1931-07-15

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Matthews.
Eighth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.
Seventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Harris.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 125 respecting The Wapiti Insurance Company.-Mr. Weir (Macdonald).

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for introduction of a bill respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I am told this bill will have to stand in my name because it deals with the tariff, and I do not propose to move the first reading until the tariff items are all disposed of, which I hope will be done this afternoon. The clerk tells me that should be done before we proceed with the bill.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask my right hon. friend, just for the sake of information, why it is that in this instance we proceed to approve of an agreement by way of a bill which is not preceded by a resolution, whereas in the case of the Statute of Westminster we simply approved of the arrangement and no bill was necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1927, I think, when the rules were amended, the necessity was removed for preceding a matter of trade by resolution, when it does not involve putting

Australian Trade Agreement
charges upon the people and things of that kind. I am informed by the clerk that this is the rule at present. With respect to the Statute of Westminster we were simply petitioning His Majesty to lay before his parliament certain legislation. In this instance a trade agreement has been arrived at which affects the future of this country, and parliament is being asked to ratify and confirm it, but it does not come into force until proclamations are issued in both countries. The only difficulty is that certain tariff items must be approved of before the bill is read the first time, and the committee on ways and means should have disposed of those tariff items first. I consulted the clerk at the table with respect to the matter, and he advised me that under the practice of this house the bill should not be proceeded with until such time as the tariff items in the agreement had been sanctioned by the committee, following which the bill to confirm the agreement will be introduced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood my right hon. friend to say that if a bill respecting trade and commerce does not place burdens on anyone, under the rules it need not be preceded by a resolution, but I would direct my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that this bill does impose certain tariffs, and since tariffs are in the nature of taxation certainly it imposes burdens on the people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I should have added to that sentence and said unless the resolutions had been considered by a committee of the house. These resolutions are now before the committee of the house, and the proper course is to take no further step until the committee have completed consideration of the resolutions which were placed in the votes and proceedings the other evening and proceeded with yesterday by consent of the house, for which I thanked the right hon. gentleman yesterday since it enabled us to advance practically all the items. I think there are very few items outstanding; we will dispose of those this afternoon and then take the further step in connection with the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I understand that if this bill does not impose any tariffs in addition to those in the general measure there is no need for a resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Docs the government intend to proceed with the proposed inquiry in the Department of Customs, at Quebec?
2.	Was an inquiry commissioner appointed?
3.	If so, who is the inquiry commissioner and
when was he appointed?	.
4.	If the inquiry is not to be held, what is the reason?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not customary to
give answers to questions concerning the intentions of governments, but I can say to the hon. gentleman that the matter is under consideration.


ST. LAWRENCE WATER POWER RIGHTS
Mr. FACTOR:: 1.	What is the name of the private corporation or corporations from whom application has been received by the government for further diversion of water-power rights in the St. Lawrence river, as refered to by the Prime Minister on page 2086 of Hansard?
2.	What are the details of such applications and how many cubic feet per second does the applicant desire to divert?
3.	Under what terms?
4.	What disposition has the government made of such application?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The corporation referred to is the Beauhamois Light, Heat & Power Company. The application was not formal in character, but there was indication that they had received from the government of Quebec the right to take a further quantity of water from the St. Lawrence river, and that, of course, would be followed by action on the part of the federal authorities.


PRIVY COUNCIL SITTING
Mr. POULIOT:: WTas there a sitting of the Privy Council on the date of October 4, 1930?


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is an improper
question and will therefore be expunged from the record.


CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total consumption of alcoholic liquor by quantity and value in the province
of Quebec?
2.	What is the total consumption of alcoholic liquor by quantity and value in the province of Ontario?
3.	What is the total production of alcoholic liquor in the province of Quebec?
4.	What is the total production of alcoholic liquor in the province of Ontario?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question is incapable of an exact answer, as I indicated the other day to the hon. gentleman. If he

Questions
means the amounts paid in excise tax, the government is, of course, in a position to answer.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I should
not dream of asking a question which the government could not answer. I expect only such information as they can give.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question, then, will have to be amended.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question stands for
amendment.


FONDERIE DE ST. ANSELME
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Were certain contracts awarded to the fonderie de St. Anselme for supplies required by the Department of Marine?
2.	If so, what supplies were covered by these contracts?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	Were tenders called for in each case?
5.	If not, why not?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The very same question was answered a few days ago, as will be seen at page 3543 of Hansard.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Already answered.


DEBT OP CANADA
Mr. BOULANGER:: What was the debt of Canada:	(a) on
October 6, 1911; (b) December 29, 1921; (c) August 7, 1930; (d) May 27, 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The funded debt of Canada on October 6, 1911, was $267,986,690.62, and accrued interest. The funded debt of Canada on December 29, 1921, was $2,440,022,692.33, and accrued interest. The funded debt of
Province of Quebec-
Customs duties	
Excise taxes on ale, beer, etc Province of Ontario-
Customs duties	
Excise taxes on ale, beer, etc
Canada on August 7,1930, was $2,284,696,37051, and accrued interest. The funded debt of Canada on May 27, 1931, was 82,355,730,97855, and accrued interest..


CENSUS BRANCH
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many new employees have been assigned to work in the census branch as a result of the recent civil service examinations?
2.	How many of these are returned soldiers?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1 and 2. On July 3, 1931, one hundred and thirty-six (136) census clerks had been appointed, of whom twenty-eight (28) including two females, were entitled to the returned soldier preference.


FEDERAL LIQUOR TAXES
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total amount of federal taxes collected during each of the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, on alcoholic liquor imported into the province of Quebec?
2.	What is the total amount of federal taxes collected during each of the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, on alcoholic liquor imported into the province of Ontario?
3.	What are the total sales of alcoholic liquor in the province of Quebec?
4.	What are the total sales of alcoholic liquor in the province of Ontario?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 1 and 2. Customs and excise taxes (exclusive of sales tax figures for which are not available) collected on imports of alcoholic liquors entered at customs for consumption in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario during the fiscal years ended March, 1929, 1930 and 1931:
Fiscal year 1929
Fiscal year 1930
Fiscal year 1931

3.	Sales of spirits reported by the Quebec Liquor Commission during the year ended April 30, 1930, amounted to 996,394.3 gallons. The gross sales were valued at $27,539,966.43.
4.	The sales of spirits reported by the Ontario Liquor Control Board during the year ended October 31, 1930, were as follows:
Domestic spirits	
$11,654,935	95Imported spirits	17,768,669	82Total	
$29,423,605	77
Sales on a gallonage basis are not given. 22110-240


REVISED
Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: How much butter was stored in Canada on: (a) June 1, 1930;	(b) July 1, 1930;	(c)
June 1, 1931; (d) July 1, 1931?


Mr. STEVENS:: Butter in cold storage in the Dominion of Canada:
Creamery Dairy
(Pounds)
June 1,	1930	
10,802,748	361,032July 1,	1930	
22,205,520	616,808June 1,	1931	
8,544,013	151,516July 1,	1931*	
20,600,223	265,854
(Preliminary).


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. HEENAN:: What amount was paid to Commissioner Fred Babe in connection with his investigations for the Post Office Department, since August, 1930?


Mr. SAUVE:: *99.70.


BELLECHASSE POST OFFICE
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Since what date are the post offices at St. Raphael and St. Lazare, in the county of Belleehasse, without permanent postmasters?
2.	Was the Civil Service Commission requested to make a permanent appointment of postmasters at these two places?
3.	If so, what was the date of the request; the date on which applications were received and examinations held, the result of said examinations and the names of those placed on the eligible list by order of merit?
4.	Was the commission requested to make the permanent appointments, and if not, why, and when will it be requested to do so?


Arthur Sauvé: St. Raphael de Belleehasse
1.	Position became vacant 25th February, 1931. Permanent appointment made 9th July, 1931.
2.	Yes.
3.	The commission was notified on the 2nd April, 1931, that the vacancy had been advertised to the 15th April. The candidates were placed in the following order of merit: Francois Antoine Labrecque, Honore Roy, Mrs. Amanda Brochu-Godbout.
4.	The commission have selected F. A. Labrecque, whose permanent appointment dates from the 9th July, 1931.
St. Lazare Village
1.	Position became vacant 16th May,. 1931. No permanent appointment yet made.
2.	Not yet.
3.	See answer to question 2.
4.	Permanent appointment rests with the Civil Service Commission and the district superintendent has already been authorized to advertise the vacancy in the usual way.


INDIAN HEAD EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Is one Robert Williamson employed at the government experimental farm at Indian Head?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	Is the position one under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
4.	By whom was Williamson appointed and upon whose recommendation?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Labourer.
3.	No.
4.	By the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Was Allan Ross employed last summer at the government experimental farm at Indian Head?
2.	If so, in what capacity?	.
3.	Were his services satisfactory during the term of his employment?
4.	Has he been reappointed this year?
5.	If not, has anybody been appointed in his place, and, if so, who and upon whose recommendation?
6.	Is that position under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
7.	Is the former position held by Allan Ross now held by C. Douglas and Robert Williamson or by either of them?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Laboratory helper.
3.	Yes.
4.	Position not filled in 1931.
5.	As stated, position not filled.
6.	Yes.
7.	No.


PROPOSED RESERVE ZONE IN QUEBEC
Mr. GOBBIL:: 1.	Has the government or any of its ministers received from the government of the provice of Quebec the petition signed by the farmers of the counties of:	(a) Two Mountains; (b) Jacques-Cartier; (c) Terrebonne, asking for the establishment of a reserve zone, under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927?	.
2.	If so, when, and why was not the said zone established?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	(a) No; (b) yes; (c) no.
2.	(a) No petition received; (b) March 9, 1929. Zone established; (c) no petition received.


MEMBERSHIP OF LABOUR UNIONS
Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	How many workingmen in Canada belong to some recognized labour unions?
2.	How many do not belong to any organized labour union?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The total membership of labour unions in Canada reported to the Department of Labour is 322,449. This figure is based on estimates in cases of some organizations.
2.	No information available.

Questions


IMMIGRATION-1929-1930 UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-QUEBEC
Mr. DORION:: How many immigrants entered Canada each month between August 1, 1929, and August 1, 1930?


Mr. GORDON:: Month	Number
August, 1929	 15,022
September, 1929	 11,101
October, 1929	 8,817
November, 1929	 7,285
December, 1929	 4,943
January, 1930	 3,366
February, 1930	 3,963
March, 1930	 14,576
April, 1930	 19,309
May, 1930	 17,410
June, 1930	 13,171
July, 1930	 8,383
Total
127,347


JAPANESE IN CANADA
Mr. REID:: How many persons of Japanese origin have entered into Canada since 1921, giving the respective number in each year?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How much money was expended to relievo unemployment in the counties of Montmorency, Charlevoix, Saguenay and the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?
2.	How much for direct relief?
3.	How many mans' days work were provided?
4.	How many families were granted relief thereby?
5.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings which have been carried out in the above counties?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-CHAMPLAIN
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	How much money was expended for the relief of unemployment in the county of Champlain?
2.	How many mans' days work were provided?
3.	How many families were granted relief thereby?
4.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings which have been carried out?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-BERTHIER-MASKINONG)
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Japanese Immigrants
Fiscal year	Number
1921-22		
1922-23		
1923-24		
1924-25		
1925-26		
1926-27		
1927-28		
1928-29		
1929-30		
1930-31		
Total



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How much money was expended to relieve unemployment in the county of Richmond-Wolfe?
2.	How much was expended towards direct relief?
3.	How many mans' days work were provided?
4.	How many families were granted relief thereby?
5.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings which have been carried out in the above county?
22110-240J
1.	How much was expended for direct relie! of unemployment in the county of Berthier Maskinonge?
2.	How many mans' days work were provided?
3.	How many families were granted relief thereby?
4.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings which have been carried out?


OCEAN AND COASTING TONNAGE
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	What is the tonnage, both ocean and
coasting entering and clearing from the following ports in Canada for the last completed fiscal year:	Sidney, Nova Scotia; Halifax,
Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Quebec, Quebec; Montreal, Quebec; Prince Rupert, British Columbia; New Westminster, British Columbia; Vancouver, British Columbia; Victoria, British Columbia?
2.	Which of the above ports have harbour commissions ?
<>.. What would be the charges against a foreign-going steamship of six thousand tons (6,000) gross, three thousand eight hundred tons (3,800) net, draft twenty-five feet (25) carrying ten thousand tons (10,000) of cargo entering and leaving each of the above ports?
. 4. Of the ports as enumerated in this question, which one has the least charges and what is the nature of such charges for vessels entering and clearing from such port?
5.	What ports as enumerated in this list have compulsory payment of pilotage dues, and what ports have not such charges?
Civil Service Salaries



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. VENIOT (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all correspondence, applications, reiports, memoranda, recommendations, and all other documents, to or from or in the possession of the Minister of Marine or any other minister or ministers of the government, or to or from any official or officials of the Civil Service Commission, or any other person or persons, relating to the dismissal of Dr. G. R. Deveau as marine doctor at Arichat, Nova Scotia.



FISHERIES WORK IN GLOUCESTER

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and any person or persons in connection with the work done for the Department of Fisheries in the county of Gloucester by Philip Mercier, the correspondence above referred to to date from the first of September, 1930.



SOUTH WEST LOT 16, POST OFFICE

Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, including full copy of all evidence taken in connection with the dismissal of Dougald Campbell as postmaster at South west lot 16, Prince Edward Island, and the commissioner's report on same.



EDWARD C. GAUDET-DISMISSAL

Alfred Edgar MacLean: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and evidence taken at the investigation concerning the dismissal of Edward C. Gaudet, plant disease investigator, of Pleasant View, Prince county, Prince Edward Island, with the commissioner's report on same; also a return showing, if available, the expenses in connection with the investigation.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I
wish to direct to the Prime Minister a question based on two press items that have appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. I shall read only what I consider relevant to the question I shall submit, and if in doing so I fail to place the question in its proper light I shall be glad to read the extracts fully. First of all I refer to the Ottawa Evening Citizen of Tuesday, July 14. On the front page there appears the following:
Replying to a query by The Citizen this afternoon, however, Mr. Bennett said: "I do not at the moment propose a further interim supply bill."
This is taken by some to mean that the
salaries may have to wait until departmental estimates are approved by the house.

That is the first quotation. The next one appears in the morning Citizen of July 15:
In view of his statement to The Citizen early yesterday afternoon that he did not, at the moment, propose a further interim supply bill, The Citizen again approached the Prime Minister on the matter in the evening.
"Does it mean that the civil servants will have to wait for their salaries until the main departmental estimates are passed by the house"? Mr. Bennett was asked.
"Well, you see, I had expected that the main estimates would have been passed by parliament in the regular way before this date, without a further interim supply bill being necessary, hut four or five days' delay doesn't mean so very much."
"You think the estimates will be passed in that time"?
"Oh, I didn't say that; but I don't forget things like salaries," the Prime Minister concluded. "I will have to consider what will be done in view of the situation now existing."
In the light of these two quotations may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether civil servants throughout Canada will be paid today? If not, why not, and if not, when will they be paid?


An hon. MEMBER:: Solicitude.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An interim supply bill for one-twelfth of the main estimates was passed some time ago. There is no provision, without the passing of an interim supply bill, for the payment of salaries due to-day, and I asked the leader of the 'opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether 'there was any objection to the passing of an interim supply bill this afternoon. He assured me that there was not, and I propose to ask the house to pass a bill to-day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will remember that in our conversation I suggested that this would be an opportune time for him to make a statement with regard to the remaining business of the session. I pointed out that if we met him in one particular we hoped that he would meet us in the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This affords me an opportunity to say that my right hon. friend's consent is not meeting me at all. It may meet the convenience of the public. When we discussed the question as to the amount of the supply hill, whether one-twelfth or otie-sixth should be passed, the right hon.

Montreal Harbour
gentleman thought that a month was ample, and we acted on that consent. I believe that last year it was made one-sixth, at least on one occasion. I thought that probably the house might hope to prorogue within a week or ten days and it might not be a matter of tremendous importance. But in view of representations made to me this morning as to the situation in city communities, and the undesirability perhaps of credit being asked for, with a possible refusal, I said that I would ask the opposition for their consent to a bill being passed. If the opposition does not desire that it should fee done in the public interest, then I assure them that as far as I am concerned personally, it does not matter because matters of this kind are never matters of personal interest. One who has to discharge a public duty discharges that duty as well as he can. It cannot possibly be considered a matter of accommodation to me, it is a matter of public interest. If it is thought to be in the public interest, and I believe it is, then I ask the right hon. gentleman to agree to its being done, as a matter of public interest and not as an obligement. There is no question of personal accommodation in this matter, and I never took that view while I occupied the position of leader of the opposition.
So far as the future business of the house is concerned, the measures to be dealt with are those arising out of the budget resolutions and those, with I think three exceptions, now before the house. There is a public measure dealing with an amendment to the Red Cross Act. A serious situation has arisen because of the proceedings before a committee of this house. I have not asked the house to agree to morning sittings because that committee is sitting. It is a committee charged with very important duties and in the light of what transpired to-day and with respect to which the government has not yet had an opportunity to consider its future action, it may be that legislation will have to be submitted to this house for the purpose of compelling the attendance of certain witnesses who have declined to attend. The passing of a statute may be necessary or it may be that the matter can be dealt with by a royal commission. I cannot make any statement as to what the future business may be until such time as we have had an opportunity to determine what course of action will be taken in connection with this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
may I say to my right hon. friend that when I asked him if he would advise the opposition as to the future business of the house.
I hope he did not think that I was seeking any personal consideration. It was in the public interest and in the interest of all hon. members of the house that I made the request. I know that when the right hon. gentleman asks for interim supply it is not to enable him to get through the rest of the month, but rather for the benefit of the community generally.
May I point out to my right hon. friend that he knows that the fiscal year begins on April 1, and if he were thinking of the public interest he would arrange to have his supply voted before that time, at least for the most part. He can call parliament at any date he likes and he should not have to come to the opposition in order to get his supply put through. I hope another year he will get the session started a little earlier and bring down any important measures earlier in the session, rather than leave them until the last ten days.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will be doing
that for the next twenty years.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) advise the house if the work at Fort Churchill is proceeding according to schedule, and what prospects there are for grain being shipped out of that port this year.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, the work is well up to schedule, in fact it is a little ahead. So far as the shipment of grain out of this port is concerned, I will probably give a statement to the house to-morrow which may deal with the whole question.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct the attention of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to the question which I asked yesterday in connection with the advertisements published by the harbour commission of Montreal advocating protection and the policy of Canada first. Will he advise the house if these advertisements have been authorized by him and if they will be continued.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the
advertisements to which the hon. member
Inquiry as to Questions

refers some days ago, but I would advise him that they were not submitted to me personally. I do not know as yet whether or not they were submitted to the department, but I will inquire and if necessary make a report to the house.



WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, in view of an article appearing in this morning's Citizen quoting a letter purporting to be from the Prime Minister (iMr. Bennett) to the premier of Manitoba to the effect that the federal gov-emmeht could not see its way clear to set up a federal wheat board, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the statements contained therein are substantially correct. If not, has the government any other scheme in view to assist in the marketing of this year's crop?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the statement appearing in the press is substantially correct. The premiers of the three western provinces were advised that the government did not propose to set up a wheat board. It offered an alternative in respect of which it has not as yet received a reply.



INQUIRY AS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['This is a loan of S200,000 to be made by the Vancouver harbour commission to the Second Narrows Bridge Company. At the present time we are inquiring whether or not the harbour commission will have sufficient security. We are endeavouring to get the information as quickly as possible and there will be no undue delay.']
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, of nine questions which were left with the clerk during last week and this week, only one has appeared to date in the votes and proceedings. Will Your Honour advise me when I might expect to hear about these?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I advise the hon. member that the clerk has looked into the questions which he submitted, as well as the notices of motion, and it has been found that they are out of order. They are unparliamentary; some have been answered already, others have been held to be irregular and were ordered expunged from the order paper, others were considered as being argumentative, others contained presumption of facts, and others contained insinuations. For these very good reasons they are considered to be out of order. The clerk declined to put them on the order paper, and I approved of his decision.
Mr.	POULIOT:	Could I have the
authority?
{Mr. Duranleau.]


