the coal industry in Nova Scotia. The solution my hon. friends have adopted is merely an increase or an enlargement of the policy the government of which I formed a part instituted six or seven years ago.
My right hon. friend has said that they are anxious to encourage empire trade in coal. May I say to him that the increase of importations from Great Britain of anthracite coal during the last six years was from 10,000 tons to almost a million tons. So that the late government of which my hon. friends opposite are so critical began to do exactly what my right hon. friend is now continuing to do for which he is taking a great deal of credit.
I am critical only of the imposition Of the duties. I do not think they will help the industry. I said last night, and I repeat it, that so far as bituminous coal is concerned, I have not a great deal of sympathy for the people of Ontario because they are receiving privileges by way of tariff increases and protection, and probably it is fair that they should pay the duty. I do say however that as a means of increasing the consumption of coal from Nova Scotia and western Canada the measure is not worth talking about and will not help a particle^ The amount of 25 cents a ton added to assist the movement would have done faT more for the coal industries in the east and west than the mere imposition of a duty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from West Edmonton rose for the purpose of correcting a statement of the Prime Minister to the effect that the government of which my hon. friend formed a part was responsible for the plant at Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said.


Charles A. Stewart: I was so informed; I stand corrected.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me point out to my hon. friend that although it may be news to him, his government was responsible for the location of that plant.


Charles A. Stewart: In what way?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because they placed in the tariff item No. 1049 which enabled that plant to secure a drawback of 49J cents a ton on all coal used.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but I am speaking of the location of the plant itself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am speaking about that.


Charles A. Stewart: The reference was to placing the plant on the canal instead of on waters from which vessels from Nova Scotia could unload.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am speaking about that. It was placed on the canal for the express purpose of using American coal.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friends had put coke on the free list, so that it was better to manufacture coke in Canada, if it was free anyway.


Charles A. Stewart: I take full responsibility for the drawback.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend should not have the assistance of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. The plant was placed on the canal because of a provision made by the government of my hon. friend. Had it not been for this action they would have been compelled to use Nova Scotia coal, in which event the plant would have been located at tidewater where vessels of the Atlantic ocean could have had access to it. That is the story in a nutshell. My hon. friends opposite must accept their share of the responsibility for the location of that plant, which was designed and equipped for the express purpose of using American coal. This could not have done but for the item placed in the tariff by my hon. friend opposite.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister's argument is rather far-fetched. The drawback on coke has been in existence for years, and I think it is legitimate, quite irrespective of what he says.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend says the
drawback on coke has been in existence for years. It has been in effect for metallurgical coke under item 1019; but the drawback to which I am referring was not put into effect until 1925. Here it is:
Bituminous coal when imported after the 24th day of March, 1925.
That was entirely new, placed there by my hon. friends opposite. It has no reference whatever to the drawback on coal for metallurgical purposes. That has been in the tariff for years.


Charles A. Stewart: I take full responsibility for recommending that by-product coke be put in the same category as metallurgical coke. It was done for the purpose of reducing the cost of anthracite coal to the people of the central provinces. Nova Scotia does not produce a pound of anthracite coal, neither does New Brunswick. The establishment of these two plants in Hamilton and in Montreal reduced by $4 per ton the cost of anthracite coal in the central region of Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is going
into the merits; I am not discussing the merits.


Charles A. Stewart: I am pointing out why I did it. I take full responsibility. It did no injury to the coal industry in Nova Scotia.
Item agreed to on division.
Item 588 carried on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The next items are 587, 587a and 587b. There is no change in the duties. The former item 587 has been divided into three items, coke, petroleum coke, and coke used for metallurgical purposes.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the order in council for the fixation of the price of coke still in existence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I will ask the Minister of Fisheries to move the necessary amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that the
following items be substituted for tariff item 587, as contained in resolution No. 2 of June 1, 1931:
Customs tariff-587. Coke, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $1; general tariff, $1.
Customs tariff-587a. Petroleum coke: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Customs tariff-587b. Coke of a kind not produced in Canada or coke which, owing to transportation costs, is not available commercially throughout Canada, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in furnaces in manufacturing calcium carbide or in metallurgical operations, in their own plants: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item as amended agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After recess we will take up item 622.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Customs tariff-622.	Trunks, valises, hat
boxes, carpet bags, tool bags and baskets of all kinds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-623.	Musical instrument
cases and fancy cases or boxes of all kinds, portfolios and fancy writing desks, satchels, reticules, card cases, purses, pocketbooks, fly books and parts thereof: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-651a. Buttons of vegetable ivory: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per gross: British preferential tariff, 5 cents; intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Item agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the following be substituted for tariff item 1215, as contained in resolution No. 4 of June 1, 1931;
Used or second hand automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds, manufactured prior to the calendar year in which importation into Canada is sought to be made.
Provided, that this item does not affect in any manner automobiles and motor vehicles:
(a)	Imported under tariff items 702 or 705a, or under tourists' or travellers' vehicle permits;
(b)	Bona fide purchased on or before the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, by consumers for their own use and not for resale;
(c)	Forfeited or confiscated for any offence under the customs laws or the laws of any province of Canada;
(d)	Left by bequest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paragraph (a) refers to
settlers' effects, as I explained the other day. In paragraph (b), "consumers" is the word usually used in the tariff. Paragraph (c) refers to cars that are taken and have to be sold, and (d) is to meet such bequests as one that has actually been made, in which an automobile was left by will to a Canadian. These four provisions meet such cases as may arise.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that the
following be added to resolution No. 5 of the first day of June, 1931, as amended by resolution No. 4 of the 13th day of July, of the same year:
Provided, that in the case of goods which were imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption, and on which duty was paid, on and after the second day of June, one thousand

nine hundred and thirty-one, in accordance with the rates of duty set forth as payable on such goods in the resolutions respecting the customs tariff introduced in the House of Commons on the first day of the said month, the duty so paid shall not be affected, nor shall the person paying it be entitled to any refund or be liable to any further payment of duty, by reason of such rate of duty being altered by any resolution introduced subsequently to that in accordance with which such duty was paid and before the passing of this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This provides against
any requests for further duties as a result of the amendment of the tariff, or for the recovery of any refund by reason of its being lower, which is a contingency that does not often arise under this budget.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is provision in
resolution No. 3 that tariff item 1034, which provides for a drawback, shall be no longer in force, because of the duty placed on sal soda. The amount involved last year was $289.87.
This exhausts the items except for 184 and 184a, magazines, which will be taken up tomorrow afternoon. The leader of the opposition wishes to make some observations with respect to the matter.


INCOME WAR TAX ACT AMENDMENT
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the committee will recall that the items which remained were those dealing with the income tax. I do not propose to proceed further with them. I have not been accustomed to trouble this chamber with my personal affairs, but since I have been elected to the positions which I have occupied, either as leader of the opposition or as leader of the government, I have endeavoured to discharge my duties to the best of my ability. I have not thought of my personal fortunes or my personal advancement.
On June 1, I brought before the house proposals with respect to the income tax. I pointed out that in the main they would have no application, so far as revenue was concerned, until next year; they would be applicable then and not now. The usual course adopted by my predecessors has been to bring such measures before the house shortly before the end of the fiscal year so that the taxes would be applicable to that fiscal year and be paid on the rates fixed by the statute passed just prior to its expiration. I thought it well that the house and country should have the fullest opportunity to consider the measure which was submitted, and I

Income War Tax Act
shall now relate to the committee the circumstances under which it was submitted.
As Minister of Finance I realized that I had not the opportunity to study the operations of the Income Tax Act in all its ramifications. The officials of the Income Tax branch are trained men. The commissioner of that branch was appointed to that service by my predecessor. He is a competent official; from the study he has given to the matter he has a wide knowledge, of the operations of income tax legislation in every part of the world. While it has been said that one should not refer to an official in dealing with a matter of this kind, it has always been the custom of those who come and go to ask permanent officials to give, through the legislation framed by them, the benefit of their advice to the country. Accordingly I asked the head of the Income Tax branch to prepare a measure that he believed was the best in the interests of the Dominion of Canada, having regard to his experience, to his knowledge of the operations of similar taxes in other countries, and to what he has learned, on the one hand, as to the ability of our people to pay, and, on the other, of the encouragement of capital. He prepared a bill, and I should like the committee to realize that that bill was submitted to me on the night before the budget was presented. I handed to the clerk at the tabic the very sheets of paper which that official gave to me. It was my intention to have had the resolution passed in the house and to have had the bill referred to the committee on banking and commerce in order that hon. gentlemen might have an opportunity before that committee to question the officials of the department and to determine to what extent the bill as prepared represented what was best in the interests of Canada.
To my surprise I was personally attacked for this measure. If hon. members are interested enough to look at the speech delivered by a former minister of the crown, the ex-Secretary of State, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), he is reported as saying at page 2778 of Hansard:
If .... he had told the people he was going to raise the sales tax from one per cent to four per cent; that he was going to impose a one per cent tax on all the imports of this country; that he was going to do that most infamous tmng, relieve himself and his wealthy friends Pc1' cent of their income tax, not only would he not have won the election but in certain parts of the country he would have been stoned away from his meetings.
That in the French version is now being circulated throughout the province of Quebec, the interpretation being that by this "infamous" act I reduced by 25 per cent the tax on my own income, and so on.
Another former minister of the crown, Mr. Gordon of Peterborough, made the statement at a public gathering that the proposed income tax would save me $25,000 personally. On the one hand there is the statement made in this chamber that I was legislating to save myself 25 per cent of my income tax; on the other, there is the statement made out of the chamber that I was legislating by lessening my tax to prevent myself paying $25,000. I do not know at the moment what the effect of the proposed income tax legislation would have been upon my personal income tax. I have never been concerned about that. I have always paid with pleasure my income tax, and on three occasions I have been refunded overpayments. I have maintained no corporation; I have set up no personal or family corporation with respect to my affairs. I have paid as an individual I have maintained no trust funds abroad where my income should accumulate and where no income tax would have to be paid on it. But I do not think the committee is concerned about my personal affairs. I defy any man to make about any business of mine with respect to the Dominion of Canada a single criticism that would be warranted or to point to any departure from the letter of the law in favour of myself. Not only are the statements, the one made in the house and the other made. outside, untrue, but I confess when I saw the rancour with which the attacks were made upon me with respect to the matter, I felt that in the public interest I must ask the committee to permit me to withdraw this resolution. The taxes will remain as they are. It does not follow that when the time for payment comes, whoever occupies the position of Minister of Finance may not think some action desirable, for I recall that the leader of the opposition, in addressing the people of Canada at Richmond Hill on September 5, 1925, had this to say.
But is reduction already effected sufficient? Uur income tax is still in some respects higher tban that of the United States. . . . While aiming at a further reduction in the public debt we must aim also at a further reduction m the income tax and the sales tax.
That is from the Globe of Monday, September 7, 1925. I am not now concerned about that matter. This measure did not touch the budget. That is what is the unexplainable point about it. It was introduced with the budget resolutions as a convenient
Income War Tax Act

