March 19, 1923

CON

Mr. CLARK:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. How many licenses authorizing the licensees to carry on in the province of British Columbia, the business of exporting intoxicating liquor from that province, or the keeping of such liquor in a licensed warehouse, have been issued since the commencement of the year 1920?

2. Who are the licensees and what are the dates of issue of such licenses?

3. In what cities or towns, respectively, were the warehouses situated in respect of which such licenses were issued?

4. Is it the policy of the government in dealing with applications for such licenses to require the approval of the Attorney General of the province, or the provincial government, or a member thereof, before issuing such licenses?

5. Was such approval given in the case of the licenses so issued? If so, by whom?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   B. C. BONDED WAREHOUSES
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. BUREAU: (Minister of Customs and Excise)

Liberal

1. Licenses are not granted to carry on the business of exporting intoxicating liquors. Bonded warehouses have been authorized in British Columbia since commencement of the year 1920, with the consent of the provincial authorities, for storage of intoxicating liquors in bond, subject to provisions of Customs Act government warehousing and ex-warehousing of imported goods, as follows:-

Location Proprietor Date of authorization Name of Provincial authority giving consent RemarksFernie Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited. Jan. 22, 1923 Attorney General. Formerly Fernie Liquor Exporters, Ltd., authorized 11th July, 1921, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.Femie B.C. Export Co. of Fernie. June 26, 1922 Attorney General. Cranbrook Strath cona Export Co., Ltd. May 11, 1922 Attorney General. Only granted to take care of one car of liquor. This has since been ex-warehoused and bond closed.Grand Forks Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited. Feb. 7, 1923 Attorney General. Formerly Globe Liquor Export Co., Ltd., authorized 6th May, 1922, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.Prince Rupert Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited. Feb. 21, 1923 Attorney General. Formerly Northern Liquor Co., Ltd., authorized 6th February, 1922, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred.It Pacific Cartage Co. Sept. 17, 1921 Attorney General. This bond though granted has never been used.it Prince Rupert Warehousing Co. June 22, 1921 Attorney General. This bond has never been used for storage of liquors.Vancouver Provincial Govt. Liquor Control Board. Aug. 17, 1921 Attorney General. ft Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited. Oot. 20, 1922 Attorney General. Formerly Davis Liquor Co., authorized 6th Aug., 1921, on consent of Attorney General and now transferred.it Canadian Pacific S.S., Ltd. Aug. 10, 1922 Prohibition Commissioner. Limited to goods for ex-warehouse as ship's stores for this Company's vessels clearing transpacific. Formerly in name of Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Ltd. Applicant produced permission of Prohibition Commissioner.

(Mr. Graham).

Questions

Location Proprietor Date of authorization Vancouver Pacific Coast Storage Co. Mar. 22, 1921" Great West Wine Co. July 15, 1921Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited. Jan. 10, 1923n A. L. McLennan. ... April 9, 1921a Glasgow Liquor Exporters, Ltd. Jan. 25, 1922tt Calgary Export Co. June 22, 1921tt J. G. Brooks, Ltd... Feb. 23, 1921tt Dominion Trading Co. Mar. 8, 1921tt Lloyd & Sons, Ltd.. Mar. 17, 1921it National Exporters, Ltd. May 19, 1921tt Anderson & Morgan. June 14, 1921it Metropole Exp. Liquor Co. Dec. 27, 1921California Wine Co.. May 6, 1922Western Can. Liquor Co. June 13, 1921Victoria Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited (Dallas Road). Jan. 22, 1923Consolidated Exporters Corporation, Limited (Wharf Street). Jan. 22, 1923

2. Answered by No. 1.

3. Answered by No. 1. ,

4. Unqualified consent of proper provincial authority is required before privilege is granted of storing intoxicating liquors in bond, in all provinces and districts where the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited under provincial law.

5. Answered by No. 1.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   B. C. BONDED WAREHOUSES
Permalink

QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

LIB

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

Liberal

1. Does the government own a dry dock at Levis?

2. If so, when was it purchased?

3. From whom was the said dry dock purchased?

4. What price did the government pay for same?

5. On what date was the purchase made?

6. How many boats were repaired, each year, in said dry dock?

7. What was the tonnage of each boat repaired?

8. Of what extent were the repairs?

9. Where is said dry dock located?

10. To whom do the adjoining properties belong?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Sub-subtopic:   DRY DOCK AT LEVIS
Permalink

ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminister) moved for a return showing: 1. All statutes, orders in council, regulations and other enactments and provisions of the province of British Name of Provincial authority giving consent Remarks Attorney General. Attorney General. Attorney General. Attorney General. Attorney General. Formerly Nat. Bell Wine Co., authorized 25th August, 1921, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred. Attorney General. Attorney General. Attorney General. Premises vacated and bond closed. Not active-bond empty. Not active-bond empty. Attorney General. Not active-no liquors in bond. Attorney General. Not active-bond empty. Attorney General. Not active-bond empty. Attorney General. Not active-bond empty. Attorney General. Not active-bond empty. Attorney Genera). Premises vacated and bond closed. Attorney General. Formerly Rithet Consolidated Ltd., authorized 22nd February, 1921, on consent of Attorney General and now transferred. Attorney General. Formerly Messrs. Pither & Leiser, authorized 22nd June, 1921, on consent of Attorney General, and now transferred. Columbia since the entry of that province into confederation, dealing with or affecting oriental immigration, or the rights or privileges of orientals, which have been disallowed; giving dates of disallowance and the reasons therefor in every case respectively. 2. A copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, telegrams and other writings which have passed between the present government or any minister or official thereof, and the government of the province of British Columbia, or any minister or official thereof, relative to the disallowance of any provincial enactment affecting orientals. 3. A copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, telegrams or other writings which have passed between the Secretary of State, or any of his officials and any of the county court judges in Vancouver on the subject of naturalization of oriental aliens. 4. A copy of all orders in council or other regulations passed during, or since, the last session of parliament, affecting oriental immigration. 5. Details as to oriental immigration since the present government assumed office, classified as to age, sex, nationality and occupation.


LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

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

My hon. friend is asking

for a good deal of information in this motion. Perhaps he would enlarge it to include a little more. Subsection 4 asks for "A copy of all orders in council or other regulations passed during, or since, the last session of parliament, affecting oriental immigration." I would suggest that he change that to read "since January 1, 1917," and also that he change sub-

Canada's Coal Supply

section 5 to read "since January 1, 1917." If he has no objection to enlarging the order to that extent, it might pass.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:

(Leader of the Opposition): The understanding would be that the information would come down by years.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
Permalink

CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY

MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY

CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for Canada to have a National Policy in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on a United States coal supply. That further in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately consider the initiation of an all-British and Canadian coal supply and that such a policy is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the future of Canada.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity of presenting this resolution. I am bringing it forward, not in criticism of the government or of anybody, for I believe that everybody has done what he could in the present fuel emergency in Canada. The object of bringing forward this resolution is rather to throw out some constructive suggestions so that another fuel famine such as we have had this year may be avoided.

Canada needs a coal supply from some other source than the United States. Canada's dependence on the coal supply of the United States is not only a national danger but a national humiliation also, and it is the duty of this parliament to try and work out some other arrangement. We have a national policy with respect to food, and a national policy with respect to clothing, and I can see no reason why we should not have a national policy with respect to our fuel supply. This is a question affecting the health, peace and comfort and prosperity of every man, woman and child in the community. Our very industrial life is at stake if conditions are to continue as they have been in the past. It is only of comparatively recent years-about forty years ago-that Canada abandoned her national fuel policy. In those days people used wood very largely for fuel, but the development of the Pennsylvania mines and the advertising which the Pennsylvania coal barons gave to that coal at the fall fairs in Canada brought about a new era. Anthracte

coal was burned in stoves at these fairs and at exhibitions from coast to coast as a demonstration and finally the habit of using anthracite coal for fuel became fixed on the people of Canada. We have seen the results of such a policy. We do not want to have another winter like the last one in our large centres of population with plumbing frozen and sanitary conveniences destroyed, where we had many families suffering hardship, people taken sick with grippe and pneumonia and many dying from it, and with such a shortage of fuel that people were lined up for hours before the coal offices hoping to place an order, and when they did get an order placed they would come back the next day and find the office dosed.