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member desires to appeal from my ruling, he may do so; otherwise no discussion is allowed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was not discussing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wanted the authority for the refusal-


Robert James Manion: It is the authority of the Speaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: For each one?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I take it that it is Your Honour who has decided that these questions are not to appear on the order paper, and not the clerk.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is the duty of the clerk to look over these questions and decide whether or not, within his knowledge, they are parliamentary and properly admissible. He decided they were not and he submitted his reasons to me as well as to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). As I said before, I rule the questions and the notices of motion out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I desire merely to clear up a matter of procedure. I have looked into the practice which prevails in the British House of Commons and I understand that the rule at Westminster is that His Honour, the Speaker is the one who decides whether or not a question shall appear on the order paper, just as he decides whether or not a particular question should or should not be asked in the house. I submit that Your Honour is entitled to be advised from any source, you may desire, but I think the full responsibility for any decision should be that of His Honour the Speaker and not that of the Clerk of the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would be fully in accord with what my right hon. friend has said if he had stated that the ultimate responsibility would rest upon the Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It frequently happens that the clerk at the table, both at Westminster and here, deals with questions and orders as they are referred to him, but the ultimate responsibility must be upon the Speaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: I prefer a refusal to no answer at all.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: From what I said, I did not think there would be any doubt that the Speaker was taking full responsibility in the matter.

Second Narrows Bridge
PRIVILEGE-Mr. DUPUIS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. The " Bulletin des Agriculteurs" a weekly newspaper of Montreal, published, on July 9, 1931, an editorial dealing with my attitude towards the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), amending the act in connection with the penalty provided for adulterating butter.
I would have discussed this question last evening, when the bill came up; but seeing that the hon. member for Compton was not in his seat then, I find it necessary now to explain my stand by raising a question of privilege. It is stated, among other things, in this editorial that I am in favour of adulterating butter-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is so.


Vincent Dupuis: It is the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, who says "that is so"! I had a higher appreciation of his judgment.
The editorial adds:	"Mr. Dupuis, if you
wish to foster adulteration, say so openly."
With your kind indulgence, sir, I shall refer to the remarks I made on June 30 last, when the bill was before the house. I then stated that I was in favour of the bill; that I congratulated the hon. member for Compton for having brought up this question; that as a lawyer, I was aware, through experience, that dealers in cities adulterated butter by mixing cocoa oil, and that to inflict a heavy fine would be only right. However, on the other hand, seeing that this bill imposes the same penalty on all those who violate the act, and that in sections 5 and 7 especially, it is provided that all those who are convicted of having more than 16 per cent of water in their butter must be punished, I stated that the minimum penalty of $500 mentioned in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton should not be pressed, in order to leave some discretion to the judge who could determine whether the farmers have-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind the hon. member that there is no motion before the house.


Vincent Dupuis: I am just rising to a question of privilege.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member is making a speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
come to the point?


Vincent Dupuis: I just want to explain my
position. Your Honour will allow me to say that this article published in this newspaper is malicious and not according to the facts as stated by me in the house.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: On behalf of the people of North Vancouver and Greater Vancouver I wish to make a special appeal to the Minister of Marine in connection with the proposed loan towards the Second Narrows bridge, Burrard inlet, connecting Vancouver North and South. I have under my hand a press despatch which states that the Second Narrows bridge awaits Ottawa action. I realize the minister is a very busy man, but if he will get this agreement through speedily, I can assure him this will be appreciated by 99 per cent of the people of Vancouver North.


Alfred Duranleau: This is a loan of S200,000 to be made by the Vancouver harbour commission to the Second Narrows Bridge Company. At the present time we are inquiring whether or not the harbour commission will have sufficient security. We are endeavouring to get the information as quickly as possible and there will be no undue delay.



SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the consent
of the house, I move that you do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply to deal with an interim supply bill.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I presume this motion is for the purpose of providing whatever sum may be necessary for the payment of salaries that may be due to the civil service of Canada. I wish to express my deep resentment at certain words that were uttered by some hon. members opposite when, as is my privilege, I rose to ask a question. In no sense is this a paroehial matter. I do not think any hon. member can accuse me of having expressed any parochial sentiments at any time. During the eleven years that I have been a member of the house I have taken a broad, national view of all questions. My only concern in this matter is to see that employees in the public service receive their salaries, and in doing this I am but exercising the same right and privilege as may be exercised by any other hon. member. At the same time I resent the expressions of which I complain.
Interim Supply Bill


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not think that it is becoming to the decorum of the house that when an hon. member desires to give expression to certain sentiments, he should be treated in this manner, and it does not behoove some hon. members who never exercise the right of free speech in the house to endeavour to stifle or restrict it. I hope that if this measure is for the purpose that I have indicated it will receive the unanimous endorsation of the house.



SUPPLY-TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. THOMAS HAY (Springfield):: I
should like to quote from a communication which I received the other day from Mr. W. W. Childe, general secretary of the Manitoba-Ontario Trans-Canada Highway Association. It reads:
Thomas Hay, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Hay:
At a recent meeting of the Manitoba and Ontario committees of this organization, you were officially chosen as the party whom we would like to have address all members of the House of Commons, before prorogation, on our behalf.
You are asked that on the floor of the house you pass along an invitation to the hon. Prime Minister, his hon. cabinet, and the members for all the provinces to be present at the interprovincial highway celebration on September the 7th.
This is the Manitoba and Ontario section lying east of Winnipeg, between that city and Keoora.
The official ceremony will take place at the Ontario-Manitoba border, and the celebration will be a two-day affair at both Kenora and Keewatin, Ontario.
I may say that the completion of this link in the Ontario and Manitoba part of this highway is a realization of a dream that has long been cherished by the people of eastern Manitoba and western Ontario, and this committee would therefore like to celebrate the event in a way in keeping with the occasion. It will be a historic event and to some extent national in character as it has to do with the trans-Canada highway, which is now in course of construction in parts of Canada. I therefore take pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in passing on this invitation to the members of the government and members of the House of Commons, and I trust that as many will be present on that occasion as are able to come.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$20,099,723.71, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$943,832.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted for Canadian National Steamships and Maritimes Freight Rates Act, as set forth in estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1932.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood that these motions are passed subject to the usual reservations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion, agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, the sum of $21,043,556.04 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 124 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.
Mr. BENNETT moved that the house go into committee on the bill.

Fishing Industry in Maritimes
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: On the back of the bill,
Mr. Chairman, the date will be the 15th of July, not the 14th, and I move accordingly.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means.
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take the time of the house at this late stage of the session, and I would not do so did I not feel it were necessary in the interests of one particular industry in my own province and in the maritime provinces generally. I refer to the fishing industry. Nothing has been said during the present session of the house concerning the plight in which that industry finds itself. We have heard a good deal about the situation of the wheat farmers in western Canada, and rightly so, but their plight is not one bit worse than that of the fishermen scattered along the coast line of the province of Nova Scotia. What is more, these fishermen have had lean years in days gone by and for a considerable period of time, and they have no reserves on which to draw. In order that I may place the question with which I purpose dealing more fully before the house I shall briefly sketch the position of the industry. I am referring particularly to my own province, the province of Nova Scotia, which as hon. members know juts out into the Atlantic. Off the coast of that province are fishing banks equal to any in the world, and fishing communities are scattered along the entire coast line. For more than one hundred years the people of those communities have been going out in their boats and vessels to catch fish. Until recent years the method commonly used for the ground fish, those fish which swim near the bottom of the sea, has been the hook and line. In recent years another instrument of production has been introduced, the steam or otter trawler. The steam or otter trawler
catches fish by drawing a huge purse-shaped net over the floor of the sea, scooping up the fish and hoisting them to its deck.
For some years past the industry has been declining, rather than improving, and for that condition there are a number of contributory causes. Before I give those causes I shall outline a particular illustration of the decline which has taken place in the county of Lunenburg from which I come. In 1918 the port of Lunenburg sent 140 fishing vessels to the banks, each vessel carrying a crew of from 20 to 25 men, earning on an average from SS00 to $1,000 each. This year the number of vessels is reduced to 42 schooners. The number of men on each boat remains about the same, and while the average earnings for this year are not available the average earnings last year were less than $300 per man.
As I have said there are a number of contributory causes not only with reference to Lunenburg but to the whole province, because the decline has been general. In the first place there came the Fordney-McCumber tariff which shut out from the United States a substantial portion of our fish. That situation was further aggravated by the Hawley-Smoot tariff. There has been a world depression which has brought a decline in the price of salt cod fish similar to the decline in the price of wheat. Salt cod fish is sold almost entirely in the export market. This decline has further aggravated the domestic situation because men, vessels and boats which formerly produced entirely for the foreign markets have been driven into the home market. The home market has been unable to absorb the product. Canada in fact is absorbing less than it did in former years, and at greatly reduced prices.
Further than that there is the additional factor of an unsettling controversy which has been raging-and I use the term "raging" advisedly-in Nova Scotia between those who employ the different instruments of production. One may say that the controversy is age old-in a sense it is-but it is one which rages between those who employ the steam or other trawler and those who use the hook and line. The steam or other trawler came to this country from Europe about twenty years ago and was used unsuccessfully in pre-war days. During the war it established a foundation. Most of those however who had fished off our banks during the war returned to their countries. In post-war years however the steam or other trawler has established itself in the province as an instrument of production,
Fishing Industry in Maritimes

and from year to year its numbers vary. At present there are six trawlers operating in the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. SHORT:: There are two.


William Gordon Ernst: Six are licensed in the province of Nova Scotia and were operating last winter.


Harry Bernard Short: There are two at the present time.


William Gordon Ernst: I would suppose my hon.
friend would know because he is a director of the company controlling them.
I draw this matter to the attention of the house because a controversy has arisen. There are different schools of thought as to what ought to be done. Evidence was given before the royal commission which investigated the maritime fisheries in 1927, and it was so conflicting that it led to both a majority and a minority report. The majority report favoured the abolition of the trawler, but the minority report favoured its retention as an auxiliary instrument of production. The report of the committee gave rise to legislation in this parliament passed in the session of 1929 as an amendment to the Fisheries Act. Section 69a of that act consists altogether of six subsections. In the first place the purport of the section was to place the trawler under licence. Hitherto they had been able to operate freely, but through the legislation there was an effort to compel operation under licences, and only under licences. There was a further provision that such trawlers could not fish within twelve miles of Canadian shores.
There is a fourth provision which I wish particularly to draw to the attention of the house:
(4)	The minister may determine the number *of such vessels that shall be eligible to be licensed.
Then subsection 5 is as follows:
(5)	Regulations may be made under the provisions of section 46 of this act.
(a)	prescribing the form of licences;
(b)	specifying the evidence to be submitted with an application for a licence;
(c)	fixing the conditions under which a licence shall be issued;
(d)	making any other provisions respecting licences.
Under the provisions of subsection 5 an order in council was passed in October, 1929, which imposed certain restrictions which were termed licence fees. I do not purpose to deal with those because payment was resisted, and a case was heard before Mr. Justice Audette
{Mr. Ernst.]
of the exchequer court in which he decided that the order in council is ultra vires, although no reference of course is made to the statute itself being ultra vires. From this decision an appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada by the crown. My only reason for referring to the case is that the contention may be raised that I am referring to a matter which is sub judice. I do not intend to refer to the question which is before the court, namely the validity of the order in council.
One of the prime reasons for dealing with the question is that the very uncertainty of having the matter before the court is creating an uncertainty in the industry. I feel it is essential to the progress, stability and development of the industry that some measure of policy should be announced, whatever that policy may foe. Under the sections of the act which I have read power remains in the minister by which he may give effect to a fairly broad and moderate policy.
I have outlined the history of the matter so that the question may properly be understood by the house. As I have said there are two schools of thought in the province of Nova Scotia and I feel bound to place them both before hon. members. The constituency from which I oome supports the school of thought which makes representations advocating that the trawler be abolished. They base their representations upon two grounds: First, the conservation of the fisheries and secondly what they call "glutting" the market -a condition to which I shall apply a different term. They say that the trawler destroys the fishing ground and that its use results in over-production. I have placed their views before the hous<5 because I have felt it my duty so to do. Having put those views forward I feel it equally my duty, grave though the responsibility and position may be, to say that I cannot accept them. I do not believe in the abolition of the trawler; I advocate restriction and regulation. With reference to the question of conservation, that can be disposed of very simply by saying it is entirely an International question, and that to restrict or abolish the trawlers of Canada whilst trawlers from other lands can fish on the banks of the high seas would not in any way tend to preserve fish life.
Furthermore, from study which has taken place in the North sea, it is not apparent that the method of production is wrong; it resolves itself simply into a question of the intensity of fishing. I believe the minister would serve a useful purpose to the fisheries of this country if he would endeavour to have

Fishing Industry in Maritimes
an international convention called to deal with the question of conservation, so that there will not be depletion, and further to deal with what is even more important, the question of the destruction of fishing gear. I brought to the attention of this house this session one instance of apparently wanton and deliberate destruction of the gear of a fishing vessel by a French trawler. Such instances are not by any means uncommon, and any international arrangement which could be brought about tending to eliminate that practice would be to the advantage of those who use line fishing.
With reference to the "glutting" of the market, that resolves itself into a question of production. Undoubtedly many of our own fishermen have had to turn from the salt fish field to the fresh fish field, either wholly or in part, which has contributed to that condition. I feel that this fault, if it be a fault, does not call for abolition but for restriction and regulation.
I come now to the arguments of those who advocate unlimited trawling. In the first place they say it is an economic development and that you cannot Stop the machine. May I say, sir, that usually with such economic developments cheapness of production is a prime essential. From the evidence given by those who own the trawlers there is no indication that they are cheapening production costs; their chief argument is not cheap production but continuity of supply, with which I propose to deal in a few moments. Even if this were an economic change bound to take place, in view of present conditions and in view of the fact that thousands of these men. scattered along the coast line, are ill-adapted for any other calling, such economic change should be slowed and regulated in *order to cause as little dislocation as possible to those now engaged in the industry.
With reference to continuity of supply I may say that in part I accept that argument of those who advocate trawling. Continuity of supply, I am convinced as the result of four years of careful study, cannot be maintained without some use of the trawler. True it is that conditions have changed as they affect those who fish with boats and particularly with vessels. They no longer depend on sails; they are powered with crude oil engines, but still there are times of storm when the dory cannot be put over the side, and the fish are not forthcoming. In the present state of the fish market those who purchase fish, particularly in central Canada, insist upon fresh rather than frozen fish, and the result is that during the last winter there
have been instances, as probably there will be instances during the coming winter, when the trawler was essential to maintain that continuity of supply which is necessary for the development and maintenance of market.
Having stated that I accept that argument, may I indicate one other circumstance which is aggravating the situation. As I have stated, there are six trawlers under licence at the moment in the province of Nova Scotia, of which the greater proportion are under the control of one corporation. Under the restrictions brought in by the previous government there is positive prohibition against bringing in further trawlers from outside. To build them at home would entail many times the cost of those already under licence, because they were imported from abroad. In addition, in the present uncertain state of affairs, no one would want to bring in a trawler even if he could do so. The result is a virtual monopoly by that one corporation. I am not finding fault with the corporation; this condition has been an accident, but it should not be allowed to continue, because it can result in only one thing. The firm which employs this mechanical instrument of production will gradually squeeze out of existence all the smaller fish firms scattered along the coast of the province, the fishermen who live in those localities where the smaller concerns operate will be deprived of their local market, and the last stage of the industry will be worse than the first.
You may ask what I advocate. I advocate a middle course. I believe that compromise will provide the solution, and I am going to venture to read one paragraph of a letter written by a gentleman with whom I very seldom agree but with whom, in this instance, I agree very cordially. I refer to the hon. member for Antigonish^Guysborough (Mr. Duff). This letter appeared in the Halifax Chronicle of September 5, 1909, dealing with this very question:
Before closing may I say that although the arguments on this question are nearly all, if not all, in favour of the real fishermen of Nova Scotia, yet the question must be dealt with by practical men in a sane and sensible manner and with a view to protecting as far as possible any vested interests by endeavouring to compose the present extreme differences between the line fishermen and the steam trawlers. My experience in life has taught me that it is necessary and usually the best policy to compromise where the opinions of two opposing parties are diametrically opposite and to endeavour to find a means of mutual agreement which will partially satisfy both parties. This question is of such a grave nature that there should not be any arbitrary or hasty judgment made.
Fishing Industry in Maritimes

Well, Mr. Speaker, no arbitrary or hasty judgment has been given, because that letter was written almost two years ago. I say, as I have stated previously, that I favour restriction and regulation, and I desire to put forward some suggestions to the minister in the hope that at least some of them may meet with his approval.
In the first place I do not believe any trawler should operate out of the ports of Canada, or bring fish into the ports of Canada to be landed here, except under licence by the crown. I make that statement because I believe first of all there should be the element of control. The licence fee, of course, is a question for government determination an accordance with the ability of the industry to pay.
In the second place I do not believe there should be any increase in the number of trawlers operating at present; in fact I believe there should be a decrease, and that no one firm or corporation should be allowed to operate more trawlers than are absolutely necessary to insure continuity of supply. That is, the trawler should be used as an auxiliary aid to the vessel and the boat fishermen, because I am confident that if this policy is adopted, and the minister requires that he be satisfied before issuing a licence that it is solely for the purpose of enabling continuity of supply to be maintained, no firm will control or operate a large portion of the trawlers operating in the province of Nova Scotia. In fact I feel that this monopoly is one of the things which must be got rid of if the other firms are to survive. Under the section of the act which I have read undoubtedly the minister now has power to do both the things I have advocated, because the act itself was not called into question before the courts; only the order in council was attacked. Subsection 4 of section 69 (a) states that the minister may determine the number of such vessels that shall be eligible to be licensed, the word "vessel" in that instance referring to the trawler. Subsection 5 states:
Regulations may be made under the provisions of section forty-six of this act,-
(a)	prescribing the form of licence;
(b)	specifying the evidence to be submitted with an application for a licence;
(c)	fixing the conditions under which a licence shall be issued;
(d)	making any other provisions respecting licences.
Now, sir, I wish to put forward a further view, which I grant is a personal view rather difficult of attainment, because it conflicts with vested interests. It is my own contention that no trawler should be eligible for

licence unless it has been built within Canada. I so contend because these ships with which the trawlers compete are built in Canada and at Canadian prices. The trawlers are purchased mainly in England, where they are tied up at wharves or fish piers, and they are purchased at prices which in this country practically amount to dumping. They are then brought in to compete with our vessels.
I contend that it would be thoroughly in keeping with the policies of the Conservative party to accept the trawler as an implement of production under licence, but only when it is built in Canada from Canadian steel and with Canadian labour. This would give very much needed employment to Canadian workmen and shipyards. It would raise this further question:	What are you to do with
those which are here? Speaking altogether personally, I would suggest that they be sold and that the owners be reimbursed for any loss they might sustain; and I would make arrangements to have Canadian trawlers built. If I am asked why I make such a proposal, the answer is that I am convinced of the necessity for restriction. I have no doubt that the cost of building in Canada would impose sufficient restrictions to prevent the over-rapid development of a trawler fleet.
I put forward that view knowing that it involves difficulties and that it conflicts with vested interests. I realize that it is practically a confiscation of vested interests that have accrued in years gone by. If my view is not acceptable, however, I urge that for the future, having licensed those now in Canada, we license no more trawlers unless they are built in this country. This, as I have pointed out, would give work to Canadian labour and to our Canadian shipyards. When I make this suggestion I am conscious of treading on thorny ground. It will be immediately urged by those who are interested in the trawler companies that in advocating the interests of Lunenburg I am taking away markets which others have spent years in building up. In reply to that contention I say that in the first place, admitting that the markets in Canada for fish have been built up by corporations which to-day use the trawler, this has not been done without substantial government assistance in the way of plaints, marketing and advertising. And in the years gone by assistance has also been given in the way of bonus on freight rates. In the second place, let me point out that I am not advocating the interests of Lunenburg alone. Anyone who will visit Nova Scotia to-day will realize what a live question this is in fishing communities. The only districts I know of which do not support

Fishing Industry in Maritimes
abolition are Halifax and Digby; in almost every other section of the province abolition is demanded. Perhaps I am taking my political life in my hands in saying that I do not agree with them, but certainly I am not advocating the interests of Lunenburg alone. Even if I were, however, my county is dependent upon fishing. The industry has built up the county and maintained prosperity not only in the fishing communities but in the back country where the wood is obtained for building the vessels. And I should be doing a disservice to my county if, in order to protect interests in Halifax or elsewhere, I were willing to sacrifice those among whom I was bom and brought up.
I have made my case as moderately as possible and as fairly as I can, in an absolutely non-partisan spirit but in the sincere hope that some announcement of policy will be made which will give the industry some idea of what it can look forward to in the future, and so that it can make its plans accordingly. I should like to see this problem solved for it is causing great unrest and agitation in Nova Scotia.
I know quite well that I have dealt- with but one problem of the fishing industry, but it is more immediate and urgent than any other. What I am proposing is by no means a panacea for all the ills of the fishing industry; there are a dozen other problems that must be solved. But I put forward this particular [DOT]one because of its urgency. The condition of the industry is grave; it has never been more so. I want to thank the Prime Minister for restoring to the exempted list under the sales tax articles purchased by the fishermen. It [DOT]may not seem much, but even a slight straw sometimes will break the camel's back. I can assure him that the fishermen of my constituency appreciate his action. I am not speaking in any spirit of pessimism with regard to this industiy. I believe it has a future far greater than its past would lead us to expect. And I have no doubt that, with wise development, the industry in the future can take care of far more capital and a greater number of men than it can do to-day. It is because of this conviction that I have presumed to take up the time of the house to bring before it this problem which is of so much importance to the people whom I represent.