place to enable the matter to be discussed, and if I ask the tolerance of the committee to make the statement I have made, it is because I have been hurt more than I have been in my life before to think that in a chamber such as this an ex-minister of the crown would charge me with having endeavoured to save myself from paying 25 per cent of my tax; and that out of this chamber a charge should be made that I would endeavour to save myself from paying 525,000. Neither is correct; if it were I should be unworthy of standing in the place I occupy.
I hope that I may be forgiven for touching upon my personal affairs as I have done. How can the state expect men with any means to serve it if their motives must be misconstrued and attacks such as this made upon them? I think in one great country the services of one of its richest men have been given in a way that will be remembered by posterity for a very long time. I have no such hopes in my own case, but I will continue as unselfishly as I know how, to serve Canada that has done so much for me, and I shall endeavour, out of the resources that a kindly Providence has permitted me to have, to make those contributions which the state justly takes. But I shall never become a party to having it thought in the house or by the country that any legislation fathered by me or resolutions moved by me in committee of ways and means have been actuated by any object other than the well-being of my fellow' Canadians. I know not to-night what effect the resolutions would have upon my own fortunes, except that I do know it is absolutely untrue that they would affect my payment of income tax in the manner indicated either in this chamber or outside it.
Once more I ask the tolerance of the committee for having brought to its attention my personal affairs. Hon. gentlemen are not concerned with them except in so far as they touch the state, and if I ask the committee to permit me now to withdraw these resolutions that affect the income tax amendment, I do so in the firm belief that it is my duty under the circumstances to take this course.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether it is in order to make any observations on my right hon. friend's remarks or not. I do not know whether I heard my hon. friend aright, but whether I heard him aright or not, I am going to make some observations if I am in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Richard Motherwell: On the 15th of June, two weeks after my right hon. friend made

his budget speech, I made my contribution to the budget debate. In the meantime I was very anxious to know what the income tax provisions meant, and I put a question on the order paper asking the Minister of National Revenue what amount of income tax would be collected under the provisions of the new act on a million dollar income, and what amount would be collected on the same income under the old income tax. About ten minutes before I started to speak in the budget debate a copy of the reply of my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue was handed to me, the substance of which was that inasmuch as there had been no million dollar income taxable property for a number of years, he presumed that I meant the corporation tax, and he gave his answer accordingly. I considered that that was a smart Aleck answer. He was admitting more than he meant to admit, because he admitted right there that there had been some taxable incomes of a million dollars.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Not in recent years. My hon. friend was asking for something that he did not understand. He thought he had something with which to make a case, but he had not.


William Richard Motherwell: The very fact that there had been such incomes indicated the necessity of having the schedule. The income tax schedule was available to anybody at the office. There was no secret about it. Anybody could get it. The schedules indicated that on incomes from $3,500 to $8,000 there was a reduction of tax, on incomes from $8,000 to $137,000 an increase, and on incomes from $137,000 to $1,000,000 a decrease in the income tax. Those who were fortunate enough to hold taxable income property above $137,000 paid under the new act less income taxation than under the old. I did not know who had incomes above $137,000. I understood that there were about sixty individuals in Canada with incomes above that, and I took the ground and I take it now, that this is not the time for the man who had an income above $137,000 to unload any part of his former income tax on the poor people of Canada. As I say, there were a few incomes from $3,500 to $8,000 on which the income tax was reduced, the reduction amounting in the aggregate to about $50 a year. That is my recollection; I have not the figures before me. There were some sixty people who had taxable income property between $137,000 and $1,000,000. Who they are I do not know, but whoever they are my remarks applied to them, and they still apply to them.

Income War Tax Act


Charles A. Stewart: Needless
to say, it is always best to be discreet and await an explanation of any legislation that is introduced. I confess that I heard a good deal about the reductions in income taxation. I presumed that we would discuss it when the legislation came before the house, but now we shall have no opportunity as the Prime Minister desires to withdraw the resolution. I think it is regrettable in public life that one is always subjected to suspicion. Tihat is something that my right hon. friend is just beginning to realize now after many years of public service. As head of the government he will be subjected to all sorts of suspicions, but I would say to him as an old friend and former colleague that I would not feel too badly about it. One has to put up with that sort of thing. It is part of the penalty we pay for being in public life. One is bound to be attacked from every quarter. I am bound to say that in some twenty odd years, holding positions of some responsibility, I have sometimes been pained at the suggestions I have heard against my honesty and integrity, and in the higher position my right hon. friend occupies one can readily understand that he will be always subjected to criticism. I am going to say now, notwithstanding that he has withdrawn the resolutions; that I think it would have been much better had he gone through with them. I do not know what effect thiey would have or what changes they would bring about, but as my right hon. friend feels as he does about the matter and has withdrawn the resolutions, I do not suppose there is anything more to be said about it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Shall the right hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his resolution?


William Daum Euler: Does the Prime Minister withdraw entitrely all the changes he proposed to make in the income tax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except the one that has already been adopted with respect to increasing the tax on corporations from 8 to 10 per cent. That was adopted some time ago.


William Daum Euler: Does he mean that the only resolution that is withdrawn is that which relates to the change of schedules?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were three resolutions dealing with income tax. One was to increase the corporation tax from 8 to 10 per cent; the other was the two per cent tax, and the other dealt with the schedules. I am withdrawing the two that I have last named.
With respect to the two per cent tax the reason for withdrawing it is fairly clear under present conditions. Repercussions of the present conditions in Canada began to be realized fully after the middle of June, and it is the most inopportune time in the world to present such a resolution in view of these repercussions in Europe, as may be found from a perusal of the Times and continental papers of repute in Paris and elsewhere. That has nothing to do with the matter I mentioned with respect to the schedules. The resolution with respect to the corporation tax was adopted some time ago, if I remember aright.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will leave the only change [DOT] the one I have mentioned.


William Daum Euler: Is the one dealing with family corporations nullified as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am leaving that just as it is.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I should make any comment after my two colleagues have spoken, following the Prime Minister. I can very well understand that the Prime Minister from the very nature of his duties is a very, very busy man, and I have no fault to find with his action in calling in the commissioner of taxation to assist him in making such changes in the income tax law as the experience of the commissioner had shown to be advisable. I believe this, however, that it is highly desirable-I am making no criticism-where legislation of such far-reaching importance, financial and otherwise, is to be introduced, that the finance minister should acquaint himself with the provisions of the proposed bill prior to its introduction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with that, but
I said that I had proposed to send it to the banking and commerce committee in order that an opportunity might be afforded there to all members to discuss the matter.


William Daum Euler: I will admit further that it
is a fairly good excuse, or reason, that the Prime Minister has been so busy that he finds it difficult to attend to all the work himself. I would make this further comment. If the changes that were proposed, and which the Prime Minister feels may be presumed to affect him personally, were changes which were right, I think it is still his duty to press through that legislation. While I am perfectly free to admit that the Prime Minister has a very fine sense of honour, perhaps he is exaggerating the effect
Income War Tax Act

so far as he is personally affected by the proposed change. I repeat, if the Prime Minister is now convinced, if he was not before, and the committee is convinced, that the changes proposed in the income tax are such as are right in every way and can be properly defended, then I believe in justice to the Canadian people and to other income taxpayers than himself, the Prime Minister ought to press the legislation through. At the same time I quite understand the feeling that influenced him because of certain criticisms which were made. As Prime Minister and Minister of Finance my right hon. friend has a great responsibility. I would make the statement, not by way of criticism, that his responsibility goes far beyond any personal feeling he may have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: If in his opinion the legislation is right and in the interests of the country generally, I see no reason why he should withdraw the resolutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend
from North Waterloo has not quite appreciated the first part of my statement. I would have much more seriously considered my obligation were it not for the fact that the course I proposed to pursue was one my predecessors had not pursued. If it is desirable the bill can be brought before the house for its consideration before the day arrives for the payment of the next income tax. The government of which my hon. friend was a member brought in such legislation and made it applicable to the return of that year. That opportunity still exists. Were it not for that fact I think the observations made by my hon. friend would have had much more effect. I pwe a duty however not only to the country but also to my own friends, my party and my friends who are not in my party. I cannot view with equanimity the thought that in every back concession, every comer lot, every grocery store and every libellous and scurrilous sheet statements are being made that I have done so and so for my own personal advantage. Hon. members may consider the matter on its merits when I no longer occupy the position of Minister of Finance.


William Richard Motherwell: May I make one
or two further observations? Those of us who have commented on this matter also have friends before whom we wish to vindicate ourselves.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: What are you talking about?


William Richard Motherwell: I find that there
are sixty men with taxable incomes between $137,000 and $500,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to
a point of order.