We do not want to face again such a condition as that if it can possibly be avoided. The shortage of American anthracite in this country was largely due to the two great coal strikes in the United States. The first occurred in 1902-3 when the price of coal in Canada went up to $30 and $35 a ton. The second strike took place about a year ago, in April, 1922, and it was the greatest coal strike in the history of the civilized world. That strike lasted for five months during which time not a ton of anthracite coal was mined as compared with a production of

40,000,000 tons for the corresponding five months of 1921. Of soft coal only 90,000,000 tons were mined during those five months of last year, as against 150,000,000 for the same period of 1921. The first to be affected by the coal shortage in the United States were the manufacturers, but when November arrived the demand for coal became pretty general, and a cry went up that the government should take over and operate the coal mines. Congress was called to consider the situation, but fortunately did not adopt the foolish policy growing out of the popular clamour, which was asked for. The people of this country must never be caught napping again as they were in 1902-3 and in 1922-3. I suppose it is fair to say that the average consumption of a family in Canada is about six tons of coal per annum. In addition to the visible supply of coal for heating purposes there is also an invisible supply that must be taken into consideration. It has been estimated by the Scientific American that a family which consumes 14 tons of coal per annum for heating purposes also consumes 14 tons of what you might call "invisible" coal. The latter represents the coal consumed by electric heating and power plants, gas plants and various industrial establishments in supplying one's household with these public utilities. There is scarcely an article of food appearing on the

Canada's Coal Supply

table of the average family in the production of which there has not been a substantial consumption of this "invisible coal."

The question has an international as well as a national importance. It is well to bear this fact in mind. In that respect the coal question is like the financial question; it has its international as well as its national aspect. Owing to the shortage of coal in Europe the United States is becoming an exporter of coal. Just as Canada and the rest of the civilized world were affected by financial conditions growing out of the Great War, so this country and the other countries are affected and influenced by the shortage of coal. The production of a coal supply for the world and its distribution on an equitable basis is one of the pressing questions of to-day, and one which must be carefully considered and dealt with in an efficient manner. The importance of this problem has been increasing with the passage of the years; but undoubtedly the present situation has developed very rapidly on account of the conditions growing out of the war. Future industrial development, and the wellbeing of the peoples of the various countries of the world, are jeopardized by this fuel shortage. Although Canada has been, in the main, seriously affected by only the two coal strikes to which I have alluded, the conditions to-day are such that this country stand? at the parting of the ways. Unless we take up this problem and deal with it in an adequate manner we shall soon be face to face with a national discomfort on a huge scale, and with industrial disaster. If we do not deal with this problem in a big, broad, statesmanlike manner it threatens the economic future and industrial development of the whole of this country. It is perhaps not too much to say that the future of the civilization of the world depends to as great, if not a greater, degree upon a sufficient production of coal as upon a production of food. Upon this point let me quote the opinion of Mr. Herbert Hoover:

The fate of European civilization now rests in the hands of the coal and coal mine owners of Europe to an equal if not a greater degree than in the hands of the producers of foods and supplies during the next year.

Mr. Hoover contends that only an adequate production and efficient distribution of coal will save Europe from disaster. Outside of the strikes referred to we have not had in Canada the dire distress from which other countries have suffered in a fuel way. In Europe, for example, the conditions owing to the lack of sufficient coal have been and are to-day lamentable in the extreme. As I said, the United States is now exporting coal to

Europe which is also deriving a large supply from Great Britain. The countries of western and southern Europe have been almost entirely supplied with fuel by Great Britain. These countries are France, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Portugal, Norway and Sweden; all of them are largely dependent on Great Britain for their fuel supply. In 1913, the fairest year of record and the last year before the war, Great Britain exported over

50.000. 000 tons of coal to various countries in Europe. France took 20,000,000 tons; Italy,

9,650,000 tons; Sweden, 4,500,000 tons; Norway 2,300,000 tons; Spain, 3,650,000 tons; Denmark, 3,030,000 tons; Holland, 2,010,000 tons; Portugal, 1,360,000 tons; other Mediterranean countries 3,500,000 tons. In addition, Great Britain sent about 9,000,000 tons to South America, 5,000,000 tons to South Africa,

5.000. 000 tons to other parts of the world; and to Canada little or none. Great Britain's export of coal, before the war, amounted in value to 84 per cent of her export trade, and in point of weight to 75 per cent of that trade. A great deal of the coal which the Mother Country exports serves as ballast; the return cargoes consist of food stuffs and other commodities. But the conditions in Great Britain to-day are not reassuring. Owing to the conditions in Europe to-day there is not only a large demand for coal from Europe but requests for fuel are also coming from South America and other countries which in earlier years did not to so great a degree depend upon the British mines. The demands of France for coal from Great Britain, owing to the situation in which it finds itself at present are not confined to Great Britain; she is knocking at the doors of America and preparations are under way to meet that demand from this continent. During the war the mines in France were dismantled by the Germans, wantonly and for reasons of military necessity, and it will be years before they will be rehabilitated. That country produces

20.000. 000 tons a year for domestic purposes, but French engineers state that it will take from two to five years to rebuild the operating equipment and ten years to completely restore the production rate of these mines. France, however, will be able to increase her fuel supplies owing to the occupation of the Sarre district. But she has to replace her former importation where deprived of the same. France still faces a serious coal shortage.