Harry Bernard Short: I
am surprised that my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg should bring up this contentious matter at this late time in the session. This trawler question is a very live one, having been before the house for the last four
or five years. It was dealt with thoroughly by the committee in 1929, and as a result of their deliberations there was presented to the house and passed Bill No. 26 which proved perfectly satisfactory both to the trawler industry and to the fishermen. Had the regulations under that bill been carried out there would have been no difficulty on either side, either on the part of the shore fishermen or so far as the trawlers are concerned. But for some reason or other a commission was appointed to look into the situation and it made a recommendation. It was on their recommendation that Bill No. 26 was based.
Now, all the regulations provided for in that bill cover the objections made by my hon. friend to the trawlers. The regulations limit the number of trawlers that may be used, and that is left entirely to the discretion of the minister. The minister is empowered to collect a licence fee from the trawlers, and as I said before, the bill was satisfactory both to the fishermen and to the trawler interests. My hon. friend's constituency now comes forward with representations. The fishermen there are not shore fishermen; they are offshore fishermen, owners and operators of large schooners. It was not the shore fishermen who started this agitation of late. They are satisfied now with the way conditions are working. The trawler companies have been their best market for fish. There would never have been any trawlers operating in Nova Scotia if it were not absolutely essential to have them in the fishing business, to provide a regular supply of fish for the markets of the country. Prior to 1910, when the first trawler came to Nova Scotia, there was no fresh fish market in Canada. The supply all came from Boston and Portland; not a thousand pounds of fresh fish per week were shipped to the upper provinces from Nova Scotia. The government at about that time gave a rebate on the express charges amounting to one-third of the cost in order to try to build up a fresh fish business with the upper provinces. That was the beginning of the fresh fish business in this country. Previous to that practically every pound of fish was brought in from Boston because we could not supply the market with fish when it was required. When the trawler was brought into operation it was then possible to supply fish as required and the result is that a very successful fresh fish business has been built up. This business has been built up by the steam trawlers. These trawler companies buy from one-third to two-thirds of the catch from the boat fishermen, as is shown by the report of the commission which investigated the fish-

Fishing Industry in Maritimes
eries in 1928. Now that the trawler companies have built up a successful business, the vessel owners of the county of Lunenburg want to step in and reap the benefit. Both money and time has been expended by the trawler companies in the development of markets; they have spent years in working up this trade which is being endangered by agitation coming now almost entirely from the county of Lunenburg.
I live in a fishing county where not a single trawler is operated, but we have the best class of shore fishermen in Digby county that there is in the province of Nova Scotia. They operate the very best class of boats, but they have no objection to the trawler because they realize that a regular supply of fish is necessary to hold the market. My hon. friend has stated that modern vessels equipped with engines are being used. I want to tell him that in 1910 a fleet of vessels was operating out of the port of Digby. These vessels were equipped with engines, perhaps not as powerful as those used to-day, but I submit that an engine in a vessel has nothing to do with catching fish. In order to catch fish the men are obliged to go out in small boats in order to set their trawls and there are weeks at a time when it is impossible to put a small boat over the side. When the commission was sitting in Lockeport in 1928 it was shown that for four weeks there had not been a single fish landed by a schooner.
Is this modern industry worth millions of dollars, using modem methods of production, to be ruined in order that we may go back to line fishing? That would be a great mistake to make, and the business people of this country would not stand for it. My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that all these trawlers are operated by one company. Four trawlers are owned and operated by the company of which I have the honour to be a member. I take some credit to myself for the building up of the fish industry. When I was in business for myself I shipped the first carload of finnan haddie which ever went to the west, and from that beginning a great business has developed. The business carried on at Lunenburg has always been a salt fish business. It has not been so successful dining the past few years and they want to convert it to a fresh fish business. They ask that the trawler be abolished in order that they may gain control of the markets of this country. What my hon. friend has said might have been said to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and to the department, and I presume he has taken that course. He has brought 
this matter up in the house simply because he represents a fishing constituency. I represent a fishing constituency but the interests who own fishing vessels in my hon. friend's constituency have told him that he must bring this matter up on the floor of the House of Commons, and that is the reason why he has done so.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. I deny emphatically the statement made by my hon. friend, and I sincerely hope he will withdraw it. I have not brought this question up because the interests who own vessels in Lunenburg have said that I had to bring it up.


Harry Bernard Short: The interests who own
vessels insisted that the hon. member bring it up.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has a right to state his question of privilege, and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) should take bis seat.


William Gordon Ernst: I have brought this matter up in the interests of the fishermen of Nova Scotia. I have in my possession resolutions from practically every community in the province where there is a board of trade.


Harry Bernard Short: I will aoce.pt the hon. member's statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Any suggestion that the hon. member is bringing this matter up as a matter of personal interest should be withdrawn.


Harry Bernard Short: I will accept the statement of the hon. member, but at the same time we can draw our own conclusions.


William Gordon Ernst: I must object to such remarks coming from an hon. member who is a trawler owner and who has a direct financial interest in this matter.


Harry Bernard Short: I have no objection to stating that I am interested in the trawler business, and I am proud of it. If it had not been for the trawlers, there would be no fresh fish markets for the Canadian fishermen. Our company has done more for the shore fishermen Of Nova Scotia than any other half dozen concerns.
My hon. friend brought up the question of conservation. Six small trawlers only operate out of the province of Nova Scotia and according to regulations they cannot fish within twelve miles of the shore. During the summer months we have from forty to fifty French trawlers, each one four or five times the size of our trawlers, fishing off our banks. The American fleet consists of some 179

Fishing Industry in Maritimes
trawlers, and they fish our banks. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that there is a neea for conservation because of the trawlers operating out of Nova Scotia. If the countries of the world would agree to abolish trawlers as a means of fishing, I would be agreeable, but so long as other countries use that method of fishing, surely Canada is not to be denied the same right.
Another matter brought up by my hon. friend was the destruction of gear. I do not think a single case has been reported where a Canadian trawler has interfered with the gear of our banks fishermen; such damage has been caused by the foreign trawlers. Our captains are familiar with conditions and they take great care not to fish in close proximity to the vessels or to interfere with their gear.
My hon. friend stated that the vessel owners were prepared to ask for legislation to deny to trawlers the right to come to our shores to fish. No one wants that. Everybody realizes that there is a limitation to the trawling industry and I believe at the present time we have all the trawlers necessary to supply the demand of the market, which is all any one should desire. There is a trawler owned by a firm in Lunenburg, with which firm the hon. member for that constituency is in close touch. They built and own a trawler, but they could not operate her successfully with the result that she is lying tied up at her wharf. Four or five years ago they were not against trawling, but when they found they were operating something about which they knew nothing and which they could not operate successfully, they tied her up and said: All those people who are in thi3 business must adopt our antiquated method of catching fish. That is the whole situation. I think it is a great mistake to bring this matter before the house. It is at present before the courts, and until a decision is rendered in connection with a case that was brought before the exchequer court and that has now been appealled before the full bench, no legislation can be passed by the house in connection with the trawling industry. Therefore I think my hon. friend was ill-advised in bringing the matter before the house.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg did not advocate abolition, but the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis understood that he did. What I want to ask is this: If you restrict licences to Canadian-built trawlers, would that be abolition? I know the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis, because of his wide experience, can answer the question.


Harry Bernard Short: We have in Canada to-day four or five British-built trawlers that have been given Canadian registry. They are Canadian ships just as much as British-built ships that are owned by the Dominion Coal Company in Cape Breton and that are registered in this country as Canadian ships. They were given Canadian registry in good faith. What do you want to do with those ships? If the government gave a register to a British-built ship, she is certainly as much a Canadian ship as one built in Canada. Otherwise a very large question will be opened because many other industries have brought British-built ships over here and those ships have received Canadian registry. Why make any discrimination in regard to trawling as against any other branch of business?


Mr. BOUCHARD:: That is no Canada-first policy.


Harry Bernard Short: That has nothing to do with the matter. Those ships are already here. I would be quite agreeable to a proposal that we do not allow any more British-built ships to be given Canadian registry. Have all the trawlers that are to be used here in the future built in Canada, but what are we going to do with those which we already have and to which we have given registry in good faith?


Mr. QUINN:: All those built in the future.


Harry Bernard Short: I am in accord with that. But what we have we are going to hold, whether my hon. friend objects or not. I do not think it is advisable to take up the time of the house in discussing this question at present, because no action can be taken by the government at this session. Therefore I am not going to try to answer further the different points raised by my hon. friend, but at some future time, when he brings the matter up, I shall be prepared to meet him.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I do not think I can quite agree with the hon member for Digby-Annapolis, (Mr. Short), who has just taken his seat, that this question should not have been brought up. Parliament has now been in session for more than four months, and yet the very large and important industry of fishing has received no consideration whatever by the house. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has made out a good case on behalf of the fishermen of his district, but I think my good friend, who is chairman of the fisheries committee, has been a little lax in his duty in not calling that committee together. If the fishing industry

Fishing Industry in Maritimes
of the Dominion is as important as he and also the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis would lead us to believe, why was the fisheries committee not called together so that important questions in connection with the fishing industry might be discussed, my hon. friend has left it to the very last days of the session to bring this matter before the house.


William Gordon Ernst: Has the hon. gentleman
either by letter or in the house during this session made any representations prior to today about the fishing industry?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is not my duty.
The hon. member is chairman of the fisheries committee and it is his duty. That committee was appointed by the house early in the session to deal with matters concerning fisheries and not one meeting has been held.


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, there has.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There was one that dealt with marine matters, but there has not been a meeting that dealt with fisheries. I think it is only fair to point this out. There are large questions that could have been discussed regarding the fisheries. While my constituency could not be called altogether a fishing .one, still that industry is of importance in my district and we have many questions that we should like to bring before the committee. Resolutions were passed by the fishermen's association asking for assistance in connection with collecting boats so that our live lobsters plight be put on the markets of the world in competition with those from other parts. This little request from the fishermen of my constituency was denied while, I think, in Nova Scotia assistance is given in this way. This is one matter that could have been taken up and discussed in the fisheries committee.
The question of trawlers is also one that should be discussed. My hon. friend says that it is still before the courts. It was before the courts and they have given a decision. Early in the session I put a question on the order paper asking what tax had been collected and what was still outstanding.


Harry Bernard Short: The case has been appealed; it is still before the courts.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know that. There is a large amount of tax outstanding, and the government does not know whether it is in a position to collect that tax or not until, I suppose, the case is finally decided by the appeal court. But there are many questions that could be brought forward. During every session that I have been a member of the house the fisheries committee has been one of

the important committees. Representations have been made before it by members from all parts of the maritimes and British Columbia; those questions have been thoroughly discussed and representations have been made to the minister. At the present time our genial friend, the former Premier of Nova Scotia, is Minister of Fisheries, and I know he would be only too glad to have suggestions from members on both sides in connection with the fishing industry. I believe his sole ambition is to give to that industry every assistance he possibly can. How is he to get that information unless members representing the different constituencies meet in the fisheries committee and discuss these matters? It is impossible for him to secure that information through his deputy or any of the officials. The viewpoints of the people in the different constituencies can be stated only by the members representing them.
The trawler question is a big one, and some action should be taken. If it comes to a question between the trawlers and the inshore fishermen, I am for the inshore fishermen every time. If it can be shown that the trawler has a part to play in the fishing industry of Nova Scotia, some restrictions should be put upon its use and the inshore fishermen be given a chance. I think my good friend from Queens-Lunenburg has done a service to this country in bringing the matter before the house, but I do wish to say to him that he should have called the fisheries committee together this session and have given it a chance to discuss these very important questions before they were brought up in the house.
There has been legislation put through the house regarding the tariff, and in that connection I have a clipping here from the Halifax Chronicle, which I think is well worth reading. It says:
The Prime Minister of Canada stated from a hundred platforms that he would make the tariff "fight for the consumer." He repeated in parliament when he imposed new, higher taxes that the people would not have to pay more. How putting 50 cents a garment on the fisherman's oilskins is not going to cost him more, we would like to know. How putting a dollar odd on a dozen pairs of socks is not going to make them cost 12 or 13 cents more a pair, everybody would like to know. How putting a tax on fertilizer, spraying machines, farm machinery and all the rest of it is not going to cost the buyer a cent more, who can explain?
It goes on to deal with the question of falling prices of world commodities and claims that some consideration should be given to the fishermen.
I hope that if we are spared to see another session our good fniend from Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Ernst) will call the fisheries committee together early in the session and give us a chance to discuss the situation from A to Z, so that we may be in a position to put before the minister any recommendations that we may decide upon in connection with these matters. There are very many questions to be considered. There is the protection service, which has always been a contentious question, and I believe that in our province to-day that service has not been handled in a way that is altogether satisfactory to the people there. They feel that the fishermen who live there should be engaged in the work rather than have outside men come in to do it. But I am not going to interfere in that matter, because it is a question of policy for the minister and for the department, and the minister can carry out that policy as he sees fit. In closing, I trust that the fisheries committee will be called together early next session and be given a chance to discuss these matters before they are brought up on the floor of the house.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) :: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of
the session, having in mind the desire on the part of hon. members of this house to bring about a speedy termination of its business,
I trust that my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short), and the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) will not consider me guilty of any discourtesy if I do not discuss this question at any great length, nor is the comparative brevity of my remarks to be taken as in any way an indication of a lack of appreciation on my part of the very grave character of the subject matter which has been brought to the attention of the house by my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg,
May I say at the very outset, and I say it in the kindliest way possible, that I am rather sorry that my hon. friend from Prince, even in a mild way, has injected an element of controversy into the discussion which I think had better be absent, and for this reason:	The matter brought to the attention
of the house Hy the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg dealt solely with the question of trawlers. He left all other questions dealing with fisheries to one side. The trawler question, of all questions, is one which ought not to be made the subject of political party controversy. It is a very serious and difficult question, and I may say frankly that it
15, 1931
Fishing Industry in Maritimes
has given me very great concern, and I have given a very great deal of thought and attention and consideration to the subject. I think that perhaps we had an example in the house this afternoon, in the attitudes that were taken by two hon. members on this side of the house, which indicates that the subject is not one free from difficulties.
I take no exception whatsoever to the fact that this subject has been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I think perhaps my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis did not hear, or certainly did not follow, the trend of the remarks of the hon. member who introduced this subject, because my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg in a very reasonable, very fair and very mild manner was at pains to indicate the conflicting interests as between the trawlers on the one hand and the line fishermen upon the other.
One of the greatest difficulties that we have in considering this question arises out of a number of collateral circumstances. In the first place, a marked change has taken place in the character of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. The very backbone of that industry was for many years the salt fish industry, but owing to world conditions that I shall not enter into at the moment, inroads have been made upon that business and prices have fallen to inordinately low levels, in some oases to below the cost of production. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg has very properly stated that the fishermen were driven into the fresh fish business on the Canadian market, which is very limited at best.
When the royal commission presided over by Mr. Justice MacLean sat in 1928 they found a very serious condition in the industry. They recognized the difficulties of the trawler situation at the time. It is unfortunate-I say this with every respecl^-that that commission could not have arrived at a unanimous decision by means of a compromise. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg has referred to a letter published in the Halifax Chronicle quoting the remarks of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysfoorough (Mr. Duff). In the letter in question, which was published' in the Halifax Chronicle of September 25, 1929, he takes that very position. I am not going to take the time of the house to read a paragraph or two of that letter, which I have before me at the moment, but he expresses in no uncertain terms his regret that the commission could not have compromised and arrived at a unanimous decision.



Fishing Industry in Maritimes
This is what happened. The majority of the members of that commission recommended the abolition of the trawler. One member, Mr. Justice MacLean, the chairman, took the opposite point of view. I think the late government made a mistake-I do not for a moment wish tio be understood as finding any fault in the sense of political party controversy-when they did not follow the recommendation of their own commission, or of the majority. What they did was to attempt to meet the situation by order in council, which got them nowhere. In the first place the majority of that commission recommended abolition of the tratwier, whereas the order in council itself was predicated upon the operation of the trawlers. Furthermore, while for nine months of the year fish brought into this country by Canadian vessels for the Canadian market, was to be taxed one cent per pound, although that tax was tentatively imposed under the guise of a so-called licence fee, yet at the same time under that order in council the government allowed fish to come in during the months of January, February and March, thus recognizing in the very body of the order in council the contention of those who advocated the use of the trawler; namely, that there are certain periods of inclement weather when we must have trawler-caught fish if we are going to have a continuous supply in the Canadian market. Furthermore, another very unfortunate circumstance resulted from the passing of that order in council, namely, that if the order in council was constitutional it imposed a tax upon one company alone of between 8130,000 and
8150,000	a year, or, as the books of the company disclosed, an amount sufficient to involve a very large deficit in every operating year. In other words, the company could not continue to operate. It is true that it refused to pay the tax and resisted to the extent of fighting the case in the courts. Unfortunately it was unable to finance and its failure recoiled upon the heads of the very fishermen who felt hostile towards the trawler, or those fishermen who believed that the trawler was in large measure responsible for the conditions in which they found themselves. The royal commission found that in the year 1926, which was apparently the last year for which figures were available, 90,000,000 pounds of fish were caught in the province of Nova Scotia. Of that 90,000,000 pounds 40,000,000 were caught by the trawlers and 50,000,000 by the line fishermen. Of the 50,000,000 pounds caught by the line fishermen, however, 72 per cent were purchased from them for cash by the trawler companies. Therefore to the extent that the financial operations of trawler IMr. Rhodes.!
companies were crippled; by the order in council, to that extent was limited the purchasing power of the people of Canada to buy fish caught by line fishermen. Instead of operating as a help to fishermen the order in council recoiled upon their heads. Although I am prepared to give credit to the government of the day for proper motives in passing the order in council, it is an unfortunate fact that it recoiled upon the heads of the fishermen for whose benefit it was designed, to the extent that it prevented the companies from being assured of a future in the business and lessened their chances of operating. To that extent it crippled their opportunities to buy fish from the fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia.
I do not purpose to go into the merits of this matter at length, but there are one or two factors to which I think particular attention should be called and which ought to be borne in mind. This controversy is not new. Trawler fishing has been in existence for a hundred years, and the very agitation which we have had to-day in portions of Canada as a result of trawler operations is an old story in practically every country-well, probably not every country, but in a large number of the countries of the world. The mother country was faced with a similar condition and as a result there were numerous royal commissions and inquiries. Investigations have been held in the United States, but there has never been any demand in any of the different countries to abolish the trawler. In Canada we have just off the shores of the province of Nova Scotia, where this agitation is most acute, what is perhaps one of the greatest fishing grounds in the world. To-day we have only six licensed trawlers, while in the world to-day there are the following numbers of trawlers in operation:
Name of country-
England	
Scotland	
Ireland	
Holland	
Portugal	
France, estimated. Belgium, estimated
Denmark	
Germany	
Sweden	
at-	-w
"v.2 m	goo
" g &	5 S
'2"'?	TS"?
sag	6 2
rt -	CO +3
1,229		
347		
154		
336		
70		
250		
100	
1	2,600
355		
184		
3,026
2,600
a^s - is '3 g cob
270
Hon. members will see that in Europe alone iere are nearly 6,000 trawlers in operation.