William Richard Motherwell: Running all the
way from $163-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: Up to $41,827-reductions below the schedule under the Robb budget.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman should have an opportunity to say anything he desires to say.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg your pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman should have the fullest opportunity to make any observations he wishes to make.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you, but I had pretty nearly finished my statement. However, because of all the howling I do not know whether Hansard was able to get it or not.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Owing to a matter
mentioned by the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) I feel it necessary to say a few words. I do not intend to take objection to any of his statements with the exception of the one wherein he said that I had given him a smart Aleck answer. The answer was true and I can quite understand that anything which was the truth to the ex-Minister of Agriculture may appear to be smart Aleck. A question was put and I gave the answer fully and honestly. He asked how many were receiving incomes of $1,000,000 and what would be the taxes thereon under the old and new systems of taxation.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right,-up
to $1,000,000.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Now, I will admit that the ex-Minister of Agriculture may not be very alert mentally, but I think he should be able to make a simple calculation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, a simple calculation.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
what he is saying as I cannot hear him for the commotion.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The fact is that there
was no one in the Dominion of Canada who received an income of $1,000,000, and if an

Income War Tax Act
answer had been given showing the amount of tax on an income of 81,000,000 it would be obvious that it was supposed there was a' situation where 81,000,000 was assessed and the taxes paid thereon. There was no such case. I submit to the committee that it would have been improper for me to do the arithmetic for the ex-Minister of Agriculture when in fact there was no person in the Dominion in receipt of an income of 81,000,000 or paying taxes thereon. There was no one last year paying taxes on that amount, nor on 8750,000. While on my feet I remember that there were two who paid a tax on 8500,000. What was the purpose of the ex-Minister of Agriculture asking the amount of taxation on 81,000.000 under the old rates and under the proposed rates when as a matter of fact in the whole Dominion of Canada there was no such case. I think it may be said that an honest answer was given to a smart Aleck question.


William Richard Motherwell: There was no reason under the sun why my hon. friend should not have answered the question as to what was the difference between the tax on 81,000,000 under the new and old systems. There is no reason why the minister could not have answered my question. When I asked the question he had no right to assume that I meant anything about the corporation tax, and for him to make such a reply was a downright insult. It was nothing but a smart Aleck answer I received from my hon. friend.


Mr. POWER:: I did not quite gather from the remarks of the Minister of Finance whether that seotion dealing with the exemptions of $3,000 being raised to $3,500 is to be proceeded with or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The measure increasing the corporation rate from 8 to 10 per cent has been considered and the bill introduced and passed. Beyond that no amendment will be made.


Mr. BOURASSA:: In other words, taking these resolutions which have been printed and distributed, the whole of them with the exception of No. 1 on the first page are dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the resolutions before me.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Down to "Special War Revenue" at the bottom of page 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think the government is to be congratulated on this withdrawal. For my part, leaving aside entirely any personal question which I think should not have been brought up one way or another, I think the government in withdrawing these resolutions
is giving way to an overwhelming public sentiment which has been expressed right and left throughout all parts of Canada. For my part I congratulate, the Prime Minister upon his decision. On the other hand I think the observations made by the hon. member for North Waterloo are quite correct. It would be rather awkward for the government and parliament if legislation were to be affected because of warranted or unwarranted attacks lodged against the Prime Minister or any other public man.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Personally I should have been the last to feel that the Prime Minister would have thought of himself when proposing any legislation of this kind. On the other hand, under the circumstances and because of public discussions which take place throughout the country, he must not be surprised if some comments are passed. I well remember the time when his predecessor in office

and that lasted a good many years- went through various elections facing charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism because he did not choose to enlist during the war. I respectfully suggest to the right hon. gentleman that in this respect as in all othef respects he frame his mind, propose his policy and propound it before parliament and before the country, irrespective of any personal comments that may be made by this or that gentleman inside or outside the house. Besides, there were in these resolutions some measures which have no relation whatever to the personal situation of the right hon. gentleman, and therefore the personal attack that has been made upon him cannot have any relation to his present determination to withdraw the other resolutions. For example, the resolution which proposed to levy a special tax of two per cent on the income from foreign investments had nothing whatever to do with the personal attack. I think that was one of the resolutions which was commendable, and so far as that is concerned I am sorry it is withdrawn. That surely is not withdrawn on account of the observations that have been made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the reasons a
moment ago, if the hon. gentleman had listened.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. I do not blame the Prime Minister for having withdrawn that resolution with the rest; I simply say it had no reference to the personal attack.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister gave another reason.
Income War Tax Act


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so, and on the
whole I approve of the government withdrawing these resolutions. But I say, if in the future any prime minister should come to a decision to withdraw certain measures because of personal attacks made upon him by some of his opponents, I think it would be detrimental to the course of legislation and to the proper administration of the country's affairs. If the accusation is false, then it falls of itself; if it is brought in such a manner outside of parliament that the Prime Minister or any other member of his government or of the house is capable of bringing before the tribunals of the country those who accuse him falsely, then, like any other citizen, he has recourse in law against his traducers. But to say ithat legislation should be changed because of personal attacks on a minister of the crown is, I think, pretty far-fetched and it seems to me it would ibe a very dangerous precedent. The right hon. gentleman could well have stated his personal position without taking the course that he has taken because of the attack, in which so far as I am concerned I do not believe at all.


Alfred Speakman: As is usually the case, I think mokt of us view this action with mingled feelinga Speaking for myself-and I think a great many other people-I would say this. To the extent that the proposed measures increased the income tax, we regret their withdrawal; tto the extent that they lessened -the income tax, whether at the top or the bottom, some of us, including myself, approve of their withdrawal. So far as the personal element is concerned, may I also say that although some of us may not agree with the Prime Minister's general policy, I think there are few of us 'but recognize that the Prime Minister, whether right or wrong in his policy, is too 'big a man to allow personal considerations to interfere with the performance of his duty; and that while we disapprove of the suggestion to reduce the income tax upon the larger incomes, we do not believe for one moment that these measures were introduced from any personal motive or from the point of view of the manner in which they might affect the Prime Minister's own personal fortune. I repeat, whether we agree or disagree with him, we regard him as too big a man to allow such considerations to affect his conduct.


Mr. SPENCER:: In support of what has
been said by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), I want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that the Prime Minister in his budget speech mentioned that

by his income tax proposals he expected to raise some $23,500,000. If those proposals are now to be dropped, it means we shall be short that amount of revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. You have it all
wrong.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It will be lost, less the
corporation tax. Therefore I trust that Defore another session the government will have prepared legislation to present to this house for increasing the income tax along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Charles Gavan Power: May I join with my hon.
friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) m expressing some regret that on account of the unfortunate circumstances that the Prime Minister felt himself personally attacked he decided-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not "felt himself"-he
was. Have you read what your colleague said?


Charles Gavan Power: I was not going to enter
upon that ground, but if the Prime Minister asks me to, I am quite prepared to accede to his request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on.


Charles Gavan Power: The statement was made
that the Prime Minister was de-taxing himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twenty-five per cent;
which is false.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not know it was twenty-five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is there on Hansard.


Charles Gavan Power: It does not matter; it is
neither here nor there whether it was twenty-five per cent, five per cent or one per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does matter.


Charles Gavan Power: The point is that, owing
largely to his friends, the right hon. gentleman has the reputation in this country of being a man of great wealth. It was perhaps fair on the part of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) to assume that the right hon. gentleman would be one of those whose incomes would have been to a certain extent exempted from taxation by these proposals. I do not know whether or not it would have been. I have no means of finding out, nor do I care. But if that were the fact-and we have been assured that the right hon. gentleman is a man of great wealth-I think it .was possible, without making any personal

Income War Tax Act
reflection on the right hon. gentleman-and so far as I am concerned personally he knows I have not the slightest inclination to do so -that if as a matter of fact he had an income in excess of 3130,000 a year, by the act of this government he would pay less m the way of income tax than he otherwise would have done. I think that is a fair statement to make.
Now, I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Prime Minister took this attack to himself. It is inevitable in the political life of this or any other country that one's motives should be misjudged. I do not think any cne on this side of the house would deliberately say that the Prime Minister in the exercise of the functions of Minister of Finance which he has assumed would have introduced this legislation for the purely selfish motive of diminishing his own income tax. I think all hon. members on this side of the house will back me up when I make that statement on their behalf, and so far as 1 am concerned T make it gladly and willingly. I do believe that the very last thing which would have entered into the mind of the right hon. Prime Minister would be to secure any personal advantage to himself. But that having been said-


An hon. MEMBER:: Bluff.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no question of bluff. I have been in the habit of speaking frankly and honestly in this house, and I will do so now. But that having been said, with all due regard to the sensibilities and susceptibilities of my right hon. friend, I do not believe it is either fair or reasonable on his part to withdraw the really beneficial clauses in this legislation because he felt that he had been personally attacked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It can still be passed in
time for the taxing year, as was always done by the Liberal government.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not concerned with
what was done by the Liberal government in the past; I am concerned with this, that the right hon. gentleman, on the first day of June, brought down a budget which he said was a real budget. That speech is divided into sections, under the general title "The Budget." I assume that it was so divided at his request or at least at the request of those who saw the notes of his speech. At page 2142 of Hansard we find the following: The Budget
Annual Financial Statement Of Right Hon.
R. B. Bennett, Minister of Finance


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was done by the
Hansard reporters without the knowledge of anyone connected with the budget.