Fishing Industry in Maritimes


Harry Bernard Short: Has the minister the figures for the United States?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Fishing Industry in Maritimes
other markets of Ontario, will not take other than fresh fish. This is made very clear by the evidence of Mr. Langskill, who is associated with the fish distribution business in Toronto. He said:
I have seen a fresh Atlantic fish business in Toronto develop from a few cases weekly to several carloads per week due to the development of the trawler assuring us of a steady supply.
He referred to an incident which happened only last year, and stated that owing to the inclement weather off the Atlantic coast lie would not have been able to supply his market but for the fact that he was able to get fresh fish caught by trawlers.
In any case it was my intention to have made an announcement as to my view and as to the policy of the government with respect to this matter at a reasonably early date. That I have not done so hitherto is very largely because of the fact that, very shortly after coming into office, I realized that we were not beginning to exploit our market possibilities for fish in Canada. If we increased the per capita consumption of fish by 10 pounds per person per year we would increase our market by over 100,000,000 pounds of fish yearly. Even if we arrived at that figure, which is by no means fantastic, we would be still consuming less than three-quarters of the per capita consumption of fish in the mother country, where the people are essentially meat eating people. It is true there are problems in our industry which are peculiar to Canada. We have a country covering half a continent, yet our population is only slightly larger than that of the city of London, and our problem of distribution is a very difficult one because fish is a highly perishable commodity. Realizing this, and with the view of enlarging the Canadian market, the department employed the firm of Cockfield, Brown and Company of Montreal, who were recommended to me as the best firm we could engage in Canada, to undertake under their research engineer a survey of the market possibilities in Canada and the other countries of the world with a view to our being able, as far as governmental activity permitted it to be done, to inaugurate such policies as would enable us to overtake as rapidly as possible that consumption of 100,000,000 pounds or more yearlv. If we were able to do that we would go a very long way towards improving conditions among the fishermen and in the fishing industry.
I am satisfied, and I wish to state very clearly that I accept it as beyond reasonable

doubt at least, that if we are to enlarge our production of fish in Canada to cover this market, and to supply large quantities to the United States, we must have the trawler as an adjunct to our industry in order to take up the slack of which I have spoken.
I do not propose to labour the subject further, because I have already taken more time than I would wish at this stage of the session, but I should like to say this: My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) and myself are practically in entire agreement.
I believe the trawlers should be limited to the irreducible minimum, and should be subject to strict regulations. I think the six we have at the present time are ample, and perhaps too many, but whether or not that is so I believe they should be limited to the lowest possible number. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg referred to the fact that one of the great complaints was that there was a monopoly in connection with the trawlers. That is so, and in large part it arose through accidental circumstances and not through any desire to create such a condition. This has been the cause of very hard feelings in certain sections of Nova Scotia. Under section 69 (a) of the act the Minister of Fisheries has very wide powers. I sometimes wish they were not quite so wide, because it would take a superman to administer that department in a way which would be reasonably acceptable to the majority of those engaged in the fishing industry. But I do believe that the Minister of Fisheries, under that section of the act and under the regulations which he can invoke, has sufficient power to be able to remedy that situation, if not fully at least in very large part. It will be endeavour to see if some solution cannot be found which will bring about a little more equitable distribution of the trawlers. In that connection I might point out that one of the witnesses who appeared at the hearing of which I have spoken was Captain Myhre, who undoubtedly is well known to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). He appeared against the trawler, but strange to say, in his evidence, to which I will not refer now, he stated that he had a particular customer who wanted fish on a certain day and that he was unable to supply his customer because the elements did not permit the fishermen to work on that occasion. He said very frankly that it would be of distinct advantage to him, and would permit him to supply his best customers with fish whenever they required it, if he could secure a trawler to take care of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the period when the line fishermen could not secure the necessary supplies.
My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg said that he advocated the licensing only of trawlers built in Canada. I will agree with him, with this limitation:	I do not believe
it would be fair to apply that principle in Canada now, since of the six trawlers under licence four were imported from the mother country. They were imported in good faith and were purchased at a considerably higher price than that for which they could be purchased to-day. In addition to the cost, they have expended large sums of money on repairs. In one instance twice as much money was expended in repairs on one trawler as was paid for the trawler originally. Are we prepared to pass legislation confiscatory in its character? If we pass a regulation to provide that all trawlers shall be built in Canada and those now here be disposed of, the government will have to compensate. And if we compensate we hand over to the trawler companies an equivalent sum of money which they will turn around and place in Canadian trawlers. So that we put them in no better position, nor do we improve the condition of the fishing industry. A fairer method would be to license the trawlers we now have, deciding that hereafter any trawler to be licensed1 must be built and owned in Canada. I may say to my hon. friend that, with that reservation, I am prepared to recommend to my colleagues in the government that as a matter of policy this be adopted with regard to the trawler question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before leaving the chair
that the house may go into committee of ways and means, I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, July 15, 1931.
Sir,-*
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Mr. Justice Duff, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
F. L. C. Pereira, Deputy Assistant Secretary.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Customs tariff-451a. Spring-beard needles and latch needles: British preferential tariff,
15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per thousand: British preferential tariff . . . . ; intermediate tariff, $1.50; general tariff, $1.50.
(ii) Needles, of any material or kind, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-451b.	Pins manufactured
from wire of any metal, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 271 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff ... .; intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Mr. YOUNG:: The other night the Prime Minister said that pins were sold in this country at 5 cents per gross. That seems to be a very low price. Can he give some particulars?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to indicate to the hon. gentleman the circumstances under which the matter had been brought to my attention, and I pointed out the tremendous effort that was being made to dispose of surplus inventories in this .country. What I referred to was a small ring of fine wire on which had been attached 144 safety pins of varying sizes from an inch and a half to two inches in length, down to very small pins of perhaps less than half an imch. They were being sold in the stores at 5 cents per ring. The industry to which I referred is one that has been in existence in Montreal for upwards of thirty-five years. The hon. gentleman asked how many were employed; the number directly employed is 75. They have been subject to competition all this while and there has been no complaint either in regard to the quality of their product or of any tendency towards monopoly. Nor has it been complained that they were getting undue profit. Were it not for the reasons I gave, the industry would, I think, disappear. This tariff may or may not have the effect of preventing that. The imports last year were $171,000; from the United States, $65,000 and from Germany, $5,000. The imports from Germany of the ring I mentioned are materially increasing. I cannot give any further particulars. I need not say that the material in this country could not be purchased at that price.


Edward James Young: I suppose that is the retail price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was the price
at which they could be purchased in departmental stores.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: Could an unlimited quantity be supplied at that price?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not answer that.


Edward James Young: It seems to me that in the departmental stores pins cost several times that much. The price the minister has mentioned seems remarkably low, almost too low-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what I was
saying; it is remarkably low. Whether or not one could buy them in hundreds of thousands of rings I cannot say. But that price did bring the matter most forcibly to my attention. There will be no increase in price by reason of this item, and it will enable this old established industry in Montreal to continue.


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister hopes
there will be no reduction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope there wall be.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What is the duty on
safety pins?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is given in the item-30 per cent.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Prime Minister the other day said that overseas manufacturers could land safety pins here for retail sale at 5 cents per gross. That will be found at page 3584 of Hansard. This morning I went into some of the stores in Ottawa to inquire into the safety pin business. At Murphy-Gambles I bought a card of 10 safety pins for 10 cents. At Schulte-United, I bought a ring of 50 safety pins for 15 cents. I went into Woolworth's and bought another ring of fifty pins for fifteen cents. I then looked up the number of births in Canada and I found that there are approximately 240,000 per year. On an average, a baby would use about one gross of safety pins per year.


Mr. DUFF:: The hon. member means the baby's mother.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes, for the baby.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: It would depend on how many the baby swallowed.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
_ Customs tariff-453.	Metal parts when
imported by manufacturers of covered buttons for use exclusively in the manufacture of covered buttons, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is maintaining the rate granted under the button item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-476b. Surgical suction apparatus including motive power; prepared surgical catgut; ethylene; ethyl chloride; operating room lights designed to minimize shadow, not including bulbs; all the foregoing of a class or kind not made in Canada, and complete parts thereof, for the use of any public hospital, under regulations prescribed by the minister:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been found that nitrous oxide is being manufactured in Canada, and the item has been deleted.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-506a. Clothespins and parts thereof, per gross: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 cents; general tariff, 20 cents.


Edward James Young: Some time ago I happened to be in a hardware store and the merchant produced one of these patent clothespins held together with a wire spring. He said, "This clothespin has been manufactured in Canada," and he took the two parts in his hand and pulled them apart without any trouble; he just gave a little twist and they fell apart. He told me that when this clothespin was used on a line of clothes it flipped apart and allowed the clothes to fall in the dirt. He said that the Canadian manufacturer was cutting down expenses and had cut off a little piece of wood where the spring used to come around over the edge. Is this the particular industry being protected by this duty?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The production last year of clothespins amounted to nearly $400,000. The industry is confined largely to the province of Quebec, although there is a small factory in British Columbia. I imagine the efficiency of the Canadian manufacturer will be improved by the hon. gentleman's remarks.
I think the Canadian producers are endeavouring to produce an article which will commend itself to the public. This government is not granting protection in order to encourage inefficiency. In this particular instance it was a case of the factory closing down or protection being granted. The manufacturers will not take advantage of this protection, any more than will the manufacturers of pins. If the computations are predicated upon increased prices, an increase will foe shown in the budget amounting to millions of dollars, but of course no one would do that who desires to make a fair computation of values.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-507. Single-ply, sliced or rotary-cut veneers of rosewood, mahogany, or Spanish cedar, not over five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness, not taped nor jointed: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment to this item is being made because of the provisions contained in the Australian treaty, the words "walnut" and "oak" being deleted. There are several items with respect to which varying rates apply. Under item 507a the rates were 5, 74, and 7i per cent; under 503, they were free, free, and free, while the rates proposed in the new item are free, ten, and ten per cent.


Mr. EULER:: The increase is three per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a combination
of items.


William Daum Euler: I was thinking particularly of mahogany veneers used in the manufacture of furniture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is really a counterpart of the former item 507a except there is a little difference in connection with the thickness of the wood.


William Daum Euler: The raw material for
mahogany veneers, as well as for oak veneers and some of the others, is imported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an increase of 2J per cent.


William Daum Euler: Did it meet with any
objection on the part of the furniture manufacturers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not that I know of.


William Daum Euler: It is a raw material. This is done because of the Australian treaty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-507a. Single-ply, sliced or rotary-cut veneers of wood, n.o.p., not over five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness, not taped nor jointed: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We let this stand the
other evening in order that we might await the Australian treaty. This is the n.o.p. item.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: That is an
increase?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From 15 to 20 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: The government is giving the furniture manufacturers an increase on the finished product?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The Australian
treaty items touch it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-507b. Veneers of wood of any kind, not over five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness, taped or jointed: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That goes with the
former item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-507c. Plywood made of two or more layers of veneer or lumber of wood, glued or cemented together, but not further manufactured: British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-507d. Veneers, viz.: Australian blaekwood, walnut, silky oak, silkwood, black-beam, maple, Tasmanian myrtle, and eucalyptii, single-ply and not over three thirty-seconds of an inch in thickness: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The Australian treaty
makes this item necessary. This is the item that necessitated our having the other items stand until the present.


Mr. NEILL:: They are all Australian products?
Mr. BENNETT; Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Immigration
Richard Bedford Bennett: As I have to meet the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, and as the Minister of Immigration is in his place, he might go on with supply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Immigration salaries and contingencies, including grants to immigration societies, women's hostels, provinces, and loans for stock, equipment, etc., for Canadian boys, as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $1,905,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Would the minister kindly
give a list of the societies that are receiving grants under this vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the present
time no society is receiving grants. They have all been dropped this year. The item went through in that language at a time when I was not sure to what extent the restriction would obtain.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the details of this vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Salaries, outside service,
$1,055,000, and contingencies, $850,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: None of
this money has been voted to any society of any kind whatever?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: None.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the minister, then, for the total amount of money voted to this department for salaries, inside and outside services?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Outside service, $1,055,000 ; inside service, $312,555.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are any
other salaries paid in connection with immigration work, Chinese immigration or the rest of it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: These two items include all the salaries with the exception of the administration of the Chinese Immigration Act. That will be found under item 126.


Edward Joseph Garland: The other evening I asked the minister if he would give the committee the details of deportations for the last year, the number of foreign-born and the number of British subjects deported.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total number of
deportations from August 1, 1930, to May 31, 1931, is 4,137; but going back to April 1, 1930, to date, the totals for the fiscal year are as follows: British deportations, 3,099; United States, 279; other countries, 998, making a total of 4,376. The causes of deportation are various-medical causes, criminality, public charges, other civil causes. In a large number of cases the deportations have been brought about through the deportees deliberately accepting public charity in order to be deported1. We try to avoid that if we can.


William Daum Euler: How many persons have
been deported at the request of municipalities because they were not able to support themselves and were in receipt of charity?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not those figures.
I am told that in order to procure them a special compilation would have to be made, but I would be glad to have that done-


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to put the
minister to that trouble. Would the minister give a statement as to the policy of the department with regard to deportations of the kind I have mentioned? Does the department act only on the request of the municipalities, or does it take the initiative? I ask that because it seems to me it is pretty hard that people who have come to Canada in good faith, perhaps as the result of the activities of the Immigration department of a government, the preceding government, if you like, and have fallen on hard times, like many Canadians, should be deported against their will. That seems to me a hardship. I should like to know what is the feeling of the department. Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill No. 124, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1932.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed in committee of ways and means.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Customs tariff-511.	Fishing rods, walking
sticks and walking canes, of all kinds; golf clubs and finished parts thereof; skis; racquets and racquet frames and baseball bats; balls of all kinds, for use in sports, games or athletics:	British preferential tariff, 20 per
cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a consolidation,
putting similar articles together, which were at varying rates previously. This includes former items 511, at 20 per cent, 27J per cent and 30 per cent; 506, at 17| per cent, 22i per cent, and 25 per cent; 446, at free, 15 per cent and 20 per cent and 362, at 22J per cent, 30 per cent and 35 per cent. Items coming under those different classifications have been grouped together, so there is a slight reduction in some cases and a slight increase in others.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-540b. Woven fabrics, wholly or in part of flax or hemp, not containing silk, artificial silk nor wool, viz.:	table linen,
towelling, sheeting, pillow casing, grass cloth and crash, and similar woven fabrics of a class or kind made in Canada, not provided for in tariff item 540c: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff, 3 cents; intermediate tariff, 3i cents; general tariff, 4 cents.
Customs tariff-540e. Table cloths, napkins, towels, sheets, pillow cases in the 'web or further manufactured, wholly or in part of flax or hemp, not containing silk, artificial silk nor wool: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff, 3 cents; intermediate tariff, 3J cents; general tariff, 4 cents. -
Richard Bedford Bennett: These are the linen items. The fabric and the finished article are separated, and the specific duty is 3 cents, 3i cents and 4 cents in each case.


Edward James Young: This is another item where the two rates apply. Could the minister tell us how it will figure out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The items vary in value, of course, from a very small price for a table napkin to a very large price for a large table
cloth. It would be rather difficult; I suppose the values would run from 25 cents up. I am speaking from my general knowledge at the moment; my hon. friend may correct me if I am in error, but I think that would be it.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Customs tariff-560a. Woven fabrics wholly or in part of silk, not to contain wool, not including fabrics in chief part by weight of artificial silk, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 274 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent; and, per lineal yard:	intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general
tariff, 10 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item stood at the
request of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) who wanted some information with respect to the industry. I assume that he has obtained the information from the source from which I obtained mine, namely the bureau of statistics. It would appear that the silk industry in Canada has developed very rapidly during the last few years. Ten years ago there were five establishments; in 1929 there were 23. In 1921 the total capital invested was 14,500,000, in round figures; in 1929 it was $28,278,000.	In 1921 the employees
numbered 932; in 1929 they numbered 4,372. Salaries and wages in 1921 were about $719,000; in 1929 they were $3,825,000, in round figures. In 1921 the cost of materials was about $1,890,000; in 1929 it was $6,091,000. in round figures. The value of the production in 1921 was $3,500,000, in round figures; in 1929 it was about $14,o00,000. The bulletin issued by the bureau of statistics in 1930, containing the last information that had been collected, indicated that the total number of establishments in operation increased from 16 in 1928 to 23 in 1929, and of the seven new establishments three were in Quebec and four in Ontario.
I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman the principal figures for which he asked the other evening. The total capital of $28,-
278,000	was divided between three companies having a capitalization of $1,000,000 or over; six companies having a capitalization of between $500,000 and $1,000,000; five companies having a capitalization of between $200,000 and $500,000, and nine companies having a capitalization of less than $200,000. The average number of employees per establishment was 109. There were nine factories employing from 20 to 50; four employing from 50 to 100; four employing from 100 to 200; three employing from 200 to under 500 and three employing 500 and over.


Charles A. Stewart: From what country do we get our principal imports of the finished article?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I mentioned the other evening, this is a combination of other items. With respect to pure silk the largest importations are from Japan and the United States. We imported these goods to the value of $4,366,000 in round figures, of which $1,731,000 came from the United States and $1,423,000 came from Japan, with the balance coming from scattered countries.


Charles A. Stewart: So the bulk of the importations would carry the heavy duty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Japan carries the
intermediate rate.


Edward James Young: This is one of those items
in which we have a dual late; we have under the general 45 per cent and 10 cents a yard. I asked the minister the other night to give me some idea as to what that would be on an ad valorem basis. This is about as good an illustration as we can get of the ease with which tariffs can be raised by putting them on a specific basis. I have here a sample of Japanese silk on which, under the new rate, the duty will be 116 per cent of the value of the silk. The silk is worth only 14 cents a yard, and when you add 10 cents a yard to the 46 per cent you have increased the duty to 116 per cent of the value of the product. I have here another sample of silk on which the rate is increased to 90 per cent-
An lion. MEMBER:	We cannot see it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hold it up.


Edward James Young: Here it is. I think this is
a good illustration, I will not say of deliberate deceit, because I do not think it was done deliberately for that purpose, but of the ease with which people can be deceived when you change from a specific to an ad valorem rate. If you told people that you had increased the rate to 116 per cent they would not stand for it; but when you say that 10 cents a yard is added to the 45 per cent they do not regard it as so much until they figure it out. But what is the effect? I have the index figures of prices of silk for September, 1929, September, 1930, and June, 1931. The September, 1929, figure was 77; the September, 1930, figure was 60-9; and in June, 1931, the figure was 66-5, showing a slight increase since last September. In regard to the prices for the last three months of the raw product as compared with the finished silk, we find that the price of raw silk has declined from 43-6 to 36-6 since the first of April, while the price of the finished product has increased from 46-9 to 56-5. This would indicate that the silk manufacturers
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.)
are not suffering from any great reduction in prices. According to the figures given by my right hon. friend, the industry pays in wages 22 per cent of its total income. The tariff protection, taking the average rate on all silk goods-because you cannot discriminate between some goods and others given in the returns-was 29 per cent in 1929 on all imports. So that they enjoyed 29 per cent protection and paid only 22 per cent of their income in wages. And on top of all that we find an American who has a controlling interest in a silk factory in Canada coming and asking-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already twice told the hon. member that the gentleman to whom he refers did not have a controlling interest.


Edward James Young: An interest, then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you. Why make the statement deliberately?


Edward James Young: I did not make the statement deliberately. At any rate, he had an interest sufficient to persuade him to come to Ottawa and advise the minister that it was in Canadian interests .to raise the duty on silk so that he could supply the Canadian market from his Canadian business. I wish to call the attention of the committee to that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had one factory as
against twenty-three. I endeavoured the other evening to make clear what the facts were. The hon. gentleman has taken as an illustration silk valued at 14 cents a yard. If he had followed me he would have observed that the importations amounted to 8,000,000 yards valued for duty purposes at slightly over 50 cents. So that the average of the importations was over 50 cents a yard-approximately 52. The illustration which he takes of 14 cents a yard is hardly a fair one upon which to base a conclusion, and the figures which he gives of average costs in 1929, 1930 and 1931 are themselves conclusive against his contention, to say nothing of the figures he gave with regard to prices during the last three months. I will not go over the ground I traversed the other evening. I said that the gentleman in question had stayed here but a short time, and he did not come for the specific purpose my hon. friend suggests. He was interested as a shareholder and he told me of the conditions in the United States. As I said,_ a brief had previously been filed, and the information he gave me squared with the facts we had. He told me what their experience had been and I found that also to be true. I believed that there was nothing left for us to do, in view of the competition from sur-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
plus inventories, but to take the action we did. And that action we took for the reasons I explained at length the other night. I promised the hon. gentleman that I would try to secure the information for him and I have .just told him what I know of the matter. If there is any further information I can get I shall be glad to give it to him.


Edward James Young: My right hon. friend objects to my taking as an illustration the cheapest silk at 14 cents a yard. He says I should take into account the higher priced silks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but the average
priced silk imported.


Edward James Young: Taking the average, we shall find that the rate of duty is lower than 116 per cent; that is true. But that illustrates my point that on the cheaper silk which the poor person must buy you are charging 116 per cent while you are not charging that percentage on the higher priced silks which the richer people buy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-561a. 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.
Customs tariff-564. Woven fabrics, of a kind not made in Canada, wholly or in chief part, by weight, of silk or artificial silk, or both, imported, in the web in lengths of not less than five yards each by manufacturers of neckties, scarves or mufflers, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The former item covered neckties and scarves and this is extended to mufflers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-567.	Clothing, wearing
apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics and all textile manufacturers, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which silk is the component of chief value: British preferential tariff, 27J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent; and, per ounce: British preferential tariff . . . . ; intermediate tariff, 7 cents; general tariff, 7 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the complement of the silk article which we discussed at length the other evening. It is the raw material from which clothing is manufactured, Items 567 and 567a take care of the finished product
against competition from outside. Our trade has substantially increased and this accords with the protection afforded under items 560 and 564.


Charles A. Stewart: You are not changing it from the September schedule?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes; there is a specific rate of 7 cents per ounce. It is more imposing than it really is in these days when fabrics weigh rather less than some people think. In one instance to which the attention of the department was called the weight of the finished dress was something like-


Charles A. Stewart: A quarter of a pound?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fifteen and a half ounces. It was less than a pound. I cannot speak from personal experience regarding weights of dresses-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I was just going to ask that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I saw that the hon. gentleman was about to ask the question and I anticipated it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-571. Carpeting, rugs, mats and matting of straw, hemp or jute; carpet lining and stair pads:	British preferential
tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22) per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-571a. Carpeting, rugs, mats and matting of cocoa fibre: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 224 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Provided, that the duty under any tariff shall be not less than, per square foot: British preferential tariff, 10 cents; intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that the first item is unchanged while the second item is a separation. The first item is reprinted in order that there may be no misapprehension, and1 the second item contains a specific .provision that the duty shall not be less than 10 cents per square yard.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Customs tariff

586. Coal, anthracite, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 40 cents; general tariff, 40 cents.
Customs tariff-588. Coal, n.o.p., including screenings, and coal dust of all kinds, per ton: British preferential tariff, 35 cents; intermediate tariff, 75 cents; general tariff, 75 cents.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: I beg to move that the following item be added to schedule A of the Customs Tariff:
Customs tariff-588b. Coal, lignite: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Alan Webster Neill: Are we to discuss the three items together?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I will take up the last item which strikes out the duty on lignite. This is another illustration of the scriptural expression :
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
When the budget was brought down we in British Columbia, more particularly those interested in the coal mines on Vancouver island and in Comox-AIberni and Nanaimo constituencies, were bitterly disappointed at the treatment we had received, or shall I say the lack of treatment. However, in the midst of our bitterness and disappointment we gave the government credit for this one glimmering ray of hope, the duty on lignite, which would result in some little benefit. We anticipated that it would mean the sale of some 20,000 tons which at present are shipped in from the state of Washington to be sold in Vancouver in competition with the product of our coal mines. But now we have lost that, and whatever benefits remained to us are now taken away. Apparently the objective of the Prime Minister is to help the Saskatchewan lignite producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not it.


Alan Webster Neill: The situation could possibly be relieved if the Prime Minister were to use his influence to have lignite properly defined. Some years ago it was necessary to define this product, but as the sale of lignite was of small proportion a rough and ready definition sufficed. It was not anticipated at that time that there would be any importation from the United States into Canada, so it was agreed that lignite should be defined as coal which contained a certain percentage of moisture. In time the trade from the state of Washington developed. These importations are coming in free but in fact it is really sub-bituminous coal rather than lignite which is being shipped in. I have in my possession a bulletin published by the state department at Washington in which an analysis of this coal is published, and it is frankly admitted that it is not lignite but sub-bituminous coal. I took this matter up with the departments of Mines and Customs, but for some time the buck was passed from one department to the other. After a time I came to the conclusion that the department of Customs was playing the game fairly. I was told that they were bound to

follow the definition as handed to them by the Mines department, but they said they would check up from time to time on the importations to make sure that no misleading samples were provided. It wras always found that the coal contained exactly the quantity of moisture to allow it to come in as lignite and escape the duty on bituminous coal. I took this matter up with the Mines department but so far as I could make out it is simply a matter of indifference with them; they could not be bothered to take the necessary steps to define this lignite accurately. If the Prime Minister would use his influence to have this matter adjusted I think it could be adjusted in such a manner as to permit the lignite coal from Saskatchewan to go into the United States as lignite and prevent this sub-bituminous coal coming from Washington into Vancouver as lignite. If it did come in it would come in as bituminous coal and would be subject to a duty of 75 cents per ton, which would be all that we would require. Then we would hope to regain this trade amounting to 17,000 to 20,000 tons per year.
Now I come to the main tariff item which raises the duty on bituminous coal from 50 to 75 cents per ton. If there is such a thing as provincial political gratitude, which has been cynically defined as a lively sense of favours to come, I should think the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia for many generations to come would adhere most faithfully and loyally to the right hon. gentleman who at present leads the government. It is hard to recall another industry which has received such a large-I was going to say hand-out, but that is the wrong word because (here is nothing nefarious about it- present. It is almost without precedent. This object has been achieved by two methods, one of which is before us and we may have an opportunity to discuss the other a little later. I am afraid the right hon. gentleman will find himself in the position of Frankenstein who created a monster of such vicious appetite that it ultimately destroyed both itself and its creator. Once this sort of thing is started it is so easy to come back and beg for more and more. The Prime Minister is certainly entitled to the popularity he has gained in these provinces, but there is a possibility that those people not directly interested in the coal trade will realize that they are being put in the position of having to pay the piper. There are many people in this class, not only in these provinces, but in the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
The government have adopted what they call a national fuel policy in line with the pledges which they made before the election. The item I am referring to is No. 4 of the platform on which they went to the country, and it reads:
We pledge ourselves to the development of interprovincial trade, and of a Canadian fuel policy and development of a foreign market.
I quote again from a speech in the campaign:
The party would find the rates that would enable Canadian coal to meet competition, and would make up the loss by subsidization.
The method which they have adopted i9 that outlined in the speech, namely, of imposing a higher duty and giving transportation bonuses.
The Minister of Finance might have proceeded by other methods. He might have imposed an increased duty on fuel oil, which is really the competitor of coal in British Columbia; and he is aware that very strong influences have been brought to bear that the duty on fuel oil should be increased. But the minister has adopted a different method, and 1 am not here to waste the time of the committee in discussing the alternative. I am inclined to say that possibly he adopted the better method of the two under the circumstances, with a strong emphasis on "the circumstances", because under different circumstances fuel oil would have been the natural commodity on which to increase the duty. I shall take the opportunity of saying that while he may have been right in not imposing a greater duty on fuel oil, it was against the interests of the coal producers of British Columbia to boost the oil industry as he did when last September he increased the tariff on importations of gasoline. By that time we had almost but not quite reached the point where the oil refineries of western Canada could produce, in the distillation of crude oil for the production of gasoline, enough fuel oil to supply the wants of western Canada. Consequently a duty on fuel oil might have had some slight temporary effect, but increasing the duty on imported gasoline encouraged the introduction of crude oil as such and of course the greater manufacture of fuel oil in British Columbia, so that within a very short time it is reasonable to suppose that not only will they produce enough fuel oil to supply British Columbia and the west, but they will also have a surplus. There is only one answer as to what they will do with the surplus, and that is, they will cut down the price in order to force a market
for it, the result being that the coal mining industry will be increasingly affected thereby. So much for that.
I now wish to consider the application of this policy of increased duty to the Vancouver island coal mines, some eight or nine in number, in Cumberland, Nanaimo and further south. I am not objecting to the policy provided that it is applied in a manner fair to all, but I cannot get into my head a conception of a Canadian national fuel policy which leaves out one-third of the coal mines, or, at least, one-third of the coal mining area in Canada. We are in the position of the profligate son who has been cut out of his father's will, and who, in order that the will could not be upset by the suggestion that he has simply been forgotten, finds that his name has been inserted and he is allotted the sum of one dollar. Our wants and needs have not been cut entirely out of the picture, but we have been allotted the sum of one dollar or its equivalent.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: On the basis of last year's production of island coal, the present bounty will assist island coal to the exent of at least $50,000. That is scarcely cutting you out of the will entirely.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister will allow me, I shall deal with that when I come to that-particular phase of the matter. I am just coming to it. By the way, I do not know where the minister gets his figures. What I was saying was: What does this mean to us? And by "us" I mean the coal mining interests that I represent. I am quite entitled to stand up in the house and, at least in the first instance, consider the matter from that point of view. I have notes of my speeches made during the election where I predicted that something very much like this would be the natural outcome of the fuel policy as then outlined. I was countered by the accusation that I was taking a parochial view of the situation, and that I should take a broad, national viewpoint; that that was the aspect from which to look at it. As a representative of those people it is my duty to begin at least by seeing how these matters affect the district which I represent, being assured that the other districts of Canada will be looked after by the members who represent them.
This duty is an increase of twenty-five cents a ton, or a 50 per cent increase on the original duty, which was fifty cents a ton, and it applies against all countries importing coal into Canada, the United States principally, Russia, and to a somewhat smaller

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
extent, Great Britain. That coal is all marketed in eastern Canada, so that the coal mining interests of the east get the whole benefit of the increased duty. I have the output figures under my hand. The minister will possibly dispute them and I cannot do more than say that I got them from the very best government sources. The output for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and that portion of eastern British Columbia which will derive a benefit from this duty and the transportation bonus, is something like 13,500,000 tons. There may be some little difference arising from the fact that some provinces record .their coal outr put in long tons and others in short, but those are the figures which I obtained from the government bureau. An increase of twenty-five cents a ton on the present basis of production, provided there be no farther increase in production-and the whole idea of this policy is to increase the quantity of coal mined in these districts, although possibly it may not do so-will provide an increase of price or of profit if you like, of $3,375,000 annually. While other parts of Canada are getting this sum yearly under this item, we stand to get absolutely nothing. I was going to say that we stood to get something from [DOT]the duty on lignite, but in the last few minutes that duty has been taken away. In addition we lose the sale of 48,480 tons. There is no gainsaying that; that again is a matter of statistics. That is the quantity which we export yearly to the United States. Call it
50.000	tons and I shall explain how an increased duty on bituminous coal coming into Canada is going to prevent us from selling
50.000	tons in the United States. The reason is this: the United States tariff on coal entering that country is free, but if any outside nation imposes a duty on United States coal, a similar duty will be placed automatically on the foreign coal going into the United States. Therefore we see at once, now that the duty has been raised to seventy-five cents a ton on United States coal coming into Canada, the duty on coal going from Canada into the United States will, not by legislation but automatically, be raised to seventy-five cents a ton. We are working on a very close margin. On the island we have deep coal mines which are expensive to work. By scraping and cutting and paring down costs to the limit we were able to secure this market in the United States for 50,000 tons.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What is the cost of island coal?
[Mr. NeilU


Alan Webster Neill: Somewhere around $8.40 a
ton, varying somewhat as to how acute the economic pressure is.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What is the spread
between the cost at the pit mouth and the sale price of the same coal in North Vancouver, sixty miles away?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know. I am talking about coal sold in Seattle.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member will
find there is about $5.25 of a spread between the two places.


Alan Webster Neill: This is an old, old standby,
to take the lowest, minimum, screwed down wholesale price and compare it with the price delivered in sacks, 200 yards away from the sidewalk, into a man's cellar. That is played out as an argument.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Colonel Villiers does not
consider it is played out. He stated that he was cutting down the price by establishing his own selling agencies in Vancouver and thereby cutting $1.25 off the price.


Alan Webster Neill: What bearing has that on
the question?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It has a great bearing.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to explain it, but I cannot see it. By adopting a cheese-paring policy at every point, the coal mines have been able, under desperate economic pressure, to cut down costs so as to capture the local, domestic trade. But I am not talking about the domestic trade at all. If it is necessary, I shall discuss it. What I am talking about is that the increased duty of twenty-five cents per ton will prevent us from selling 48,480 tons in the United States, for this reason:	We
have either got to absorb it-and we cannot absorb it-or we must lose the trade. That is what the increased duty on bituminous coal is doing for our coal mines.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What effect will that have on the Crowsmest- .pass coal mines?


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking of Vancouver island coal mines.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But the export from the Crowsnest pass coal mines to the United States is very much more than that from the Vancouver island coal mines.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not dealing with the Crowsnest pass coal mines:, nor with the Alberta nor the Nova Scotia coal mines. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
I am dealing with the poor effect that this

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
supposed Canadian' national fuel policy is going to have on the district I represent and on that represented by my friend from Nanaimo. As I said, the prices are too close to enable us to absorb the two bits a ton extra duty and we will have to lose the trade or sell at 'a loss. To be fair, I was going to say at that point that we must offset that by the lignite coming in from Washington, because we hoped to capture that trade, but by putting lignite on the free list again, to-night even that business has been taken away from us. That leaves us, as I say, with
50,000	tons of coal trade that we are going to lose, worth more than $200,000 to us. You can hardly expect me as representing a portion of the Vancouver island coal mines to be wildly enthusiastic about a policy of this kind. It is all very well to talk about being broad-minded, about taking a national viewpoint, but the idle miners in Cumberland or Nanaimo cannot trade off those lofty national sentiments at the grocery stoTe for food for their wives and children. They are not negotiable there; they may perhaps pass here.
Now perhaps if anyone was in the chair who had a finicky obsession as to adhering strictly to the rules of debate, I might be forbidden to deal with the other phase of this matter. But I think the right hon. Prime Minister would admit that it would be better to discuss it under this item because the two phases are so intimately related. I refer to the transportation bonus, which is inter-looked with the duty phase of the subject. It will save repetition of this argument when we come to the bonus item in the supplementary estimates if I deal with it now'.
I said at the beginning that the national fuel policy had been applied in two ways: one, by w-ay of increasing the tariff; the other-what I aim now going to speak of for the moment-by a transportation bonus applicable to the different coal fields. It is there that one would naturally look for some compensation for us to make up for what we have suffered by an increased tariff. I quite agree that taking a national viewpoint it may be imperative in some cases to do one district harm in order to secure the greater benefit to some other place; but when that is done it is the act of statesmanship to provide by some compensating method so that the district which suffers at one point will be compensated at another. And here is the opportunity that arose for giving us a compensating advantage, but instead of that it has made our comparative position a great deal worse. We are worse off under that phase of the situation. We get 25 cents a ton transportation bonus on our bunker coal only, while other parts of Canada get from $1.25 up to $2.25 on theiir transportation costs. As a matter of fact we do not get this 25 cents a ton on all our output but only on our bunker and part of our export trade. The hon. Minister of Immigration mentioned some $50,000. I do not know where he got his figures, but I am prepared to produce statistics-in fact, I think I have a telegram from the head of one of the coal mines on Vancouver island-to show that last year the bunker trade of Vancouver island was 101,900 tons. At 25 cents a ton bonus that would give us $25,470. Now it is proposed, I understand, to allocate something like $2,000,000 towards this bonus transportation scheme, and it is figured that it will move 1.800,000 tons. If we strike an average of $1.50 a ton, then out of that $2,000,000 we ought to get 8163,000- and we do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is a rail haul; in the other case the mines are on an island and within a short distance of the shipping port.


Alan Webster Neill: I will deal with that later on. We ought to get $163,000-and we are getting nothing. In fact we are getting worse than nothing. I am not in a position to prove it, but I firmly believe that in the past-and still worse will it be in the future-the bonus given tfie Alberta coal field has been used and will continue to be used in part in increasing the quantity they are actually shipping to Vancouver in competition with our island coal.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What increase are they getting on their Vancouver coal?


Alan Webster Neill: They are getting no increase on that movement, but they are getting so much to take it east that they are applying a certain amount of that money as a bonus rate on the coal that they ship into Vancouver. If that is not so, how is it that Alberta coal is sold within a few miles of our coal mines?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the Alberta coal mines are making so much money that they are able to make up the loss on their coal going to Vancouver out of the money they make on their coal coming east?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know how they figure it out, whether by red ink or black ink figures, but I do know that since the bonus was given to the Alberta coal mines there has been an increasing quantity of their coal shipped west as well as east. A few years ago an hon. member representing one of the Alberta coal
3802	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
districts stood up in his place in this house and said: "As soon as we get the bonus on our eastern shipments we will ship west as well." I objected to that, but he said he did not care whether I objected or not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Alberta and Crowsnest pass mines were shipping coal into Vancouver long before this subvention was in effect.


Alan Webster Neill: But it has been coming in increasing quantities since this bonus was granted.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Has the hon. member any figures showing the increased quantity shipped west since the subvention was put into effect?


Alan Webster Neill: No, but it is worse than it was before. As the man spoken of in the Bible said, "Whereas I was blind, now I see." Before the bonus was granted their coal did not come within five miles of our pithead; now it does. The national fuel policy-if it is the right policy-is intended to assist coal from various fields to reach its respective markets. In the east it was to compete with foreign coal. As the Prime Minister tripped me up the other day, it is not going to a foreign country. In the east they want to compete with coal of foreign origin. What we want is the same principle practically- we want assistance to go into a foreign market and compete there. What is the difference, in the long run? Our hoped-for market happens to be in South America, and if we could have got $1.50 or $1.25 or even a dollar we might have made shift. Instead of that where one province can get up to $2.25 a ton We have to be content with two bits. There was a time in the west when there was no smaller coin than two bits, and if one wanted any change smaller than that amount he got back a box of matches. For the information of eastern members I may say that two bits is 25 cents. If the Prime Minister would allow us a seventh of a cent per mile to our markets in Chile or Peru we would be satisfied, but such a rate to the water, which is only twelve miles away from our mines, is of no particular benefit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ratio of water to
rail carriage is about forty to one.


Alan Webster Neill: But the distance is fifty to
one. Let us summarize what we get out of this-and I am not trying to overpaint the picture, because goodness knows it is bad enough without any trimming; when one has a good case there is no need for exaggeration. What do we get out of it? We get $25,470

in bonus. From that must be deducted, if possible, the loss of trade to the United States amounting to $293,000. If we take $25,000 from $293,000 we have somewhere around $277,000 of a loss. That is a dead loss, most of it probably in wages.
I should be glad to hear any argument Which could upset those figures. Possibly by using different figures the absolute detail might be changed to a certain degree, but the principle remains the same. The increased duty will kill our trade to the United States, on the one hand, and 25 cents a ton bonus will hardly take it out of sight of the mine, to say nothing of taking it to South America. I wish to repeat, because I want to be fair, that I am not complaining of the adoption of the policy. I ask, however, that it be applied fairly.
The bonus to the various coal mines has been introduced by an order in council. That order in council recommended that the government put a sum in the supplementary estimates to meet the estimated expense. Of course that will be done. The only remedy is to increase the bonus in the supplementary estimates to take in this dollar a ton for our mines, and change the order in council. I trust that the government will yield to the representations-and I know they have had a great many of them-from British Columbia. I might quote a communication from Premier Tolmie as follows:
After careful consideration, this government strongly suports the request of the British Columbia coal operators for some adjustment of coal policy, as set forth in your budget speech. Letter setting forth arguments sent by Hon. W. A. McKenzie to you June 5. Request first that bonus on bunker coal and export coal other than to United States, be raised from 25 cents to $1 a ton.
He goes on to say:
Situation so desperate in coal mining that every effort must be made to protect all possible markets.
I have a further communication from the Victoria chamber of commerce, a very conservative body, which sent by air mail to their member, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett) a resolution which set out-

that if the bonus on the foreign-going coal from Vancouver Island were raised to $1 a ton it would be commensurate with the aid provided for on Alberta and Nova Scotia coal.
That is support for my claim for equality.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the difficulty is that it is not. Seven cents a ton land transport applied to water transport would enable people to be paid for carrying the coal away.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Alan Webster Neill: I did not hear my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member applied the land transport rate to water carriage there would be a bonus so great as to enable people to compete to get the opportunity to take the coal away; they would compete for the privilege of carrying it.


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend does me
small compliment when he thinks I am advocating anything like that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the suggestion.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not essential to put it
on an exact rate per ton mile. All that is needed is to say that a coal mine in Vancouver island shall get a straight bonus of $1 or $1.25 per ton. So desperate is our need we will come down to a dollar, although $1.50 would be more appropriate, and $1.25 would be the strictest justice. The provincial government take the matter up and say:
These facts were emphasized when Nova Scotia operators two years ago applied to the tariff board for an increase in the duty, and the British Columbia government engaged counsel at Ottawa to oppose the application because the granting of it would strike a blow at the industry in this province. The application was refused.
That was two years ago. I have before me a wire of recent date reading as follows:
Premier R. B. Bennett in a wire to provincial Premier Tolmie Thursday stated that the demand for a dollar per ton bonus on bunker coal would receive favourable consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Favourable consideration?