Charles Gavan Power: That was done by the
Hansard reporters?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; they always do it with respect to the budget statement. You will see it in previous years. And there is another case in which the hon. member is running true to form. He has charged me with having done something, or having had it done on my behalf, and a little inquiry will indicate that it is not so. It indicates the purpose behind the statement.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not charging the right hon. gentleman with anything I cannot prove. I will stand my ground and I will not charge him with anything I will not prove to the hilt-every word of it. The speech is divided into sections. Whether it was done by the Hansard men-and I take his word-acting according to custom, as he implies, whereby they usually divide the budget speech-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not even re-read
the copy of Hansard.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not doubt that if the right hon. gentleman had gone through it he would have found it most interesting reading. I wish he would read it now. There is a heading:
Financial operations during fiscal year 1930-31.
That is one chapter, a part of the budget speech; and I will guarantee, without knowing anything about it, that if this speech has been distributed to the right hon. gentleman's friends it is in this very shape. Then there is another heading, "Excise Duty," and a third section under the heading "Income Tax." The text reads:
The income tax ranks first in productivity,
And so forth. It goes on:
The fiscal year 1922 was also a dark one in respect to total revenues, but income tax assessments were on the earnings and profits of 1920, the peak year of the post-war boom. In the past year total revenues were again reduced, but income tax assessments were levied on the earnings and profits of a peak year, that of the stock market boom.
He goes on to describe the financial operations, and later on he says:
I may add that it is proposed also during the present session entirely to amend the Income Tax Act. Family corporations will be abolished; it is about time.
Income War Tax Act

There is still time; why have we not done it? He continues:
In addition to that we propose to present a new schedule of rates based upon the experience of the commissioner of taxation. Mr. Walters was asked to prepare, with the aid of his officials, what he conceived to he a proper tax rate for this country, having regard to known conditions. He has done so, and the government proposes to adopt his recommendations.
The foregoing appears at page 2174 of Hansard of June 1. Could any language be plainer than that? The government knew what Mr. Walters' recommendations were, and they proposed to adopt them. The right hon. gentleman goes on to say:
The exemptions will be somewhat increased, hut it is thought desirable that the rate should start at 1 per cent, with another 1 per cent added with each additional $1,000 of income until the maximum is reached, which will be 25 per cent.
Then he goes on:
It may amaze the house to learn .... that the amount of income tax collected in this country since the tax first was put on the statute hooks-
-was so and so. Then he proceeds:
In addition it is proposed that dividends from Canadian corporations, up to $10,000, shall be exempt from taxation. . . .
And he goes on further to describe and to elaborate upon his income tax proposals.
Now, the fault I have to find with the right hon. gentleman is this, to put it very plainly and in very few words: that because he felt aggrieved at being attacked in the house and in the country-and perhaps I am not blaming him for that.-he has disregarded entirely those sections of the income tax amendments which would have brought considerable benefit to certain classes in the country who are badly in need of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Badly in need.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. gentleman who interrupts say that the classes of people who under this proposed legislation would have benefited by an increase of 8500 in exemption are not badly in need of it? If any hon. gentleman says so, he does not know the feelings of the people. It is to that class of people particularly that I refer, and I deeply regret the action taken by the Prime Minister. I would ask him, if possible, to reconsider the matter.


Grote Stirling: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the right hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw the resolutions?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Resolutions withdrawn.
Progress reported.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair. Outside Service-
Salaries and allowances, $18,394,800.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $16,560,000.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependants of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1 235 175
Yukon Territory, $150,000.-Total, $36,339,975.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. 'Chairman, this item
is subdivided into other items which include salaries and allowances; mail service, including mail service by air; miscellaneous expenditures, and so on, about fourteen different items in all. I thought we were to take the items up separately, but before going into the discussion of any item in detail, I wish to direct the attention of the committee to the time these estimates were last before it on Tuesday last. On that occasion the item taken up was Salaries, and the minister made a statement to t.he house reviewing the administration of the department for the year ended March 31, 1931. As soon as the minister finished I called the attention of the chairman to the fact that I thought the minister had gone out of his way to make a Statement under a civil government item which should properly have been made under an outside or general administration item. At that time I claimed the right of replying to the hon. gentleman at such time as we might reach the first item, and the chairman stated that this permission would be granted in view of the fact that the minister had made an extended statement without having gone into the details of any item. With the indulgence of the committee, I now propose to reply to the statement made by the minister.
In doing this it will be necessary to refer to many figures, and I intend to confine myself to a large extent to the notes and figures which I have before me. In reviewing the administration of his department, and in dealing with the deficit of approximately $5,000,006 for the year ended March 31, 1931, the minister said:	'	[DOT]
The deficit which has occurred in the department is due to the decrease of revenue brought about by the crisis affecting this and other

Supply-Post Office
countries of the world, while the increase in expenditure is caused by the obligations for the development of service imposed upon the department by the former administration and authorized by previous parliaments.
The admission that the world-wide depression is the cause of a great part of this deficit is a source of gratification to myself. A provincial election is being carried on in Prince Edward Island, and the papers which support the federal government are stating that the increase in postage has been necessitated by the maladministration of the former Postmaster General. We now have the admission by the present Postmaster General that the falling off in revenue, amounting to approximately $2,000,000, has been caused, not by the maladministration of the former Postmaster General, but by the world-wide depression which has affected every branch of the public service. I want to thank the Postmaster General for affording me an opportunity of showing that this deficit was not brought about-he has never made this accusation- by the maladministration of the department when I had the honour to preside over it.
The minister informed the committee that the decrease in revenue due to the world-wide depression amounted to $2,000,000, and I desire to draw the attention of the committee to what would have been the finances of the Post Office Department if there had not been a world-wide depression. If the revenue had increased in the year ended March 31, 1931, in proportion to the increases shown in the years 1928-29 and 1929-30, the net revenue for 1931 would have been $34,767,680 instead of $31,000,000. The Postmaster General gave the increases in revenue for the years 1928 and 1929, which show that the normal annual increase of revenue ranged from $1,500,000 to as high as $1,750,000. We were told by the minister that the increased expenditure in 1930-31 as compared with 1929-30 amounted to $1255,974, which would make the expenditure for 1930-31, $30292,603 All things being equal and with no world-wide depression, the net deficit for 1930-31, based on the proportionate increases for the previous years, would have been only $1,524,923 instead of approximately $5,000,000. This net deficit of $1,524,923 would represent just about the amount expended upon air mail service. It will be remembered by hon. members who sat in the house in 1929 that when as Postmaster General I submitted my estimates at that time, we fully discussed the question whether the administration of the Post Office should be one that would bring about surpluses or would be such as to give the greatest amount of service to the people and at the same time
make both ends meet. Members of all groups in the house agreed at the time that no attempt should be made to run the Post Office Department on the basis of surpluses, and that should any surpluses occur, they should be used for the betterment of the service throughout the Dominion.
On that occasion I made the statement that if the revenues should continue to be buoyant as they were in 1927 and 1928 and prior to the end of March, 1929, I had every reason to expect that by the end of the fiscal year 1930 we would be able to make both ends meet, leaving out of the picture the air mail service, which had been inaugurated the year before. The statement submitted by the Postmaster General the other evening bears out the prediction I made at that time; if no world wide depression had struck Canada, the revenues of the Post Office Department would have continued to increase year after year as they had done prior to the end of the fiscal year 1929, and all things being equal, at the end of 1930 the Post Office Department would have been in a position to make both ends meet. That being the case, I fail to see where it can be charged that the present deficit is attributable to any maladministration on the part of the former Postmaster General or his officials. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1926, before I assumed the position of Postmaster General, the rate of postage on letters had been reduced from three to two cents, thereby naturally, one would think, causing a reduction in the revenues of the department, by 1928. The expansion in the volume of business effected by that reduction and the progressive state of affairs in Canada brought about such an increase in the revenue of the department that it still kept above what it had been at the time the reduction was made.
The minister in his statement the other night told the committee of the necessity of making certain curtailments in the postal service of the Dominion. May I say how deeply I regret the curtailment of the general mail service as indicated on that occasion by the minister. In view of the largely increased revenue which must come from the higher rate of postage in connection with first-and second-class matter, and the increased revenue that will be derived from the extra sale of postage stamps to be placed on postal notes, money orders, and cheques, all of which will reach the sum of at least $4,000,000 after the provisions have been in operation for a year, and in view of the contemplated rearrangement of the air mail service as indicated by the minister, there is no need of such curtail-
Supply-Post Office

ments as are being made; and especially is there no need for cutting from the railway mail service the sum of $35,000 as indicated by the estimates submitted to the house and referred to by the minister the other day.
The minister told the committee that the curtailment of railway mail service was brought about by certain changes in the hours, in the operations of trains and so forth. That is quite true. When I was Postmaster General the same changes were made in the summer time, but it must not be forgotten that when summer changes in the railway time tables bring about a curtailment of railway mail service, the department has to supplement the loss occasioned by that curtailment by the use of highway communication and other means of giving to the public the daily service they received when the trains were running regularly. When the railway service, as occurs in many cases, is reduced from daily to three times a week, the department cannot leave the mail service at only three times a week between the points affected. If they cannot give the service by rail, they must supplement it by highway or steamboat communication- the service must be maintained. I am not saying that the service has not bean maintained, but it is no excuse to say that the estimates' should be cut down because of changes in railway communication.
The policy adopted by the minister not to increase the mail train service will, I hope, not be put into effect. What is understood by not increasing the railway mail service is that in future there shall be no extension of services by rail or what is known as railway post offices to cities or districts which, with largely increasing populations, must have that service if they wish to keep up with progress. To close up the very necessary service which is known as the railway post office system is detrimental to the progress of the districts interested. Therefore I claim that the minister should not, and I hope he will not, refuse to give those extensions where the business of the country warrants them, even if this should bring about a deficit in his department. I appeal to the minister not to put that policy into effect except in cases where he finds it absolutely essential so to do. Let me add this to what I have already said in this respect: this service plays a large part in establishing better industrial conditions. I hope the government has not lost faith in the country to such an extent that because of the depression which has struck Canada we are going to curtail a service which will help in the future that industrial development so necessary under present conditions.