Alan Webster Neill: No, alas! it was not favourable; if it had been favourable I would not be on my feet now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not so sure.


Alan Webster Neill: If the Prime Minister would change the word "careful" to "favourable" it would be quite satisfactory.
I shall now quote the remarks of Senator Robertson, Minister of Labour in the present cabinet. The minister was in the west investigating the conditions of distress. While there he was told by men not specially interested in the coal industry that if he wanted in part at least to relieve distress in British Columbia all that was necessary was to grant $1 a ton on coal, and that the coal industry could then take care of their own unemployed. Although he did not tell me so, I understand from the press he expressed the opinion that that was a very reasonable proposition because it
would enable the people to help themselves, and he stated that he would pass the information on to the government as soon as he returned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the hon. member
has dealt so carefully with the matter, has he considered what the effect would be of granting a bonus of $1 a ton in connection with the countries he has mentioned, and the question of the tariff rate they would have to pay?


Alan Webster Neill: Coming from those places?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, going into them.


Alan Webster Neill: Do you mean such as the
United States would charge-the United States with their reciprocal item in their legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not countervailing,
but something equivalent to our dumping duty.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not think that conception of economics had yet reached South America.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, long ago.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, they are not so far
behind us in iniquity as I thought they were.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is wonderful that the hon. member believes in bonuses at all.


Alan Webster Neill: I am prepared to wade in
economic iniquity, because the situation is so desperate-to wade in blood, if necessary. The $1.50 or $1.25 would be fully justified by the government to equalize what had been handed out to the other parts of Canada. The supplementary estimates should provide an increased bonus to take care of this matter. No tariff change would be required, but only an order in council. Until then I am not going to condemn the government or seek to make political capital out of the situation. I am going to assume that the Prime Minister-Because after all he is the responsible party-is sincere in his desire to formulate a national fuel policy which will do justice to everybody. I have his written words to that effect, and in that connection I shall refer to the eighth item of the platform with which he went to the people. It says:
We pledge ourselves to such compensating adjustments as will ensure the benefit of the above policies to every part of Canada.
To tell the honest truth, during the election I did not understand that plank; I went about rather ridiculing it and challenging my opponents to explain what it meant, but not one could make a stab at it at all. Since then,

3804	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
however, like Saul of Tarsus-though I do not compare myself to him in other respects -I have seen a great light, and now I understand the meaning of this somewhat obscure plank. It is the guarantee and the justification for the action for which I am now asking. The Prime Minister might have had this very situation in mind when he put those words in the platform. It is admitted that he cannot help us by an increased duty, but he is trying to help other parts of the country in that way, so I still hope he will come forward in the supplementary estimates and give us that compensating adjustment which is required. He has the support of his own platform and of the Conservative party in British Columbia. I am going to assume that he will do justice and will not be so unsportsmanlike, or so unstatesmanlike, as to inflict this injustice upon these mining districts.


William Daum Euler: As one who comes from a
province which unfortunately has no coal deposits whatever, unless we have some in northern Ontario not yet developed, I should like to make a few comments with regard to the two items under consideration, the duty on hard coal and the increased duty on soft coal.
I do not desire to be regarded as one who would object to a well considered national fuel policy, so long as that policy does not entirely cut across all economic principles in its application. Nor do I wish to argue from a sectional point of view, representing as I do a province which, as I said before, has no coal deposits of its own. Coming from Ontario, I think I may say fairly that the people of my province always have been willing to bear their fair share of any burden that might have been placed upon them by way of taxation or otherwise. I think we realize-though perhaps some of my hon. friends who sit behind me may deny this-that if we do occasionally get some advantages by way of tariff which we consider necessary, we have no objection to doing our share when it becomes necessary to do something for other parts of the Dominion of Canada, and I quite agree with that view.
I should like to refer to the duty of 40 cents per ton on hard coal, which is not produced in Canada at all. Hard coal will continue for many years, I think, to be the fuel of the ordinary, plain people, if I may so designate them, in western Ontario at least. That is a very thickly populated section of this country, say from Toronto to Windsor, containing considerably more than one million people, or at least one-tenth of the population of Ihis country. The people residing in that

portion of Canada will find it necessary, for a long time to come, to use hard coal as their fuel during the winter months. A duty of 40 cents a ton on hard coal will inevitably result in an increased price to the people who use that hard coal for fuel. I can say that with assurance, because the price went up immediately after the announcement of the imposition of the duty.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does that apply to all tariffs?


William Daum Euler: As I said before, I have no objection, and I think the people of Ontario would have no objection, to making some concessions provided some good will come to the rest of the people of Canada, If this is merely a revenue tariff then I would say that the government is ill advised to apply it on hard coal, because it will be paid by the people who can ill afford to pay that extra amount, especially under present conditions. If it were true, and the Prime Minister could assure us, that by placing a tariff of 40 cents per ton on hard coal the coal producers of other parts of Canada would be benefited, I think that argument might be sound and valid, but for my part I do not think there will be any other result than that the people of western Ontario at least, and in fact the people of the greater portion of Ontario and perhaps of Quebec, will be obliged to pay more for the fuel which they need during the long winter months. It may be that it was the intention of the Minister of Finance to transfer the business of supplying our hard coal from the United States to Wales, but I am convinced that it will not have that result.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: He never suggested that.


William Daum Euler: I am wondering whether that was his reason. If that is so; if it was his intention to promote inter-empire trade, at least that would be an argument, I fear that the imposition of this duty will not bring more Welsh coal to Canada but rather will result, as I have said, merely in an increased cost to those who must use it for fuel in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The duty on soft coal has been increased from 50 cents to 75 cents a ton. Here again, if some good will come to other parts of Canada producing soft coal I might grant the validity of that argument if it were advanced. Soft coal is still used to a very considerable extent by the manufacturers in Ontario, and I suppose in Quebec as well. It is true that in western Ontario manufacturers are to a large extent using electric power

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
generated at Niagara Falls and other points, but still soft coal is, to some extent at least, almost the raw material of our manufacturers in this province. If it were possible, in lieu of the soft coal now coming from the United States, to bring coal from the western provinces or from Nova Scotia, that argument might hold some appeal for the people of Ontario. I am open to conviction; that result may come about, but I am of the opinion that the addition of 25 cents to the former duty on soft coal will bring very few tons of that coal from Nova Scotia or the western provinces either to Quebec or to western Ontario, where we have an intensive manufacturing industry.
That being the case my protest is this: unless some real good is accomplished by the imposition of an additional duty on soft coal, why should our people-and even if they are manufacturers I think I might have the support of my hon. friend from Weybum- be obliged to pay higher prices for that which they need in the production of their manufactured goods? If the Prime Minister is imposing the extra 25 cents for the purpose of increasing our revenue perhaps I would not have very much to say, but if he believes it will give more business to the maritime provinces I think he will find himself very much disappointed.


Mr. CANTLEY:: It certainly will.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the first portion of his remarks my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), referring to the duty of 40 cents per ton on anthracite coal, directed his comments more particularly to the position of the householder in western Ontario who, according to his assertion, will have to pay 40 cents per ton more for his coal.


William Daum Euler: They are doing it now;
they are paying more than that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not propose to discuss the effects of this policy as disclosed by a superficial examination made after it has been in operation only a few weeks; I do not intend to discuss what extraneous facts may enter into the equation with respect to the price of coal. That can be determined only after the policy has been in effect for some time. But I do assert this, that far from imposing a burden upon the householder of western Ontario, this tariff, in the final analysis, will prove a benefit and a direct saving of money to every wise householder in that part of the country. I propose to give chapter and verse for the statement I have made. The mines branch carried out a demonstration which left no room for error in
22110-242J	-
their computation of the comparative merit3 of coke and anthracite, and that test showed that one ton of American anthracite coal could be replaced in fuel value 'by -953 ton of Nova Scotia coal. The accuracy of that test was further established by a similar test which was made in the Nova Scotia technical college at Halifax where the figures were practically the same to the fraction of a decimal. What does that mean in terms of money? The householder who has been accustomed to anthracite uses, let us say, 10 tons, and we will put the cost at $16 per ton. It really does not matter what the exact price is inasmuch as the figures are comparative. Let us take coke at $14 per ton, which is a high figure compared to the average price, in Nova Scotia at any rate. This would mean a saving to the householder of $2.38 per ton. In other words, by the use of coke instead of anthracite he would save $23.80.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: On ten tons.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. These figures are
well within the mark. Now many hon. members will say, "But you cannot use coke, in a hard coal furnace."


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister consider changing the furnace?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A furnace that burns
anthracite can burn coke equally well.


Mr. SANDERSON:: No, not always.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am speaking from both
personal observation and experience. If any hon. member wishes to be convinced all he has to do is to consult the technical officials of the fuel board, who will substantiate the statements I have made.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have had experience with my own furnace.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not intend to go into any technical discussion of the subject, but I may point out that the ordinary householder makes the mistake of using coke in. exactly the same way as he uses anthracite. The secret of the successful burning of coke is to burn it in an incandescent form. In the use both of bituminous coal and oi anthracite you must have a draft through the bottom of the furnace, whereas the proper method of burning coke is to cement the cracks and close the drafts in the bottom of the furnace, burning the coke incandescently. If you do that, as many householders have done, you will not only get better results but the cost will be lower. The householder in Ontario can save money by using coke.
3S06	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I fancy my hon. friend from North Waterloo will rise and ask where the coke is to be got. Let me point out that in Ontario you do not even have to make it from Canadian coal. Under section 1049 of the tariff act there is a drawback of 99 cents per ton on American bituminous which is processed into coke. If the Ontario householder will use coke instead of American anthracite he will be creating an industry which, even if American bituminous coal is used exclusively, will be the means of securing an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, giving employment to a large number of Canadian workmen in the process of transforming that American bituminous into coke.


William Daum Euler: I am sure my hon. friend
does not wish to leave a wrong impression. He says that the Canadian can buy American bituminous and get the drawback if that coal is converted into coke.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Does not the minister know that while the by-product coke ovens in Hamilton do get the drawback, the municipalities are discriminated against? When they produce coke from American coal they pay the duty and they get no drawback.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The municipalities can
construct by-product ovens.


William Daum Euler: But why should they be
obliged to construct special ovens?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman has
asked a question and I am replying. If the municipalities put up by-product coke ovens they will get the drawback.


William Daum Euler: They have the by-product
from their gas-making plants and they get no drawback.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have been making statements of fact which can be verified by reference to the secretary of the fuel board in the mines branch. Now there is one other factor 'to be borne in mind, and it is this. It is not generally known that the American anthracite mines are nearly at the point of exhaustion. If hon. gentlemen will look at the report of the royal commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, which inquired into maritime claims, they will find at page 36 the statement that the reserves of anthracite in the United States may be exhausted in thirty-five years, an unofficial warning to -this effect having been given in 1921 by the 'United States bureau of mines to the Canadian Department of Mines. That was ten

years ago. So that in the interests of a great Canadian industry it is well that we should anticipate that day; and the people of western Ontario, in patronizing a Canadian industry, would be benefiting themselves to a substantial sum each year.
My hon. friend spoke of the duty on soft coal and he said that if some good would accrue to other parts of Canada he would not offer any great objection.


William Daum Euler: I said it was an argument.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Having regard to the cost price of coal at the pit mouth to-day, the duty of 75 cents per ton on bituminous coal represents less than 50 per cent of the protection afforded that industry thirty years ago. That is a statement which cannot be controverted. There is an important compensating factor; as you enlarge the production of the bituminous coal mines, to that extent you increase the opportunity for continuous operation and as you have continuous operation, so you bring down the cost of production. There is another important compensating factor, and it is this: there are large areas in this country which are dependent entirely upon the money paid in wages in the towns, cities and villages surrounding our coal mines. If those places are made into prosperous communities the buying power of the people will be increased for the products of the factories of Ontario. There is another important consideration. To the extent you bring that condition about, you provide return freights for our railroads from east to west. Instead of taking loaded cars down and empty cars back, which is very bad railway operation, you will have full cars both ways with a resultant benefit to the railways.


William Daum Euler: The increase in duty is only 25 cents per ton, as we have already a duty of 50 cents per ton. Does the hon. member think that the increased duty is going to move a great deal of Nova Scotia coal into the districts to which I have referred in Ontario and western Ontario?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would have preferred to see the duty made $1 per ton, but half a loaf is better than no bread.


William Daum Euler: I do not think the hon. member will get any.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is very sceptical, but the view he holds is entirely contrary to that held by men of all political opinions in the eastern portion of Canada. These men know something about the coal

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
industry, and their view is that this is going to be of vast benefit when taken in conjunction with the bonus rates upon the western movement of coal.


William Daum Euler: We will know next year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member mentioned the industries of Ontario, but he overlooked the fact that there is a drawback upon every pound of bituminous coal used in all phases of metallurgical operations. This is a very material factor in manufacturing cost3 for the great basic industries of this country.


William Daum Euler: That would cover perhaps five per cent of the industries of Ontario.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are many other aspects of this question with which I would like to deal, but I do not want to delay the Prime Minister.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter to which I have given some thought since assuming the administration of the affairs of the Department of Mines. I am rather disappointed at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I will not say I am discouraged, but I must confess that I am disappointed. The representatives of what is known as the island coal industry saw me on a number of occasions with respect to possible assistance to the coal mining industry on Vancouver island. The request made was that a dollar per ton bonus be paid on island coal used for bunkering, based on the increased production over last year's figure. It will be remembered that last year the consumption of coal was on the decrease due to climatic and other conditions, and I came to the conclusion that the island coal operators could not and would not increase to any considerable extent the production of bunkering coal. They were looking not only for bunkering coal but export coal to Chile and Peru, and in order that they would be assured of some assistance the course indicated by the legislation brought down was adopted. When the hon. member says that he was cut off in the will with but a dollar, I am afraid he is using an extremity of language which under the circumstances is scarcely fair. An examination of the figures will disclose that this 25 cent bonus will apply even if there is no increase over last year's figures. The production amounted to 186,448 tons of coal, and the monetary relief will come to $46,612. That is quite different from being cut off in the will with but a dollar. This relief is not dependent upon an increased production but will apply to all production falling within this class.
Conditions are changing rapidly, and it may be that the situation of the coal mines on Vancouver island will have to come under review, but I think for the present we should wait to see what benefits will accrue.
I have no desire to make a criticism of the management of these coal mines as they are labouring under great difficulty in their operations. Their costs are high, in fact probably higher than any other coal mine. They run around $5.75 per ton, and any hon. member who knows anything about the cost of mining coal will realize what a huge cost that is. In spite of the short water haul from the island to the nearest and best markets, Vancouver and North Vancouver, there was a spread in the price of something about $5. This matter was taken up with the operators who admitted that that spread was too great. This matter arose over the invasion of the Vancouver market by some Alberta coal, and they agreed to take steps to establish their own selling agencies. If the press reports are to be believed, they have done this and the price of coal has come down.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni claims that this action is imperilling the export trade to the United States. If anyone will be hurt, I suggest it will be the Alberta and Crowsnest pass operators. What have they to say about the policy of the government? While I am not given much to reading quotations, I will ask the committee to bear with me while I spread a few letters and telegrams upon the record. The following telegram dated June 2nd was addressed to myself:
First news of budget just received. Desire express appreciation action re extension markets Canadian coal.
H. Stutehbury,
Alberta Trade Commissioner. The following is a letter from the International Coal and Coke Company Limited of Coleman, Alberta. It is dated June 15, is addressed to myself and reads as follows: Please accept the thanks of the writer for the improved subventions granted our industry.
The increased duty will also help us, and I feel the industry as a whole in the west will benefit greatly.
We will be anxious to cooperate with you in every way possible to the end that there need be no American coal burned west of Ignace.
That is signed by the general manager of the company.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Did the
minister receive any local messages from the Saskatchewan coal fields, Bienfait and Este-van?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I imagine from the hon.
member's question he knows there is created
3808	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
with respect to the Bienfait and Estevan fields a difficult situation that will require a good deal of careful thought, and it is still under review in the Mines department. I have a letter from the West Canadian Collieries at Blairmore, Alberta, addressed to myself under date June 6, 1931. Hon. members from Alberta probably know a good deal about this concern and the size of it. This letter reads:
I have just read the last order in council, covering the movement of our coals to Manitoba and western Ontario (P.C. 1303). As the representative of one of the largest mining companies in the west, I want to thank you and congratulate you very heartily.
I feel just a little self-conscious over such eulogy, but I shall have to continue.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Be thankful
for small favours.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Listen to what the letter says, and see if they are small favours.


Thomas McMillan: To the hon
gentleman, I mean.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The letter continues:
The subvention as now established must enable us to get all our natural markets. It is sound and well balanced in every respect. I consider all points in connection with your access to our books as wise and logical.
The reason that sentence is there is this: when I was in the west I thought it desirable, as the government had given assistance in the past and were contemplating giving further assistance in the future to our mining companies, that they should give me a definite statement of their mining costs, so that I might have them under review and at least try to prompt those mines that were operating with methods that were obsolete or that for some other reason were operating at too high a cost to adopt more efficient methods. That is what the writer is referring to. The letter continues:
If a man asks for relief, he must show what his earnings are; if he refuses to answer, he is not entitled to any relief.
This new order in council, coupled with Mr. Bennett's budget, gives our coal industry a wonderful chance; the best we ever had.
I am convinced now, that by next winter, all our men will be back to steady work; and you and your government will not only have relieved the unemployment conditions in the mining camps, but have done something that will go a long way to build up again the prosperity of the country.
I do not mean that I feel the coal companies do not need to worry any more; on the contrary, I realize it is our duty now to improve our costs, and our selling organizations; and through more efficiency and lower prices at the 
mines, coupled with the wonderful assistance we are getting from you, we must be able, by next winter, to show you and the country some really great improvements.
Thanking you again, I beg to remain.
Yours very truly,
G. A. Yissac,
General Manager,
West Canadian Collieries Ltd.
I shall burden the committee with just one or two other letters. This is from the Mc-Gillivray Creek Coal and Coke Company, Limited, addressed to me and dated June 12:
We wish to hereby go on record as thanking you for the efforts which you have undoubtedly put forth on behalf of the western coal interests, and to express our thanks and appreciation for the increased subvention and the favourable rulings which you have been instrumental in getting for us.
I am quite sure that the help which you are extending to us will be of. very considerable advantage and my fully considered opinion is that a large tonnage of American coal will be displaced by Canadian coal.
Yours very truly,
McGillivray Creek Coal and Coke Company, Limited.
I have under my hand with respect to the Nova Scotia coal mining industry a statement by Mr. McNaught, the representative who met me, who represents those large interests in Glace Bay and elsewhere in Nova Scotia and who is probably better equipped than any other man in the maritimes to say whether or not what the government has done will assist the coal mining industry. This is what he says:
The position of the Canadian coal industry has quite evidently received earnest and sympathetic consideration. Mr. Bennett is to be congratulated on the sincerity of his effort to deal *with the Canadian fuel question on a broad national basis. It cannot be expected that any benefits afforded under the budget proposals will be immediately effective in improving our coal operating conditions.
Any material improvements will be dependent almost entirely on the recovery of general business conditions in Canada but so far as coal is concerned Mr. Bennett's budget should accelerate the general recovery. The policy announced should be of considerable aid in preserving to our coal industry its Canadian market.
I am not in a position, nor do I know sufficient about the coal mining markets in Canada to make a statement of my own as to the effect of what the government has sought to do, but I hazard the opinion that the letters which I have read come from those in the coal mining industry in this country who must of necessity know that industry better than anybody else, and they all commend the action of the government with respect to its coal policy.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Will the minister
tell the committee what government it was that began those coal subventions in both the east and the west?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the faintest
idea.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I shall tell
the hon. gentleman. It was the Liberal government that preceded his.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Let me read just one other letter; as follows:
Lancaster Building,
Calgary, Alberta.
23rd June, 1931.
Hon. W. A. Gordon,
Minister of Mines,
Ottawa.
My Dear Wes,

I had delayed writing you with respect to the coal situation until I heard individually from my numerous clients. You no doubt know, but it will do no harm to tell you, that they are all very much pleased indeed with what has been done, and it is of some interest that they give the credit to yourself. May I add my own thanks and very sincere appreciation of your lively interest and excellent results procured by you in the matter? This letter does not amount to anything, unless that in times of so much grief for a person in your position, it might brighten the day just a little bit to know that there are some people who are very grateful to you.
With kindest regards,
Yours sincerely,
A. L. Smith.


Mr. DICKIE:: I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the committee, but I feel I should be remiss in my duty to the coal mining part of my constituency if I did not say something with respect to the state of affairs which exists in Nanaimo and Ladysmith. I wish to associate myself in the main with what the hon. member for Comox-Alfoerni (Mr. Neill) has said. I shall, however, try to deal with the matter from another angle. We are grateful for the assistance that has been granted. I believe it was wrong to remove the duty from lignite coal, but the matter can be very easily arranged by properly classifying the coal that comes from Bellingham into British Columbia. It is not a true lignite; it is a semi-bituminous coal, and if classed as such it would not have the advantage it has as lignite. We have in Nanaimo, Ladysmith and Cumberland, the latter a coail mining town represented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, from 700 to
1,000	people out of employment. During the coming winter these men, many of whom are married and have their homes in those towns, will have to be looked after and it will cost the government a good deal of money to take
care of this coal mining .population. Colonel Villiers, the manager of the coal mines there, has told us that if they are given a bonus of SI or $1.25 a ton, he is quite sure he can open up a market for coal in Chile, Peru and other South American countries. By doing so, he would employ perhaps several hundred more miners than he does at the present time. If what he says can be done, we would be fully justified in giving this bonus of $1 a ton. We are not asking as much as has been granted to coal mines in other parts of Canada. In Vancouver island it costs us too much to mine our coal, owing to structural difficulties in our mines; nevertheless we have our coal mining population there and they must be maintained. Supposing difficulties should arise with respect to the marketing of coal in Chile and Peru, this bonus would not be required. The manager of the coal mines on Vancouver island practically told us that a bonus of $1 or $1.25 on offshore coal, that is bunker coal in ships,.to ports other than those in the United States, would put the mines on a much better basis than they are at the present time. If we can give employment to 200 or 300 miners, would it not be a good investment to try this bonus of $1 or $1.25 a ton? We are not going to lose anything by it, and if we were to lose anything, it is an easy matter to make it up. Last year we imported into British Columbia 160,000,000 gallons of fuel oil and raw petroleum. We have a duty of one-half cent a gallon on fuel oil which is a fairly respectable duty. But we bring the petroleum into British Columbia where it is refined and the residue is a fuel oil on which there is no duty. Let the government impose a duty of one-quarter of a cent a gallon on that residue and we would make twice as much money as would be required to give the coal mining industry the bonus it asks. I do not believe there is a man in British Columbia who would raise his voice against the imposition of such a duty. I do not believe the price of fuel oil would increase one iota. It is, as I say, a residue. They make their profits mostly out of the distillate product, the gasoline, and this fuel oil has to be got rid of. I have no doubt they would keep the price of fuel oil just about the same, even if there were a duty of one-quarter of a cent a gallon on the fuel oil content of petroleum. Were that duty, say, one-quarter of a cent a gallon, on 160,000,000 gallons of .petroleum and fuel oil there would be a revenue of $400,000. Perhaps $100,000 will grant all the relief we ask for the coal-mining industry. I have endeavoured in a quieter way to persuade the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
government to see matters in this light, but unfortunately up to the present I have not succeeded. However, I have not given up hope, and although I lack the delightful, persuasive ability of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, I am still going to try to convince the government that it would be good business for Canada and an act of humanity on their part to grant that very moderate concession for the relief of the suffering coal miners Of Vancouver island.


Alan Webster Neill: I want to say a word or two in answer to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon). His speech reveals more subtlety in argument than accuracy in fact. You can make a case out of anything if you make your premises to suit you. He said I had stated that a 25 cent bonus would produce a sum of $25,000 odd. He makes it $48,000. How does he do it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Divide four into 186.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not give 48, even at that; it gives $46,000.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is what I said.


Alan Webster Neill: He arrived at his figure by figuring on the total output. He is not deliberately deceiving the house, but all the same his figures are incorrect. I was dealing with the coal on which we could and would get 25 cents a ton.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have to take the Dominion fuel board's figures from time to time and have always found them accurate. They are relied upon by the coal operators all over Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: Then in this particular instance I am unfortunate, for the fuel board told me the figures were mainly estimates.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not the figures I gave.


Alan Webster Neill: These figures came from the Department of National Revenue, and as they collect the revenue surely their statistics must be accurate. Here they are for all British Columbia. They discriminate between shipments to the United States and to other countries. Shipments out of Nanaimo to the United States, 48,847 tons; shipments out of Nanaimo to other countries, 62,621 tons. If you add the two sets of figures together they give a total of 110,000 tons. Then: shipped from Cranbrook, 49,902 tons; from Femie, 60,732 tons; then there are small shipments through New Westminster and Prince Rupert, which make u.p a bigger sum than he gave.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Over 200,000 tons.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; he said only 186,000. But both figures are for all British Columbia.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But the bounty will be paid on 186,480 tons.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: And so was I.


Alan Webster Neill: Pardon me. I was dealing with the bunker output of Vancouver island; he was taking in the whole product of British Columbia.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not at all.


Alan Webster Neill: Just a minute. He was taking in practically the whole product of British Columbia. Here are the figures, and they check up within 9,000 tons, a discrepancy that will often arise because of one place quoting the long ton and the other the short ton. Here are the department's figures.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What department?


Alan Webster Neill: The department that gives out these statements.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My statistics came from the Dominion fuel board. They check their figures every day.


Alan Webster Neill: They were based more or less upon estimates, and were not accurate.


Alan Webster Neill: Then it will be paid illegally because the bounty is only going to be paid on bunker coal mined on Vancouver island. Is he going to treat the shipments from Fernie as bunker trade? You cannot send ships from Fernie.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I never said you could.


An hon. MEMBER:: Airships.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a very fine illustration of the subtlety of my hon. friend's argument.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say so.


Alan Webster Neill: He said they might do it.


Robert James Manion: He did not say so at all;
mother hon. member said it.


Alan Webster Neill: Whoever said it was wrong
anyhow.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: This is no joking matter. I have statistics showing 101,900 tons; that is bunker coal.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the production
on the island?


Alan Webster Neill: It is much bigger. I think
the whole island district production is something like 1,107,000 tons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That ds what I thought.


Alan Webster Neill: But that includes the domestic trade going into Victoria and Vancouver, on which no bonus would be paid. The minister spoke with a tone of reproach in his voice of the spread between the cost of the coal at the pithead and the price at which it was sold at Vancouver, which he thought was excessive. I happen to have been in the coal business myself and I know very accurately what are the costs of the retail coal dealer. First of all he gets short weight on his coal. That is a trade secret I can give the committee as I am no longer in the business; an allowance has always to be made for short weight. Then the coal has to be unloaded and screened, and that costs money. Then you cannot sell screenings at the price of run of mine coal. It is supposed to be screened when you buy it, but it is not too well screened, and you have to sell the screenings at a lower price. In many cases it has to be sacked-sacks do not last long in the wet weather of Vancouver-and that costs money. Then there is delivery; all these costs mount up, and I have never seen a retail coal merchant die a millionaire. I know there is always a howl on the spread between the rock bottom price wholesale of any commodity and the extreme retail price. When this comparison is made you do get a suspiciously large spread.
The minister was very kind to read out for the benefit and information of the committee a number of letters which he received commending the action of the government and wishing them godspeed in their good policy. But where did those letters come from? Alberta and Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, as I said at the beginning, ought to support the present Prime Minister for all time to come on account of the benefits they are getting from this'policy. Naturally these are the people who are writing to the minister and thanking him for what he has done. But did he get any letters of thanks from Vancouver island? There would have been the answer to my argument that it was not justified.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I might interrupt the
hon. gentleman for a moment: I said the representatives of the island coal mines asked for a dollar a ton on their increased production over last year, hoping to get the Chile and Peru market. I am persuaded they would not benefit as much if they got a dollar a ton in such way as they do at present at 25 cents a ton on their total production.


Alan Webster Neill: Was that application made
in writing ?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe it was.


Alan Webster Neill: I am inclined to think it was not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It was made on a number of occasions.


Alan Webster Neill: I was present at a meeting
of the associated boards of trade of Vancouver Island at which the head of the colliery company was present. On that occasion there was no hint of making any such ridiculous suggestion.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He made the suggestion
to me last fall.


Alan Webster Neill: There must be some misunderstanding. Probably the minister is not as well acquainted with the coal industry as-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Probably there may be a misunderstanding between my hon. friend and the people in his province.


Alan Webster Neill: Then, two men who knew
the coal business misunderstood each other, and also a hundred people at a meeting of the associated boards of trade were under a misapprehension. However, that is a matter between himself and the minister. When this red1 herring was dragged in I was saying that we on Vancouver island had not received a square deal, and in answer a lot of letters were read. Whence do these letters come? They come from the people who did receive the benefit. I have never denied that some people have received a benefit, and those people would be very foolish and ungrateful if they did not acknowledge it. I would ask my hon. friend to produce a few letters from the coal miners on Vancouver island; let him produce a letter from one of them-because there is more than one. My hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) knows that, and I know it. The real fact is that we will stand a loss in trade of about $263,000 a year. If that is a national fuel policy for Vancouver island there is another guess coming to someone.


Charles A. Stewart: This is one occasion upon which I can agree with the policy of the government, because that policy

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
is merely an amplification

I do not wish my friends -to become too enthusiastic-of the policy of the previous administration. We have heard a great deal about a national coal policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fuel policy.


Charles A. Stewart: I though!
we would have some brand new system ol dealing with coal reserves and distribution, but I have found that the government has simply extended the bonuses on transportation; with that policy I fully agree. I doubt if there is any other remedy, if we are going to bring eastern coal westward to its proper market or bring western coal eastward to the market in Canada it should have. The government of which I formed a part began this policy in 1925, and from year to year we extended the assistance because we found it was beneficial.
My hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) to some extent discussed the coking proposition. May I say to him that we were the fathers of that idea. We began operations in Hamilton, and I may say to hon. members that during the period of its inception that industry went through some very difficult stages. The recent terrific slump in the price of coke has jeopardized the position of that industry. While coke is not at present under discussion I understand that at a later stage we shall be dealing with the duty on that particular commodity. The encouragement to Wales and Scotland to ship anthracite coal into Canada has resulted in real competition in the anthracite field. The displacement of anthracite coal by coke in the last six years has cut down the importations from the United States by about one-half. At the present time we are importing anthracite to the extent of less than 3,000,000 tons. I do not think the 40 cents a ton duty on anthracite is required at all. The better quality anthracite from Great Britain is rapidly supplanting the market held by Pennsylvania anthracite. There is no question about the fact that coke is a cheaper fuel -than anthracite and does everything my hon. friend has said it would do. The problem however is to educate the peopie how to use it. I think my hon. friend might have said that all that is necessary is to be careful not to shake the grates down, but to leave a bed of ash. In that way coke may be burnt in anthracite grates; that fact was proven long ago, and I may say that the experiment was tried in Hamilton. It cost us some money to educate the people to burn coke as a substitute for anthracite.

I am in agreement with all the proposals of the government in this respect, but I doubt the wisdom of the imposition of the duty. I admit at once, however, that such duties will help Alberta coal. Last year the increased subventions were the means of capturing the market in Winnipeg, which formerly had not been enjoyed. There is a further competitor in southern Saskatchewan receiving the advantage of the subvention. I do not complain about that competition because I believe the Saskatchewan people are as much entitled to the market as are the Alberta people. Undoubtedly the added subvention will bring that coal at least one division point past Kenora and add to the market of the Alberta and Saskatchewan fields.
I wish briefly to congratulate the government upon the increase in subventions. Their action has been to add to a policy which we encouraged and were working out very successfully. I hope that policy will be equally beneficial to the eastern mining fields so that bituminous coal may be brought further west, into Ontario. There is an area in Ontario however which undoubtedly will have to pay an increased duty. I am bound to say that the hon. member for North Waterloo did not mention that the government have in other directions been extremely kind to the manufacturers by increasing the duties on the commodities they manufacture. Perhaps they can stand the added 25 cents.


William Duff: The consumer will pay.


Charles A. Stewart: The manufacturer is compensated by the increased duty on his product which in the past he has not enjoyed. For that reason I cannot feel sorry for him. If I have any criticism to offer at all it would be that there is an added duty placed upon this coal. From the Fernie area in British Columbia a considerable amount of coal is exported to the United States. As the coal duties are reciprocal, difficulty will be experienced in getting the product of that field into the United States. That, Mr. Chairman, is my objection to the duty.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: I come from a county which produces over 70 per cent of all the coal mined in eastern Canada. I have some knowledge of the industry and of the conditions under which those miners live. To-day in the town of Glace Bay there are over 1,000 people living on doles. Last Saturday the sum of $7,800 was paid out to those miners. Usually during the summer months we enjoy considerable prosperity in Cape Breton; the winter is our

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
hard time. While the St. Lawrence is open and the Montreal market available, up to this year we have always enjoyed a fair measure of prosperity and comfort. This is the first year the miners of Cape Breton have had to be helped by charitable neighbours and their locals.
The simple question is this:	Are we going
to let that industry die? We must either let it die or take steps to rejuvenate and help it. In its platform this government gave a promise to the people of Canada that it would inaugurate a national fuel policy. What is meant by a fuel policy for Canada? It means that, as far as our resources will permit, Canada is to supply the fuel necessary to run its furnaces and stoves. This government has taken two steps in that direction; it has increased the duty on soft coal to 75 cents, and it has increased the subventions which will enable us to extend our markets further west into Quebec and Ontario. I want to say on behalf of the miners of Cape Breton that they appreciate what this government has done for them; they appreciate the fact that this Minister of Finance is keeping the pledge he made to the miners of Glace Bay when he visited there last year.
Hon. members opposite have asked how the additional 25 cent duty will help. Let me tell them that at many competitive points in Ontario a difference of 15 cents turned the scale; when a manufacturer could buy American coal for 15 cents less than Canadian coal, the order went to the American firm. The subventions will enable us to carry our coal a little further west in Quebec and Ontario, and it has been calculated that those subventions will net us something over one million tons a year, which to us means the difference between adversity and prosperity. The duty and the subventions are two elements only in a fuel policy, but they are the two fundamental and essential elements in the creation of such a policy; they are the evidences given by this government of its intention to keep the pledges it made, something I presume hon. gentlemen opposite do not understand.
It is possible that in some parts of Ontario the price the manufacturer will have to pay for his coal will be slighty increased, but I am bound to say from my personal observation and knowledge that the Ontario manufacturers are meeting the situation in a patriotic spirit. They realize that the maritime provinces have furnished them with a market for everything from hats to boots; we buy everything from *them. They have taken from us all our banks, our trust companies and our financial resources, which are now located in Ontario
and Quebec. We are the fringe of confederation, but we claim the right to live, and we ask the Ontario and Quebec people to make in a patriotic spirit any small sacrifice that may be necessary. In this world of ours we cannot take everything and give nothing. We are giving the manufacturers a market, and we ask them to accept, if necessary, a slight increase in the price of coal in order to enable us to live. The industry must have this assistance or it will perish. This government says it is not going to perish but that, it is going to live, and those of us who come from the coal counties of Nova Scotia feel that in this government they have men who are determined that this industry shall have a fair chance to prosper.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat takes credit for introducing the subventions some years ago. At least he might have given some credit to those of us who worked on the coal committee in 1926, which suggested these subventions to the government of that day. He might also have given some credit to those of us who stood up on the other side of the house and fought for maritime rights, as a result of which we obtained certain concessions. Though at present, the skies are dark and the situation is very distressing, still we have hopes that when present contracts have expired and new ones are being made we shall be able to meet competition, no matter whence it comes, on an even basis, thanks to the good sense, the sound judgment and the patriotic effort of this government.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, so long
as we have a policy in this country under which we give assistance to various industries by tariffs or bonuses, I am quite certain that those of us who come from coal areas cannot quarrel in any way with the assistance given the coal industry. At present I am not certain just to what extent the increased tariffs and subventions will extend the coal markets for my own province of Alberta. I hope the markets will be widened very considerably, because that extension is badly needed. Until it is clearly demonstrated just what will be the result of these changes I am content to take the opinion of those who are in the industry and who are best qualified to speak. However, may I ask the Prime Minister to what extent, if any, this 'assistance by way of tariffs and subventions will apply to the purely steam coal areas whose market is wholly restricted to one or the other of our great railway systems? So far as I can judge it will hardly apply in that regard.
3Si 4

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
There is a branch of the coal industry-and I will only speak of that part of it with which I am familiar-with which I should like to deal for a few moments. I refer to the steam coal areas in my own district, the Brazeau collieries whose sole market is the Canadian National Railways. The district itself lies in the mountains towards the British Columbia line and is accessible only by the Canadian National, and that railway, as I say, is the sole market. In former years these Brazeau collieries supplied a very large part of the coal used in that section of the country by that railway system. The operating costs are low. The method is known as drift mining as distinguished from shaft mining. They drive a drift in through the face of the mountain, slanting upwards, and the seams run to nine, seventeen and eighteen feet in depth. There is rock above and below, and the coal is so pulverized by pressure that it requires little further in the way of operations to dislodge it. It is shovelled out and is about as cheap a system as you could possibly have. Yet they could not hold their contract with the railways. The mines themselves are equipped to handle 75,000 tons per month, but the average in the last few years during the month of February, has been between 26,000 and 27,000 tons. But at present they are putting out from 10,000 to 12,000 tons per month Formerly they employed as many as 900 men, and now only 300. That in itself will give a picture of the industry as it is to-day. But although one-third of the number of men formerly employed are now at work, these men are working only part time and their standard of living cannot be regarded as satisfactory. In order to be quite certain not to exaggerate I wrote not only to the heads of the workers' unions but to the accountants and the manager of the mine, and the information I received from them as to the present output and the number of men employed I have given to the committee. The manager sent me ten typical monthly pay sheets showing just what the men are earning, and the facts disclosed will show how impossible it is for men to live in decency under present conditions. Let me give some examples from the ten. The first case is that of a man whose family numbers seven and whose net earnings amounted to $34.83 for the month of February. Another, four members in the family, receive $34.41; another, five members, $31. And so on. In another branch of the work-men working on the ground-I find one man, six members in the family, receiving $19.54. I will not detain the committee by giving further particulars in that direction.

So far as I can understand subventions and the tariff, this will not give any assistance to that particular type of mine; yet it is at least as important a part of the industry, in proportion to the number of men employed, as any other. Last year during the short session I hoped that some assistance would be given out of the $20,000,000 voted for the relief of unemployment. At that time I pointed out the situation to the Prime Minister and asked him whether it would be possible, under the terms of that vote, to pay a small bonus or subvention to Canadian steam coal equal to the difference in cost to the railways as between Canadian and American steam coal. The amount required would be comparatively small, and I suggested that a bonus, from the point of view of employment, would perhaps be better than assistance in any other form. I had hoped that this would be done, for the Prime Minister at that time stated that one of the objects of providing the relief was to meet such a situation as I had described. When I wrote to the manager of the company a short time ago to ascertain the exact condition of the industry I asked whether anything of that kind had been done, and he said they had not received directly or indirectly one dollar of bonus or subvention, nor assistance in any other form to enable them to extend contracts. At present, unless there has been an increase during the last two or three weeks, the only contract outstanding is the contract with the Canadian National Railways for
10,000	tons per month, and obviously that will not improve conditions.
I confess at once I do not believe that, in the long run, bonuses, subventions or tariffs are an economic way of improving the situation. But while that system is in vogue and industries are receiving protection, while that policy is being put into force, it should be extended to cover the whole of this industry in all its peculiar operations. The same situation exists in part of the Crowsnest area; I am told that the Canadian Pacific Railway is their sole market. I would urge, therefore, that these particular districts, the Brazeau district and that Crowsnest area, be given consideration and that an attempt be made to extend to them some measure of assistance comparable to the assistance which the government contemplates giving to domestic coal in the other coal producing provinces.


Mr. HACKETT:: An impression has gone
abroad that a duty of 40 cents a ton has been placed on all anthracite coal. This is an inaccuracy as regards the very best anthracite coal that comes into our markets. The trade returns for the last few years show that we have purchased from the United States much

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
more than we have succeeded in selling to that country; they also show that we have sold to Great Britain much more than we have bought from her. This tariff admits British anthracite coal free. It will enable anthracite coal from that source to come to Canada in ships which in the past have come in ballast. It is believed that these ships coming in cargo instead of in ballast will be able to take back to the old country Canadian products, and in particular wheat, at lower freight rates than in the past. This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to promote inter-empire trade. It is an attempt to establish here credits through which our commodities, and in particular wheat, may be purchased by t/he British people. Nothing but good can result from this policy, because it gives free entry into our markets of the very best anthracite coal and places a duty upon coal coming from a country which in the past has not favoured us with very extensive purchases, at least when compared with what we have purchased from it.