Another statement made by the minister was that (he rural sections cannot expect any extension. Here again I would express the hope that he will see his way clear not to put that into effect. This service is one of the most important of the whole mail service, and no matter what the economic conditions may be, our rural population should not be sidetracked for the sake of practising small economies.
The minister tells us further that the increase in expenditure is caused by the obligations for development of service imposed upon the department by the former administration and authorized by previous parliaments. I am free, Mr. Chairman, to admit that to a great extent this is quite true. Certain obligations were undertaken which must now be carried out, but will the minister and his colleagues in the government claim that the department should have remained still and not have tried to meet the various demands made upon it for improved services, especially in the far-flung areas of Canada, for the opening up of new territory, for better rural mail service-which was to a great extent inaugurated under the administration of your humble servant-and for better train mail service? I appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Would he find any fault-I am sure he would not- with the attitude of the department in bringing about improvements and efficiency in the train mail service and other mail services that we provided at large expense throughout British Columbia and sections of the territories, such as the Mackenzie valley, the district of Vermilion, and other districts that I could name, where at large expense the department undertook to give the people the service to which they were entitled, and for the lack of which not only had they been suffering individually, but the districts concerned had been handicapped in their industrial development?
Can fault be found because we gave better accommodation for the urban mail service? Will the members representing Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal and other cities undertake to criticize the late administration and the Post Office Department for the magnificent extra service that was provided during my regime? Toronto, under the regime of your humble servant, was given a postal service and postal facilities unequalled on the continent of America, and that service was inaugurated in the main during the time your humble servant was head of that department. It cost money to do it, but parliament agreed to it. Everything was laid before parliament, and parlia-

Supply-Post Office
ment was satisfied and willing that these improvements should be made.
Vast improvements were also made in the sub-postal service in the city of Montreal, and improvements weTe contemplated for the future in order to place Montreal on the same basis as Toronto. That system was started under your humble servant, and I hope the minister will see his way clear to carry out what was started in 1929. I hope he will not neglect the city of Montreal, that he will accommodate the people of that city with a better service than they have to-day, and that there will be no neglect because the government wishes to practise small economies. I trust that the improvements at Montreal will be gone on with, so that Montreal may be placed on the same footing as Toronto. True, it will cost money both to the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works, but when that work is done you will have two of the largest cities in Canada occupying a position in mail service distribution that it will be difficult to equal in any part of the wide world. That is saying a great deal, but that Canada in its system of mail distribution stands to-day ahead of any other country in the world cannot be gainsaid. Not only do we stand ahead of any other country in our system of mail distribution by land and by sea, by rail and by boat, but we stand also at the head of the great American republic in the system that we have inaugurated for the distribution of mail by air. I shall not at the moment go into the details of the distribution of mail by air. I shall reserve my right to deal with that when the item touching the air mail service is before us for consideration. I shall then undertake to prove to the committee, and to convince them if it is possible, and the government of the day, that they would be making the greatest mistake if they curtailed the mail service by air to such an extent as to cripple what is becoming one of the most important mail services in the Dominion of Canada.
I was referring to obligations that had been imposed upon the government in my time, and will now have to be carried out by the department under its present administration. Yes, there were obligations undertaken, others than those I have mentioned. Take for instance the obligation of increasing the salaries and allowances of tlhe rural postmasters in my time, amounting to practically 8700,000 or 8800,000 a year. Take the obligation of the increased remuneration of the railway mail clerks, amounting to somewhere in the vicinity of 8150,000 or 8160,000. Take the obligation imposed by the Civil Service Act
of statutory increases, amounting to practically 8200,000 per year. Take the obligation imposed under the Civil Service Act again of increases given to the inside service at the rate of 8120 a year in some cases, and in other cases at the rate of 860 a year, amounting in all during the last three years of my administration of that department to at least $1,500,000. Had the government adopted a niggardly policy in connection with these matters, no increases would have been given to the postmasters in the rural districts, no increases would have been given to the railway mail clerks, and the department would have opposed the bulk sum of increases under the Civil Service Act. But. no, we felt that these men deserved the increases they got. If these increases had not been granted, and we had gone on following in the ordinary course, there would have been no deficit in the department at the end of 1930, instead of a deficit amounting to around 81,500,000. The department in 1929, and before that date, would have been able to make both ends meet, even including the air mail service expenditure. But we accepted those obligations, and I know that no member on either side of the house will undertake to blame the late administration for having given these increases in salaries and allowances. I feel I can stand before this committee and the country and rejoice in the fact that I was able at that time, owing to the condition of affairs, to give those increases.
Right here may I correct a statement the minister made the other night. I know his error was not voluntary because I have faith in his integrity, although I may not have a great deal of faith in Conservative administration of the department. I knew he would not willingly make a misstatement to the house. Dealing with the question of reductions in postage the minister stated that the reduction for Canada took place in 1926 and that in the same year a reduction took place on mail rates to the British empire. The reduction in the British empire postage did not take place until December 25, 1928. In order that the record may be clear I wish to make that correction.
The minister made the following statement:
Notwithstanding the decrease in revenue, all services have been maintained, existing services have been extended and new services inaugurated. The increase in expenditure cannot be said to be due to the present administration but rather to the extensive nature of the service accorded to the public.
I refer the committee to the words:
All services have been maintained, existing services have been extended and new services inaugurated.
Supply-Post Office

If I am correctly informed the demands for the inauguration of new services have been consistently turned down by the minister and his department. I fail to see where under his administration new services have been inaugurated. But if they were; and he attempted to take credit for them, how can he blame the old government for the total over-expenditure which has taken place since he assumed charge of the department? He who would eat the pudding should have it laid on his table at noon time each day; once it is eaten, however, it is gone. Therefore the minister cannot blame the old government for the entire over-expenditure and at the same time claim credit for inauguration of new services. May I say I have no apology to offer either for the obligation placed upon the country when I was Postmaster General, or for the obligations which the new Postmaster General had to assume when he took office. My only hope now is that the Postmaster General will continue the policies inaugurated by myself and the officials who so faithfully worked under me. I suggest that he continue to extend those services in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that he may fear a deficit; as the country grows, extension of mail services will help to bring about the change in economic conditions so much desired at the present time. My experience of four years in the administration of the Post Office Department has convinced me that there is not another branch of the public service which contributes so much to the expansion of industry and commerce as does the mail service, if properly administered.
The minister told the committee also that the reduction in postal rates made at various times during the regime of the former government has caused a reduction in revenue. It is true that when the postage was reduced the revenue became less. If it had not been reduced I believe the revenue would have been greater at the end of 1927 than it was at the end of 1926. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, however, notwithstanding the reduction the revenue increased by volume of business to such an extent that in the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 they exceeded those of the year in which the reduction was made from three to two cents. The estimates now before the house contain more reductions than those submitted to the house by the department when I was at its head.
I do not intend to take up more time of the committee in this general statement, but shall confine myself to an analysis of the various items as they are called, and especially those which show a reduction this year as compared with last year.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Chairman, I do
not wish to delay the committee, but I believe it to be my duty to make certain observations with reference to occurrences in the present administration of the Post Office Department.
For instance, in regard to the dismissal of postmasters, everybody knows that after the government of the day took office and my hon. friend the present Postmaster General was appointed, a certain letter was published by him in which the statement was made that during his administration he would be as fair as possible to all the postmasters and officials in the inside or outside service. Apparently he wished to leave the impression that the new Postmaster General would act in a way different from his predecessors. We were supposed to be in a new era, experiencing a new venture in politics as compared with previous administrations. However, when we learn what has occurred since the new government took office we wonder if it was necessary to change the government and to put a new minister at the head of the Post Office Department. In the early part of the session there were references to certain famous letters sent to postmasters in different communities asking that an oath be taken by them to the effect that during the time they had been in charge of any postal office in Canada they had not taken any part in the political affairs of the community. In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) the leader of the government said that never in any case did the government act upon the refusal of a postmaster to sign an affidavit to the effect that he had not participated in politics. On March 31, 1931, the right hon. leader of the government expressed himself as follows-and I am quoting from page 553 of the French version of Hansard:
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, my attention was directed to the observations made the other day by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and to the reply made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I know that certain letters similar to that mentioned by the hon. gentleman were sent but they were sent only to those against whom charges of partisanship had been made. So far as I know in no case where they have declined to act upon them, unless they have written a communication in which they have admitted their guilt, has dismissal followed. I am bound to say to my hon. friend that there was a suggestion that if they declined to answer their action should be taken as an acquiescence and that they should be dismissed. Needless to say that suggestion was not acted upon?
Mr. Veniot: And will not be acted upon?
Mr. Bennett: Was not and will not be acted upon.
Those are very emphatic words and would give our postmasters a feeling of security as to the way in which dismissals would be made. On page 1067 of Hansard of April 27, 1981,

Supply-Post Office
3S67
will be found answers to questions that I put on the order paper. Those answers disclose that in the district which I have the honour to represent certain postmasters were dismissed. For instance, at St. Anne de Beaupre, Raoul Fortier was dismissed upon complaints that were made by my opponent at the last election. The reasons given for the dismissal are as follows:
(Translation)
No inquiry. The postmaster refused to sign a statement denying that he took an active part in politics. Political interference.
It is apparent that there is a discrepancy' between this answer and the attitude taken by the right hon. leader of the government as stated in his remarks which I have quoted, that in no case would the government take action for the dismissal of any employees simply because they refused to sign the famous affidavit to the effect that they had not been engaged in any political activities. In this very case I submit there was no reason for the dismissal of the postmaster, the only complaint against him being that he had simply refused to sign that affidavit. This man was dismissed because he had refused to sign the declaration as requested by the officials of the Post Office Department. In this particular case there is something very difficult to understand. As soon as the present government took office apparently everybody from near and far who could make any claim to reward for political activity eagerly came forward to obtain a position in the public service, and at the post office in question there is a person in charge temporarily pending appointment by the Civil Service Commission. But we find that there is a difference of opinion among the various members of the Conservative party as to who should land this job, as is evidenced from a perusal of the return filed in response to my motion for papers and documents relating to dismissals of postmasters. For instance, here is a letter on September 22, 1930, signed by one J. G. A. Couture, addressed to the hon. Postmaster General:
(Translation)
Ste-Anne-de-Beaupre,
_	Sept. 22, 1930.
Hon. Art. Sauve,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Sir,-
We hear that it is practically decided to remove the post office of Ste-Anne-de-Beaupre and that Mr. Ratte, on the recommendation of Mr. Maher, of Quebec, will be appointed postmaster. If Mr. Maher wishes to favour a personal friend, all very well, we have no criticism to make, however, what we do find unreasonable is that this post office should be located 22110-246
at a considerable distance from the centre of the village, more than half a mile away from our famous basilica; we must protest against such a change and we trust that you may see fit to vindicate the interests of a whole village preferably to that of a private citizen, and that, if the post office must be removed, you will find a suitable locality in the centre of the village, convenient to the numerous tourists who visit us every year.
Trusting that you will give this matter your earnest attention, we beg to remain, sir,
A number of sincere Conservatives of Ste-Anne.
(Sgd. J. G. A. Couture.
There are, sir, other letters in reference to the same request. The following is another written by Mr. Raoul Fortier, the postmaster:
May I add that if you have in any way at heart the interests of the public, this post office should not be located in his residence and that you should insist that he chooses a suitable locality in the centre of the village.
I have other very interesting letters. For instance, we find that on November 20, 1930, Albert Godbout who was postmaster previous to the appointment of Fortier, in 1922 or 1923, writes to the Postmaster General as follows:
Who is entitled to have the post office? I am the only one who has a suitable place, in the centre of the village; I have the necessary qualifications and have always given entire satisfaction to the public during the years I was postmaster; I need the position because my work only lasts a few months during the summer. There is but one objection, which comes not from the citizens of Ste-Anne-de-Beaupre-you are aware of this through the requests and letters which were addressed to you-but from Mr. Maher, a novice in the ranks of the Conservative party, notwithstanding his ability, he is not in a position to know what the Hon. T. C. Casgrain, Belley, Forget and others, the old Conservative leaders, knew of the Simard and Godbout families in regard to the good work they carried on in their parish and how deserving they are. Certainly, they should not be dealt with unjustly. I wished to place these facts before you as you are the Postmaster General and we knew you long before the arrival of Mr. Maher in our county. We place our trust in you.
These comments, sir, show that all who seek the appointment of postmaster are somewhat divided as to the question of the best site for the post office and as to the choice, among the Conservative party followers, of the person who is most deserving under present circumstances.
The following is another letter, dated January 9, 1931, from iMr. Aime Couture which was addressed to the Postmaster General:
We protest against placing the post office too far away and request that it be located in the centre of the village.
This is, sir, how the matter stands as regards the post office of the parish of St. Anne de Beaupre. You will first note the statement made by the leader of the government in the middle of March, to the effect that post-
ItEVISED EDITION
Supply-Post Office

masters who refused to sign the requested declaration would not be dismissed unless an inquiry was held. If I be not mistaken, I think the postmaster referred to was dismissed before holding an inquiry. I am not certain whether an inquiry was 'held since then, however he was dismissed. The principal reason alleged for his dismissal was because he refused to sign the famous affidavit, asserting that he took no part in the election. Now, sir, a second question arises. Let us suppose that this affair is not entirely clear and that an inquiry was held1-if it took place.
I think, sir, it will interest the house to know that at present there is a fight taking place in that county-according to the letters which I have just read-with the result that many persons, followers of the party in power, are seeking this position and endeavouring by all possible means to get the appointment, quoting, to establish their claim, their past services to the party. Others contend that the locality, Mr. Simeon Ratte's residence, is not as suitable and central as the present site is for a post office.
There are other questions, sir, which will be discussed shortly with the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General's estimates afford us the only opportunity we have to submit not all the so-called grievances which are addressed to us but the real grievances against the administration of the Post Office Department in the respective counties we represent. On April 27 fast, I had the privilege of submitting to the Postmaster General a complaint as to the way things were run at the po6t office of St. Fidele, in the county of Charlevoix. According to the letter that I had then received and which I sent to the hon. Postmaster General, this office was so badly run that it was necessary to make two or three trips in order to obtain one's letters, newspapers or parcels. The complainant, Mrs. Louis Desbiens, a widow, contended that there was a young girl employed in the post office as help to the postmistress, who assumed rights to which she was not entitled and bossed everybody. I requested the Postmaster General to remedy this state of affairs, if necessary to hold an inquiry and have this person cease bossing everybody, be fair and give satisfaction to the people of that district. My letter of April 27 has not yet been answered; perhaps the inquiry is being held at present; at all events, the people of that county would very much like to know how things stand and if the postmistress will really be replaced in that locality.
It is held, sir, that when we were in office we greatly made use of the guillotine and we endeavoured to dismiss every postmaster.

I can state that the person to whom I have just alluded was in charge of the post office long before I ever sought the mandate of the county I represent. She was not dismissed by the Liberal government. I am complaining of an existing grievance which should be remedied in the interest of the people of that section of the country I have just mentioned.
Another important matter. It is asserted that the postmasters who took an active part in politics may be dismissed after an inquiry is held-'when the sitting member puts in siuch a complaint-it is well understood that it is generally the member of the county who puts in the complaint and requests the dismissal of certain postmasters after an inquiry is held, if deemed necessary. I protest, sir, because many of my constituents have asked me to do so. Quite a number of my constituents bitterly complain that notwithstanding the trust they placed in my humble person, the defeated candidate seems to have enough influence with certain members of the government to do what he likes and demand certain dismissals. This practice is indulged in by both sides of the house. Such a practice should not exist. My constituents have said to me: We have elected one candidate, we have elected him to represent us. That is the person whom we wish to represent us in the house, and we cannot see why another person who has not been entrusted by us with such a mandate has the power of dismissing or appointing postmasters or other public officials. At a place known as Sault-au Mouton, near Mille-Vaches, a postmaster had been appointed under the preceding administration, perhaps on the recommendation of the local people, vouched for by your humble servant. This person, evidently, during the last election, for one reason or another, actively took part in the election, and, on certain occasions, according to the information I have before me, made certain remarks in his store, in the post office and also at the church door, even in a political sense speaking against your humble servant and the party to which I belong.
This gentleman who evidently is a friend of the party in office is to-day in the service. I wonder if there are two weights and two measures. If those who took an active part in politics on the Liberal side must be punished because they have violated the Civil Service Act, I wonder why those who actively supported the party in power should go unmolested. Is it not unjust to dismiss only those who favoured the Liberal party? There must then be two weights and two measures. My request would probably be brushed aside by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve),

Supply-Post Office
were I to ask him to hold an inquiry on this gentleman who took an active part in the election, even more so than others did in the interest of the Liberal party. I am not aware of anything having been done by the Post Office Department to call this gentleman to time. If it be wrong for a Liberal servant to meddle in politics, the same rule should apply to Conservatives who meddle in politics, in violation of the Civil Service Act.
I shall now point out another post office in the county that I have the honour to represent, at St-Irenee-les-Bains, where political activities have always taken place. Before I represented the county, postmasters were immediately dismissed after each election, this without an inquiry, simply because the elected candidate made a list of all those who he wished dismissed and another of those to whom he wanted to give these positions. I heard that such lists were on file in the Post Office Department under previous administrations, before the advent of the Liberal party in 1921. In the locality just mentioned, an inquiry was held as regards the political activities of the postmaster, the most important witnesses who gave evidence against the postmaster were: Miss Jacqueline Gauthier, a young girl of 12 years old and a Miss Alliette Gauthier, 16 years old. There was another witness of 70 years old, a Mr. Pit' Gauthier, the latter was appointed caretaker, or rather postmaster.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Was he appointed postmaster or caretaker?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Postmaster.


Arthur Sauvé: I understood
caretaker.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Postmaster. A good Conservative.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh! oh!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Well! I respect those who have such convictions. He was appointed postmaster when 70 years old, at an age when civil servants must retire from the service and be pensioned off.


Peter John Veniot: At 65 years
old. [DOT]


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not yet; I have other cases to bring forth. Another dismissal took place in the county which I am privileged to represent, at a place called "Les Eboulements". In the latter place, the inquiry was held, and I wish to state in all fairness that there may have been some ground for the conclusions arrived at by the commissioner. However, I find in the correspondence placed on the table of the house that the parish priest wrote
3S70
Supply-Post Office

personally to the hon. Postmaster General, on October 21, 1930, and made certain representations as regards the special qualifications of the postmaster who was then in office and over whom an inquiry was to be held. He stated that the latter was the best qualified person to fill the post to the satisfaction of the entire population of the village. In this letter which follows, he specially points out:
Last year, we succeeded in obtaining a suitable post office kept by a competent and serious person. Mr. J. H. Tremblay, appointed postmaster five or six months ago, almost against his own wishes but on the insistence of all well thinking persons, he fills the post to perfection.
Moreover, I believe he is the only one in our village who measures up to the qualifications required by the Civil Service Commission. I take the liberty of writing to you these facts so as to earnestly request you to see that this gentleman is not dismissed, notwithstanding the intrigues of a small group of people who believe that after an election, the world must come to an end.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: This is no
compliment to that group of persons.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, not quite. The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay), in the course of his long career -if he has had a long career in this house as representative of the people of his county- will learn that often people are specially fitted and qualified to fill certain posts, either because they are more temperate, more moderate or more conscientious and are held in high esteem by all in the locality, and this, in preference to others who may perhaps be possessed of a higher education, but who, owing to their character, their ways and in certain cases their life in the past., have not the sympathy and consideration of the public which they must serve. And it is, I think, with these considerations in mind that the parish priest wrote that letter to the hon. Postmaster General. I make this statement subject to correction of course.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: Who signed that letter?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Rev. J.-C. Tremblay, parish priest of "Les Eboule-ments".
I take the liberty of writing to you to earnestly beseech you to see that this gentleman is not dismissed, notwithstanding the intrigues of a small group of people who believe that after an election, the world must come to an end. I do not care to know whether Mr. Tremblay is "red" or "blue," I place myself above party affiliations, from the viewpoint of the public welfare of our village. For a number of years, the post office here was, at certain hours, a disorderly place. We have remedied this, especially by having appointed as post-
[Mr. Casgrain.)
master a man who has the authority of seeing that order is kept and that people behave. Nothing would be so regrettable as to see this good brought to nought through the whims of petty local political grudges.
Not wishing, sir, to take up any more of your precious time. I earnestly- beg of you to allow- Mr. J. H. Tremblay, the present postmaster of "les Eboulements," to carry- on his work. I personally ask this favour, without being urged by anybody, nor influenced by political motives, but conscious of doing my duty and with the public welfare in view.
I know, judging by the public spirit which you have alway-s shown in the past and which has always draw-n my open admiration, that you are a man who understands the sentiments w-hich have prompted me in the above request and have also induced me to place the common weal above petty party intrigues. . . . And I shall unceasingly pray.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: Who signed that letter?	.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The parish priest, the Rev. Mr. Tremblay. It is on file, I do not hide it; he did it in good faith and that is why I have read it.
I now wish, sir, to broach another subject. It cannot be further held that it is owing to the unsettled public finances that certain expenditure is not carried out in the Post Office Department. I am aware that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) took up w-ith the hon. Postmaster General the financial question of this department. I do not wish to venture on these grounds simply because I do not think I have the knowledge required, nor am I well acquainted enough with the work of the Post Office Department. May I, however, simply draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that last year, it was thought proper, following the policy inaugurated by the ex-Postmaster General, to establish certain rural mail routes in order to link certain centres, ranges (rangs), concessions and districts to certain villages. Many of these routes were provided under the Liberal regime. Last year, in 1930, a rural mail route had been decided upon and was to be established in a locality near Murray Bay, between Pointe-au-Pic and St-Irenee; another in the parish of St-Tite-des-Caps, county of Montmorency, and also at a place called Courcelette, in the parish of St-Fidele, Charlevoix county. Many of these rural mail services are not in operation. I must add, in all fairness to the hon. Postmaster General, that after I had discussed this matter with him-he is very obliging, and when he can do something he does so-one of these routes was put into service, either by his orders or those of his deputy. At St-Tite-des-Caps the routes had been decided upon and were to be put into service, however, they are not in operation yet.