Robert McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, representations have been made to me regarding the coal subventions. A short time ago I asked a question of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) and I was pleased to hear that the problem of the lignite coal miners of southern Saskatchewan was receiving some consideration. I notice in the budget speech that the subventions have been changed to one seventh of a cent per ton per mile on coal from Alberta going into Manitoba, and one third of a cent per ton per mile on coal going into Ontario. These rates apply also to Saskatchewan coal, but I would point out that this coal has obtained quite an extensive market in the city of Winnipeg. The people in that city are becoming more and more accustomed to the use of this coal, due to certain mechanical devices which have been installed and which make the burning of the coal much more profitable and beneficial. A short time ago I noticed in one of the papers that an engineer connected with one of the new central heating plants being constructed in the city expressed a preference for Saskatchewan lignite coal. The subventions now being offered are to replace the subvention of 50 cents per ton formerly given to our coal; instead of 50 cents per ton we now are to receive about 40 cents per ton, whereas the Alberta coal is to receive an increased subvention. It would seem as though the Saskatchewan lignite fields are being discriminated against to the extent of about 23 to 25 cents per ton. This business is carried on under a
very narrow margin of profit, and this discrimination would mean that they will be excluded from the Winnipeg market. The minister has assured me that this problem is being considered and I would suggest that the subvention given to Saskatchewan lignite coal be the same as that given to Nova Scotia coal, that is, one fifth cent per ton per mile into Manitoba and one third cent per ton per mile into Ontario. I believe that that would enable our Saskatchewan lignite miners to retain the market in Winnipeg which they have established through hard work. It would be nothing more than justice.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the worst feature of this system of granting bonuses and handouts to special industries or special localities is, to borrow an expression of the Prime Minister, the fact that it debauches the people with their own money.. It is proposed to take money out of the public treasury in order to pay part of the freight on coal from Nova Scotia into Ontario. It is proposed to take money out of the treasury to pay a part of the freight on coal from Alberta into western Ontario. It is proposed to take money out of the public treasury to pay part of the freight on coal from Alberta and Saskatchewan into Manitoba. It is proposed also to take money out of the public treasury in order to bonus bunker coal mined in British Columbia to the extent of 25 cents per ton. The result is that every hon. member who has any coal industries in his constituency is clamoring for more handouts. Even the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) whom we have looked upon as being one of the incorruptible members of this house, so far forgets the principles upon which he and his party were elected as to ask for an extension of this principle to certain kinds of coal mined in his district. I would ask the government to tell me candidly upon what principle of equity one man's money can be taken to pay another man's freight. What right has the government to ask the farmers of Saskatchewan, who perhaps are suffering more from the present depression than any other class of people in Canada, to pay a part of the freight on coal hauled from Alberta right past their own doors to the city of Winnipeg in order that the people there may get coal more cheaply than it can be obtained in Saskatchewan?
Mr. MaeDONALD (Cape Breton South): Did not the hon. member support this identical thing last year when the Liberal government brought in its subvention?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: I am not making any apology for the mistakes made by the Liberal party when they were in power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the hon. member's own mistake.


Edward James Young: If the Liberal party did wrong, they have suffered. I am not going to be embarrassed by any such question as that. I did not support this policy and I ask the minister upon what principle of equity he justifies this procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, even at this late hour I am afraid I must intervene for the purpose of answering the observations made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I think no more imperative duty rests upon any government than to assist the development of the natural re-[DOT] sources of the country. Even the most rabid free trader will agree to that doctrine, with perhaps one notable exception and that only when in opposition. When not in opposition the hon. member espouses the cause of the protectionist and votes gladly for bounties to be paid to the coal industry when proposed by the ministry he supports; when that ministry is out of power, he finds it not convenient so to do, and he asks upon what principle the taxpayers of Canada are asked to contribute to the development of the resources of the country. The answer is a fairly resonable one-the greatest good to the greatest number. For the same reason that five cents per bushel is being paid to the farmer for his wheat, this contribution is being made with respect to coal. On the same basis that the producers of wealth in eastern Canada are willing to assist other sections of the country in times of crisis, I take it that when in an emergency we endeavour to develop the natural resources of the country we might expect that those who are most prone to dwell upon the necessity of the development of these resources would give their assistance to the policies so proposed.
There is no country in all the world so blessed with coal resources as is Canada One can commence at the most westerly point, Vancouver island, travel to the most easterly point, Cape Breton, and he will find coal in every part of the country with the exception of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where the geological formation is such that coal has not yet been found in substantial quantities. Coal is found on Vancouver island, and to the north of the Skeena river where there are deposits of anthracite coal unrivalled in the world. The late Lord Rhondda said that

within a century he believed these deposits would be looked upon as being the most outstanding in the world.
East of the mountains we have the great deposits to which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) referred. In the southern portion of British Columbia and extending into Alberta there are great deposits. Alberta is underlaid with three layers of coal. The upper layer is not so good, but of the second and third layers of lignite I shall speak presently. In the north, the hardness of the coal makes it a semi-anthracite, while in the south, outside of the Lethbridge field, we find the great fields of coking coal. The coke ovens at Hosmer and Fernie supplied coke for many years to the mines at Great Falls, Montana. This was continued until our neighbours put up their tariff and made it impossible for us to meet successfully their requirements. This field was opened up through the vision of the late J. J. Hill and Elias Rogers in order to supply the requirements of the Great Northern Railway. The deposits in that area supplied for many years the requirements of a great number of people and enterprises in the United States, but later on the tariff of the United States provided that if we imposed a tariff upon the importation of bituminous coal into our country, an equal countervailing tariff would immediately become applicable against our coals.
Lignite coal has developed a substantial market in the state immediately south of the province of Alberta. The grade of lignite coal at Lethbridge has the reputation of being the finest domestic fuel of that type that we have any evidence of in that part of Canada, and the result is that substantial quantities of that lignite coal are bought not only in the state immediately south but also a little to the west in eastern Washington. Those exports have grown to very considerable magnitude. If a duty be now imposed upon lignite, under a recent ruling of the treasury the effect would be the same as though it were bituminous coal and the countervailing duty would immediately apply.
The coal referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that reached Vancouver from Bellingham is not, according to my appreciation of the proper definition of the term, lignite coal. Lignite coal, according to the definition arrived at by our scientists, Doctor Haanel being our representative, means a coal that carries six per cent or more of moisture. Many tests of varied character have been imposed to determine what constitutes lignite coal, but finally scientists arrived at the conclusion that the fair and the
3S17

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
only effective test that could be applied was that of moisture content. It was therefore concluded that if coal carried a moisture content of six per cent or more it should be classified as lignite. If it carried a less moisture content, it should be classified, as we speak colloquially, as semi-bituminous, or really as a bituminous coal. The result is, in my appreciation of the matter, that the plea which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has expressed this evening as to the loss of market to the coal of Vancouver island, because of the effect of the application of the countervailing duty in the United States upon coal, is perhaps unwarranted. In other words, if the United States coal is not lignite, then it cannot be said that the countervailing duty shall apply to it. That is, if the coal coming in from Bellingham is not a lignite coal, it is not affected by this item. Thait is as far as that goes.
But let us proceed a step further as we come east. 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.
There are then no further coal deposits until you come east to the province of New Brunswick, where at Minto you have a substantial deposit of a soft quality of coal which has been utilized to some extent to meet the requirements of the railways and as a fuel for the population. Then there are the great deposits of coal on Cape Breton island and elsewhere in Nova Scotia. In fact, one might fairly say that the whole province of Nova Scotia is underlaid with coal. It is a singular circumstance that the cost of production of coal in Vancouver island has reached a very high mark, and it is undersea mining, and that in the island of Cape Breton the cost has also reached a high level and it is likewise undersea mining. Therefore you have, 3,000 miles apart, two great coal measures, the winning of coal from which necessitates undersea mining. Those are the conditions that confront the Canadian people.
When I say that there has been a universal expression of opinion on the part of Canada -and I speak broadly-that there should be developed a national fuel policy, I state but the bald truth. It is not quite correct for the hon. member for West Edmonton to take the credit to himself or to the administration of which he was a member, for, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has remarked, this was not the outcome of the thought in the mind of one man or two men or a government. During the war it was realized it was absolutely essential for a country such as this, possessing the vast resources we have, to utilize and develop them, and the sums expended in Saskatchewan together with the sums expended for the production of tri-nitro-toluol during the war indicated, first, the value of our deposits, and, second, the necessity for their development. Under those circumstances I say that every part of Canada was agreed that we should endeavour to originate and maintain a national fuel policy. Spasmodic efforts had been made to this end. The question was: How was the result to be attained?
I think we are almost in agreement when I say that two methods and two only offered themselves for the moment: one, the utilization of tariff as an instrument for that advancement, and, second, the payment of such moneys as would enable equality of cost to be established if possible to those who had to use the coal. It may well be said that bonuses and bounties are objectionable, and yet two of the greatest industries we have in Canada to-day owe their origin to a bounty. I recall the first session I was in the house that a bounty was extended to lead, and the great industry that has now developed to such an extent at Trail owes its origin to a small bounty that was given for the production of lead. The same thing is true with respect to copper refining, and there are other matters that one might mention. Bounties, bonuses, have been applied almost from time immemorial for the purpose of developing in the early days the great natural resources of a country-and when I say "early days," I mean the early stages of their development. In other words, to aid pioneering effort in that regard we have utilized the public purse, because we believe we are aiming to establish a national policy that in the end will be advantageous to every part of the country, east and west, north and south.
It is possible of course the price paid may be too great; but possessing as we do 12 per cent of all the known coal in the world, we do not believe it is at all reasonable that the Canadian people should have to send $25,000,-
3S1S

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
000 or $30,000,000 abroad for the purchase of a commodity which exists an such quantities in our midst. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni quoted from observations that were made by members of the party which I had the honour to lead in opposition, and an extract, I think, from the platform adopted by the party at Winnipeg. I agree with the hon. member for West Edmonton that the consensus on the part of the Canadian people was that such a policy should be adopted. Having adopted it and having secured from the electorate a mandate, this government proceeded to put that policy into effect. The extent to which the government may be able in its first session to realize all its hopes and expectations in that regard is in the lap of the gods. But this at least we have done: we have, I think I may say without egotism, made a courageous step forward in that direction. If that be so-and I think most people will admit it is so-the letters read to-night-are interesting, not because of their flattery of individuals or their tribute to what has been accomplished, but rather because they indicate an appreciation of the effort that has been made to develop a national policy in this respect.
That being so, let us see what the position is in detail. It has been suggested that as regards Vancouver island we should pay a bonus of $1 or $1.25 a ton for every ton of coal exported. Representations have been made to me 'by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Diickie). No man is more moved by the pain and suffering of others than the hon. member for Nanaimo, and in season and out of season he has urged upon me and upon other members of the government the desirability, nay the necessity, of action being taken for the purpose of providing against the calamity that threatened the miners in the Nanaimo and Ladysmith areas. I received a deputation consisting of himself, the member for Comox-Albemi and the candidate who opposed him in the recent election. They presented to me a petition signed by thousands of people. The gravemen of the petition was this: Here was an industry that might fall, and the calamity would be very great. There is one of the oldest coal mines in the country. The almost romantic circumstances under which -that coal deposit was discovered will be recalled. A pioneer Scotchman crossed the isthmus of Panama and made his home on what is now known as the island of Vancouver. He disturbed with his foot a piece of coal, and having a true appreciation of the value of coal, he at once saw what he believed to be a great opportunity for development. He developed the 
coal deposit, and the family of Dunsmuir was associated with that development through I think two generations, when the industry passed into the hands of a corporation. Its securities were offered to the public under circumstances that put a very high value upon the deposit, shall I say, and it has been very difficult since for that corporation to make sufficient profit to meet its fixed charges. For a time it was in the hands of a receiver- I speak subject to correction as to that-


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friend corroborates my memory in that regard. To ask arbitrarily for a bonus or bounty for the purpose of saving an enterprise from disaster is one thing; to ask for a bonus or bounty for the purpose of promoting the development of a new enterprise is another. In Alberta the coal areas have been practically untouched and undeveloped until recent years. I remember when they used to haul a few dray loads and sleigh loads off coal from the carbon area to the central parts of Alberta. I remember when within the boundaries of the city of Edmonton coal was taken from the river banks and hauled to the city for use there. To-day Alberta produces 6,000,000 tons of coal. I remember distinctly the development that took place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I attribute the development of the last few years to the recognition by governments of the part that government must play in the orderly development of the natural resources of the country. This old colliery, as the hon. gentleman has admitted, has encountered many difficulties in meeting the new competition that has developed. Duties, long drives under the sea, the cost of winning the coal and raising it to the pit mouth- all these have been potent factors in increasing the cost of production. Nevertheless the government, desiring to assist the British Columbia industry as well as others, provided that it should -be paid a bonus of 25 cents a ton on the product sold for bunkering purposes for fuel and for export to foreign countries except to the United States. It was felt that at least a reasonable purpose would be served in paying this bonus. The hon. gentleman from Nanaimo at once impressed upon us that this was not an ample recognition of the situation, and the argument that he has used to-night must appeal to every man who thinks of the starving families of the unemployed miners. Put on that ground, temporary assistance might be warranted; but that will not stimulate or create there an enduring industry, for the reasons that were dealt with by the hon. member himself.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Now it is said that to assist that industry we should have been willing to put a duty on fuel oil coming into this country. I have already said in this house, and I repeat it tonight, that the time has gone by when that remedy would have redressed the grievance complained of. The time to do that was when oil was a new fuel and before it became a serious competitor of coal. But that day went by. At present there is a duty of half a cent on fuel oil. That duty was imposed by the Minister of Finance of that day for the purpose of encouraging the coal industry of British Columbia and other parts of Canada. It was not a Conservative minister of finance that placed that duty on fuel oil. But great industries have been built up on the Pacific slope, paper mills, lumber mills and other industrial enterprises, in which the furnaces are arranged for the utilization of fuel oil, and this has created such a situation that to pass legislation that would have the effect of preventing the use of fuel oil for those industries would bring wreck and ruin upon them. In the early part of this year it was suggested that we should enact legislation placing a higher duty upon fuel oil. I should like to assure the house that within a few days after that suggestion was made in the press we were actually receiving from those industries telegrams by the score stating very frankly that to do so would spell ruin to them in these days. I mention that because it has been suggested-and the hon. gentleman did it very insinuatingly-that under the circumstances we could not be expected to place a duty against fuel oil. Now there is a duty against it. To have increased that duty would have brought about the conditions to which I have referred.
But there was a far greater difficulty than that. You had your duty on crude oil. The crude oil was brought in as a raw product. It was treated at the refineries on the Pacific coast-whether the Imperial, the British American or the Shell, matters not-and after the gasoline was extracted there was left a residuum that becomes the fuel oil of commerce. It was suggested that that fuel oil should bear an additional tax. Now, how would it be possible to put an import tax upon the residue after the raw material had paid duty and there had been extracted from that residue the commodity for which it had been imported? Clearly, it would have to be an excise tax, and to impose an excise tax would be injurious to the very interests that I have mentioned and would not, I think have given the redress which has been sought.
At any rate, the government did study the problem and arrived at the conclusion that on the balance of economic results to this country it was not warranted at this time in doing so.
Recently the miners of England and Wales have been carrying on an agitation demanding that fuel oil should be no longer used on battleships, but that the admiralty should return to the use of coal, for the very reasons that have been given in this house. And yet Britain with her immense coal deposits and no petroleum deposits has been compelled by the very nature of things-the economic value of fuel oil, its cleanliness in use, its superiority in quickly raising steam, and its other advantages-to use it for her battleships and other naval craft. The great ocean liners that come into Montreal, Quebec and New York, and an increasing number of cargo ships are driven by fuel oil. It may not be improbable that in the laboratories of our great universities or in those of our research council there is some young man working on the problem of converting into liquid form the coal of these great western deposits. I hazard no guess, but I have every reason to believe that as progress is made in scientific research some such result will be achieved. In the meantime by subventions, by tariffs, or by any other means within the power of this government, we will use every effort to bring about an orderly sustained development of the great coal resources of Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people.
If it be felt at times that a given policy does not result in the uniform advantage that those in all parts of this vast Dominion seek and expect, we can say only that in a country so vast, with a population so limited, it is not to be expected, in the nature of things, that from the very inception of these efforts you can secure uniform results. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) referred to steam coal. The largest consumers of steam coal are the two great railway companies. The development of the mines on the Canadian National railways are for the use of those railways. For its own purposes the Canadian Pacific Railway has carried on great developments at Bankhead, Hosmer and other points. The Great Northern Railway has developed the Fernie mines for its own use. We have reached a situation where steam coal to be used by private enterprises other than the great transportation companies is almost an impossibility, because as we come east the demand becomes more limited. There is an increasing use ol electricity. The hon. member for North

3820	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Waterloo (Mr. Euler) referred to the white coal which has taken the place of black coal in western Ontario; that applies also in other parts of Canada. Around the city of Winnipeg industrial development has taken place; the waterfalls in that locality have been utilized and have brought about changed conditions. That applies in other parts of Canada, and British Columbia is no exception. I say to my hon. friends from that province that part of the difficulties under which they now labour have arisen from the utilization of electric power or energy in the development of the industrial life of that province,
I have dwelt upon these matters at greater length than I had intended, because after all I think it necessary that we should have a clear appreciation of these problems. It is not so much a matter of difference of policy, but sometimes it is a difference of methods and principles of approach. When my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni talks so strongly to-night I am wondering why he has been silent through all these years. What about the island in days gone by?


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to my right hon. friend that the hon. member was not silent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His silence at least was
felt by those in the house, but not by those out of the house. His views were not put forward with that strength of conviction-


Alan Webster Neill: Oh yes, they were, again and again, in Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Again and again in Hansard, probably, at an opportune moment -but certainly not with that vigour of presentation and strength of conviction with which he addressed the committee to-night. A plea for the suffering was not heard from his lips; on the contrary he made only a perfunctory presentation of conditions whicn had arisen in the hope that peradventure it might have the effect of securing for him a few votes at an opportune time. That difficulty is one which everybody administering a government experiences. Hon. members sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker feel that it is part of their duty to take that attitude. Now and then we find some slight differences of opinion, such as that expressed to-night by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), who said, "Well, what I did in the past has nothing to do with it; what those who led me in the past did has nothing to do with it; I am leader unto myself; my views are my own, and I shall express them as I please." Such courage is rarely found in Israel.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my right hon. friend has been treated with a great deal more leniency than we were in former days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These private discussions do not seem to have led to any public manifestations of conviction.


Alan Webster Neill: I am afraid I cannot let that statement go without making some reply. My very first speech in the House of Commons was on that subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt about it; it is wonderful how much more moderate those manifestations became as the days passed, the strength of the administration became more apparent and the power of the hon. member as a voting factor became less. My hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) can scarcely refrain from laughing heartily, because he knows the strength of the protestations-


Charles A. Stewart: I have a
great deal of sympathy for you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.	However, Mr. Chairman-


Alan Webster Neill: Is this ward politics or a
statement on the national fuel policy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the
remark one would expect-exactly. There we have evidence of it. Now it is "ward politics"; but when my hon. friend first came into the house he was talking about a national fuel policy.
May I say to my hon. friend that this is a national matter and will be treated as such. Wherever compensating adjustments become necessary this government will endeavour to apply them. The extent to which they may be applied depends upon factors I have frequently presented to the house and which I do not purpose to present again.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall the item carry?


Frederick George Sanderson: No, it will not carry
just yet. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell the number of tons of anthracite coal imported last year from the United States and the number imported from Great Britain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were 3,950,000 tons imported valued at $28..500.000.	Of that
quantity 2,748,000 tons came from the United States; 918,000 from Great Britain and 284,000 from Russia.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the minister in a
position to tell the committee the number of

Privileges and Elections
tons of anthracite coal imported from the United States into the province of Ontario during the past year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no separate
items.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the item carry?


Frederick George Sanderson: No, it is not carried
yet. Can the minister get those figures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; separate figures are
not kept. Probably they could be compiled in a week's time.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think those figures
could be obtained within the next day or two; I do not believe any hon. member would wish to wait two or three weeks for them. To my mind this is a very important item, which affects the province of Ontario to a greater degree than any other part of Canada. It simply means that this duty of 40 cents a ton is a duty-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It is now eleven o'clock.


Frederick George Sanderson: The item is not
carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, of course it is not
carried; my hon. friend will have ample time to discuss it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want ample time,
and I will take ample time to discuss it.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 16, 1931.