Supply-Post Office
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Why
did you not make this request when you were in office?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: These rural mail routes were ordered by the late administration, tenders were asked for last summer (1930), and contracts were ready to be given out. Since tenders were asked for and that it is a question which affects the whole district's welfare, it is in the public's interest, to my mind, that this mail service be established as soon as possible.
In this respect, I wish to point out to the Postmaster General what is happening in his department. In the present case both the present and the late administration must be blamed. When it is a question of rural mail service an endeavour is often made to induce contractors to tender at too low a figure so that they are left in a position to pay only miserable wages. In the interest of the Post Office Department and in order to obtain a suitable service throughout the country, the government should not be so sparing, it should show itself more generous in the grants of mail contracts and accept tenders which are sometimes not the lowest in order to provide a better service. Paltriness and parsimony in the administration of a department like that of the post office should not exist. When reductions are made in the budget of the mail service, as it was done this year, sooner or later the efficiency of the service suffers and considerable trouble follows throughout the country districts.
For instance, a Mr. David Morency, of St-Tite-des-Caps wrote on-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Will you allow me a question? Would it not be possible with the new three cent stamp in force to obtain all you request?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have my doubts, even with the excellent measures which the government intends to enact.
An hon. MEMBER . (Translation):	You
have not forgotten the policy of your own government.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This gentleman wrote on April 8, 1931, to the postal service, at Ottawa, a letter from which I read the following excerpt:
By the same mail that I am writing to you I am forwarding my final tender to the Post Office Department, at Quebec, in connection with the rural mail contract. I am asking $795 in order that this contract will not be given to Liberals. Ever since December, the tenders have been getting lower every month. They must surely now be low enough, otherwise we shall have to appeal to the generosity of the hon. Mr. Bennett in order to provide for his mail carriers, if they are to have their three meals a day.
What I wish to bring out, sir, is that in connection with these mail contracts-whether they emanate from Conservative or Liberal governments-there should exist some standard upon which tenders should be based in order that those who are given these contracts should be afforded enough to provide for themselves and their families, and also be in a position, when the year finishes, to make both ends meet, thereby not be forced to declare a deficit.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): They must also provide for their horses.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And also their horses. I would request the Postmaster General-I know he is well disposed, to be fair to everybody by providing such rural mail service and not discontinuing any, and this, in the interest of all the districts mentioned, because this rural mail service is indispensable to the good administration of the Post Office Department. I feel confident that the government will acknowledge its necessity and establish as soon as possible these various rural mail services.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Casgrain), somewhat puzzles me. I understand, according to his remarks, that the hon. Postmaster General dismissed some postmasters. Could he tell us how many were dismissed in the province of Quebec?


Arthur Sauvé: I shall first
give an answer to the hon. member for "ITslet" (Mr. Fafard); his question is a serious one and I want my answer to be so. He must have read Hansard since the outset of the session and he must have noticed the number of postmasters who were dismissed since August, 1930, as well as their names. If he wishes I can give him the page of Hansard where he can read for himself the names of these postmasters, as well as where the post offices are located. If the hon. member for ITslet desires I can give him an immediate answer.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: That is precisely what I asked for.


Arthur Sauvé: 205.


Peter John Veniot: Would the
hon. Postmaster General speak a little louder and give us the number of dismissals?
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: 205.


Mr. BRASSET (Translation):: Have there
been any dismissals since that time?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: How man}'
in the province of Quebec?
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Is that in one day?


Arthur Sauvé: 101 in the province of Quebec.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I can hardly understand that out of 205 dismissals of postmasters, almost half belong to Quebec. I can only see one possible explanation:	namely that the hon. Postmaster General held inquiries not only in respect to federal political activities but also as to provincial activities, and I think that some dismissals must have been made because certain postmasters would not vote for the hon. Postmaster General when he was a member of the Quebec Legislature. And what I have just stated is a more serious state of affairs than one imagines. I have before me a letter which will prove to the hon. Postmaster General that he has dismissed .postmasters because they meddled in politics and that he is replacing them by persons who are taking a more active part in politics than the former. I shall read only an excerpt :
Will you be kind enough to take up this matter . . .
. . .The dismissal of the postmaster of St. Roch-des-Aulnaies, in my county, was requested :
Will you be kind enough to take up this matter without delay because our provincial elections will soon take place. If this matter was being acted upon, we would be in a position to obtain wonderful results in the parish of Saint-Roch.
And the person who asked for the dismissal of this postmaster, writes a long letter to the Postmaster General to assure him that he has been a Conservative all his life and gives proof of his honesty.
He ends by saying. . . .
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	He is
a great partisan.	.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: He ends by
saying.
I therefore rely on your best endeavours, and rest assured that you shall have your reward.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	What,
is the name of this gentleman?
*Mr. Veniot.]


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: It is a
letter written by Mr. Arthur Ouellette, of St.-Roch-des-Aulnaies to Mr. Boniface Belanger, an ex-candidate of Mr. Sauve.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, among these 205 dismissals one must not forget that there are cases of bad administration and that they are not only cases of political partisanship. I am somewhat astonished to note that the hon. member for l'Islet (Mr. Fafard) and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Casgrain) seem to be offended over these dismissals. I just took my cue from the leader of their party, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he was Prime Minister of Canada; in 1923, he stated in this House that the policy to follow-a policy moreover followed by previous governments -was to hold an inquiry when serious complaints were made, appoint a commissioner and accept his decision. The hon. mpmber for l'Islet and the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay may read in the Hansard of 1923, the statement of the right hon. Mr King. It is also the rule to follow when the Postmaster General does not wish to take upon himself the responsibility of dismissing a postmaster without a serious complaint or without first having held an inquiry.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Did not the hon. Postmaster General state, following the election, that he would not indulge in political dismissals? He was given great credit throughout the country for having made this statement. However, does he not now mix up politics with these dismissals?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) is a man of letters, an author; he will allow me to express to him my astonishment in noting that he has not carefully read the statement I made at that time.' I stated, following my appointment to the cabinet, that no dismissals would be made by my department without having the proof of the guilt of a postmaster, either as regards bad administration or political interference. That was my statement and it seems to me that it is quite clear.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I wish to thank the hon. Postmaster General for the fine compliment he has paid me, however, I think he deserves these more than I do in the present circumstances, because of the admirable letters he wrote to the postmasters of Quebec.


Arthur Sauvé: With reference to these letters.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You clearly understand: you are also a man of letters.


Arthur Sauvé: For a long time we have understood one another well.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The inconvenient part of it, is that one is in the Post Office Department.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): And the other in the ditch!


Arthur Sauvé: As to the letters addressed to postmasters they were sent with the purpose of affording them a fair deal and also to avoid the costs of an inquiry. I loyally stated to a representative of the Toronto Globe, that the first letter had been altered, because the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) had drawn my attention to the fact that the French version did not convey the same meaning as did the English version. I altered this letter and I think that there is no ground to reproach me for having done so. I had in mind protecting the postmasters and notifying them that charges had been made against them. If they confessed being guilty of political interference, the costs of an inquiry were avoided. If they wished for an inquiry, it was granted. I think that such a course was but reasonable.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): If they said: Yes, no inquiry. If they said: No, you held an inquiry.


Arthur Sauvé: We ordered an inquiry, if a sworn statement was made. The ex-Postmaster General knows all about this. A sworn statement is made to the effect thait the postmaster has been guilty of political interference ; we then appoint a commissioner to hold the necessary inquiry and we base our decision on the commissioner's report. I must add that all inquiries were not followed by dismissals, there were a number of cases where the evidence was not sufficiently convincing.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Did this commissioner also make inquiries in connection with cases of administration?


Arthur Sauvé: The commissioner, no; but officials of the department did. When it is a matter of administration, an official of the department is sent to make an inquiry regarding the administration of the post office. When it is a matter of political interference, a commissioner is appointed by an order in council; he questions witnesses under oath
and we base our decision on the results of his inquiry.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Where did you take these commissioners?


Arthur Sauvé: That depended on the provinces. When the matter concerned Ontario, we sought him in Ontario, and when it concerned Quebec, we went to Quebec.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Am I given to understand that such was the case in the Lake St. John district?
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): They were always Conservatives.


Arthur Sauvé: I did not first inquire whether the person suggested belonged to the Conservative or Liberal party.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: Mr. Chairman, I
listened to the remarks of the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) with a great deal of interest and no small amount of amusement, especially to the statement, or rather the plea, he made to the present Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) that he follow in his footsteps and carry out the policies inaugurated by the former administration. I do not intend to criticize the previous administration of the Post Office Department, as I am only a new member and do not know very much about it, but as far as the dismissal of postmasters is concerned, I sincerely hope that the present Postmaster General does not follow in the footsteps of his predecessor.
I should like to direct the attention of the committee to one specific ease in my own constituency. In the town of Slater a gentleman named Mr. Hrushowy, who had been postmaster for fifteen years, was dismissed in 1927 without any just cause or reason being given. He wrote several letters and had his lawyer send several communications to the department asking the reason for his dismissal. Finally a reply was received from the Postmaster General. This letter is dated Ottawa, October 24, 1927, and reads as follows:
Mr. C. A. L. Murchison,
722 McIntyre Block,
Winnipeg, Man.
My Dear Sir,-*
On my return to Ottawa, my secretary placed before me yours of the 13th instant, with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Hrushowy as postmaster at Slater. I note you are under the impression that he was dismissed on recommendation of Mr. Bird, M.P. This is not the case, as Mr. Bird had nothing to do with it. The dismissal was made on the recommendation of the executive of the Liberal association. I do not see how I could now reinstate him.
Yours very truly,
P. J. Veniot.
Supply-Post Office

Since I came to Ottawa I have written several letters myself in an effort to find out the reason for this man's dismissal. I appreciate the fact that since a new postmaster has been appointed it would be rather a hardship to let him go in order to put Mr. Hrushowy back on the job, but in justice to a man who has served for fifteen years, I think the reason for his dismissal should be given.
Mr. Bird, my predecessor, did not make any objection to this man, and the letter of the Postmaster General states quite frankly that the dismissal was made at the request of the Liberal association. Does the committee consider that this man has received a fair deal? Again I suggest to the present Postmaster General that he should not follow in the footsteps of the former incumbent of that office.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, if I may revert for a moment to the item before the committee, I wish to direct attention to a situation which has arisen in the province of Alberta. In this connection I have had some correspondence with t/he Postmaster General (IMr. Sauve), and I believe he is familiar with the facts. This situation arises through the application of the minimum wage law, to the assistants employed by the postmasters in the small towns throughout the [DOT] province. While most of us are distinctly in favour of a minimum wage, we must realize the effect which this act must have upon postmasters whose salaries are based upon a totally different principle. In many cases the application of the act has doubled the remuneration received by these girls, as well as shortened the hours of work. I have no complaint to make with respect to minimum wage laws, nor do I think these girls are receiving too much, but the committee will readily see that it places the postmasters in a very difficult position. I believe that the Postmaster General is familiar with this matter, and that it is being taken into consideration with a view to seeing whether something cannot be done to meet the situation. I urge that action be taken.
There is another matter to which I would direct attention, one of general application which has some connection with what I have just .mentioned. I have received numerous requests from postmasters located in the smaller points who receive very low salaries and are dependent upon commissions on sales of stamps for the larger part of their remuneration. They are very anxious to know what policy will be followed now that a three cent rate has been pilt into force- 
what percentage of commission will be paid, whether it will remain the same as it was under the two cent rate, and how soon, if changes are to be made, they may expect them. In other words they would like to know how soon they may have some reasonable understanding as to their probable income during the coming year. I should be glad if the minister could make some statement on that point. As I say, I am speaking at the request of a number of the postmasters, particularly at smaller points, who have written to me in respect of both these questions.


Arthur Sauvé: The application of the act
has not yet been made to the postmasters.


Alfred Speakman: I think, however, notice has been given that it will be. Is the minister prepared to make any statement as to the commission that will be paid under the three cent postal rate?


Arthur Sauvé: We are considering the
matter.


Alfred Speakman: A decision has not yet been reached in that regard?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried. .


Peter John Veniot: Let me say to hon. members opposite that to call "carried" does not mean that the item is passed. They will be treating the minister more fairly if they do not make these interjections, because the more they call "carried" the more I will oppose it. I have privileges as a member and I do not think it helps the minister at all for hon. members opposite to keep on interrupting by calling "carried."
In reply to the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) and his expressed wish that the present Postmaster General shall not follow along the lines adopted by the former one in the matter of dismissals, I have just a word to say. I occupied the position of Postmaster General from the 26th day of September, 1926, to the 7th or 8th day of August, 1930.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Too long.


Peter John Veniot: It may have been too
long, but I may tell the hon. member who interrupts me that he never applied to my department without getting a fair deal. The only thing I hope for is that he will get as fair a deal from the present Postmaster General as he did from me, although he does not deserve it.
I have been accused of wielding the political axe. I shall not say that I did not

Supply-Post Office
wield the political axe, in a sense. I was not going to refer to this matter, but since the friends of the present Postmaster General have taken the matter up and attacked me, he may have to raise the cry, "Save me from my friends." Had they not raised the question I would not have dealt with it, but I am forced to deal with it in self-defence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't worry.


Mr. YENIOT:: I am not worrying. That
is the reason I am standing here, and I hold * in my hand the means of protection. During the four years that I was in office the changes made in the Post Office Department amounted to 602. The classification of dismissals effected by me during those four years and the reasons given are the same as in the case of the present Postmaster General. Therefore, so far as dismissals are concerned, we are 'both politically and otherwise on the same basis. During my tenure of office 602 postmasters were dismissed for various reasons as follows:
Short in finances and irregularities..	94
Political causes	 144
Abandonment of post office	 4
Unsatisfactory service and in the
interests of the public	 274
Change in location	 80
Farming out of office	  2
Reinstallations	  4
That makes a total of 602 in four years. We have the same classification in the case of the present Postmaster General over a period of ten months. Let us see who has applied the political axe with the greater vigour. In the returns laid before parliament I find the following reasons given for dismissals:
Irregularities and short in finances.. 27
Services unsatisfactory	 28
Change of location	  28
Political causes	 112
Reinstallation	 1
Abandonment of office	 4
Total	 200
The Postmaster General stated to-night there were 205, but I have been able to aocount only, according to the statement submitted to the house, for 200.


Arthur Sauvé: How many
dismissals were there in 1927?


Samuel Gobeil: 378.


Peter John Veniot: During the four years of
my tenure of office I dismissed 144 for political reasons while the present Postmaster General in ten months has dismissed 112 for the same causes. Who is the greater political axe-wielder?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Did the present
Postmaster General dismiss the number that the hon. member gave just now at the request of the Liberal executive of the province of Quebec?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: The hon. member
did in his case.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend has made
a mistake. He has Conservative in his head.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Thank heaven I
have.


Peter John Veniot: No, the present Postmaster General did not dismiss them at the request of the Liberal executive, but there are dismissals he made on the recommendation of the Conservative committee. He knows it; I know it and can prove it.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Well, he is wrong if he did.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Name
them.


Peter John Veniot: I will name the hon. gentleman before I get through. I will bring the hon. gentleman's case before the committee for its consideration before I finish to-night, or as we shall likely have another field day on -this matter to-morrow, if the Postmaster General comes before us again with his estimates, I can then give the record of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton with regard to dismissals in his county. I have under my hand the record showing where he recommended the dismissal of a returned soldier with seven children, and this was done illegally. I regret to say that the Postmaster General allowed himself to be led astray in regard to an illegal dismissal. I can prove that it was illegal, under the Civil Service Act. This is the hon. gentleman who stands in his place now after recommending the dismissal of a returned soldier with seven children, a man who had four brothers at the front fighting along with him.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The hon. member's statement is absolutely untrue.


Peter John Veniot: I have the hon. gentleman's statement under my hand and I will submit it to the committee. I have his record. I have the record of the Postmaster General.


Eccles James Gott: Withdraw.


Peter John Veniot: I will not withdraw.
Supply-Post Office


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce a letter to bear out his statement.


Peter John Veniot: I have the statement and
the hon. gentleman's letters under my hand.


Finlay MacDonald: Order. Will the hon. member confine himself to the item before the committee?


Peter John Veniot: I was challenged by the
hon. member.


Finlay MacDonald: That does not make any difference. The matter is out of order. Will the hon. member confine himself to the item before the chair?


Peter John Veniot: Then let the hon. gentleman remain quiet in his seat, and not issue any more challenges to me on this question to-night. Let him keep his challenges until to-morrow and I will produce the evidence.
The Postmaster General wants to know how many postmasters I dismissed in the province of Quebec in the first ten months I was in office. I have not the figures in detail here, but I can tell him this, that during the first seventeen months I was in office there were 115 dismissals in the province of Quebec, and during the first ten months that my hon. friend has occupied the position of Postmaster General the number of dismissals in the province of Quebec was 99. So we are not running too far apart after all.
The item we are discussing is No. 358. I want to call the attention of the Postmaster General to what I think is an error in the estimates, so that he may look into the matter to-morrow and have the error corrected or an explanation made-a correction will facilitate the passing of the estimates. The estimate submitted by the Postmaster General this year for stationery and printing is $490 000, and in the comparative column for 1930-31, the last year I was in office, the estimate for that year is given as $865,623. The only estimate submitted to the house by me at that time was $490,000. The explanation may be that included in that $865,623 is an amount of $375,623 for the payment of back debts due the printing establishment. If that explanation is correct I would point out that that $375,623 was voted in the supplementary estimates at the opening of parliament in March of this year, and has no right to appear as an estimate submitted by me to the house for 1930-31. But by including it in the estimates that I submitted to the house for 193031, it is made to appear that there is a reduction as between the present estimate and 
the estimate I submitted last year of $375,623, which is misleading. I think the explanation is that this $865,623 includes the amount I have mentioned for printing and stationery which was accumulating over several years. I have no objection to that amount being paid, but I do object to the record being falsified as it is-perhaps not intentionally, but the record is wrong as it stands; for I never submitted to the committee of supply for the year 1930-31 the amount of $865,623. The only amount I submitted for printing and stationary was $490,000. I would like the minister to look into the matter and let us have his version of it to-morrow.
As I said at the opening of my remarks tonight, the vote now before the committee, Mr. Chairman, is a bulk vote comprising twelve or fourteen different items, and there are various matters to be discussed under it. We must have an opportunity of going into the details, and while the minister could not reasonably have expected the vote to pass in bulk to-night, he must not be disappointed that none of his estimates have been adopted at this sitting. I have had the experience, which I hope the present minister never will have, of sitting for nineteen days before I could get a single item through. We do not intend to hold the minister that long; whatever criticism may be offered this session will be, so far as I am concerned, friendly criticism. If I have any blame to place on the department for not carrying out certain things which hon. gentlemen opposite advocated when in opposition I am not going to blame the present minister, but I am going to criticize the present Minister of Justice, the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister, who when in opposition demanded such enormous changes from your humble servant and pledged themselves to carry them out if they ever came into office; but to-day they are as dumb as oysters. I see nothing in the estimates with regard to these things. I am not going to criticize the Postmaster General for that, but I am going to condemn others.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


BANKING AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Friday, July 17, 1931.