Italy's condition with respect to fuel throughout the war period has been desperate. In 1913 she was producing less than 750,000 tons of coal per annum, and was importing from Great Britain some 10,000,000 tons.

Canada's Coal Supply

During the war, at great expense, she was able to increase her home production of an inferior grade of fuel by about 1,000,000 tons. I shall not dwell at length on the conditions in Germany, because everybody is familiar with them. Owing to the invasion of the

Ruhr, Germany has had to import a great deal of coal from Great Britain. To-day she is in need of further importations and is trying to get them from America. During the war some countries were coerced into supplying coal. Referring to Sweden, Switzerland and similar countries, during the war, these neutral countries found themselves dependent upon the warring nations for their coal, but Great Britain and Germany released coal to these countries in exchange for food. The United States export coal is a phase in which Canada is vitally interested, because if the United States exports coal in large quantities to Europe, as she has been doing for the last twelve months, they will have to curtail the supply sent to Canada. The coal commissioner on the other side of the border has told our coal commissioner here that he must curtail his demand.

That is the problem as far as Canada is concerned, because Canada has received some

12,000,000 tons of anthracite coal per annum from the United States. All the countries in the world to-day are forced and urged by scientists and geologists to do something to place an embargo on wanton waste of this coal throughout the world. This matter is not confined solely to America, but it has been considered in other countries. We must take cognizance of the fact that the United States is being pressed by the demands of its own people for local exigencies last year, so that its own people should not suffer on account of what others are receiving. It is a fact that charity begins at home, and I think the people of the United States will adopt that rule, as far as the coal situation in Canada is concerned, because no country should be expected to send outside its borders the commodity upon which the existence and life of the people depends. I do not believe that the United States will place an embargo against coal being shipped to Canada, but economics may drive them to do so. The geologists and the Conservation Commission of the United States for six years have been urging the adoption of such a policy. I think that Canada will have to take some action during the next two years. I do not say we can establish a national policy in a few months, or m the twinkling of an eye, but the policy enunciated by this resolution is the open door policy and the logical one. The people

of Canada should work for a national coal policy the same as they have done in the past in regard to a national policy for their food and clothing. I may say that this policy is the only correct one. It is evident to everybody that if the United States, either in the interests of her own people, or in the interests of people whom she may consider more needy than Canada, should decide that it is necessary to supply nations with coal, with the result that Canada's normal supply should be substantially reduced, who may reasonably find fault with such a course? It is evident to every intelligent gentleman that the outlook is far from reassuring, and it calls for drastic action, immediate or prospective.

This coal situation will be far reaching. Canada is richly endowed with water-powers, but she cannot depend upon them as a sole source of heat. Then the question arises what is to be done by Canada? Let us have a survey of our own conditions. Let us adopt a national policy. We must develop our own coal resources. Considering the coal situation, in respect to the quantity and quality of coal, Canada is the most fortunate country in the world. She has 1,000,000,000 tons of semi-anthracite, and 315,000,000,000 tons of bituminous coal and 10,000,000,000,000 tons of sub-bituminous coal and lignite. It seems out of place to emphasize how much we have latent when alongside of it we are not able to show how beneficially these assets are being used both for our- own support and for the assistance of other needy nations.

This is not a new question, because I find many authorities in favour of it. Sir Henry Thornton, the head of the Canadian National Railway System, spoke the other day at Edmonton, and gave the people of Alberta-and the people of the West are vitally interested in this problem-his views on this question. Those views are covered in the following newspaper report:

Referring to his recent trip to the West, Sir Henry said: "We often think of the prairie provinces in the West as agricultural, but believe me there exists in the west of Canada a mineral development which in importance will, in time, fully equal if not excel the possibilities of agricultural development. It is essential that the railway companies, by proper rates, by proper service and by such assistance as lies within their power, should do all that they can to assist in that mineral development and extend the selling radius of the coal and other minerals which lie in the West."

Enlarging on the coal question Sir Henry said: "Certainly it is better and wiser for the people of Canada and the people of Ontario to buy their coal from their own people than to purchase that coal from their neighbour to the south. Because, apart from the sending out of the country each year a large amount of money, there are always embarrassing questions arising with reference to the export of coal from the United

Canada's Coal Supply

States whenever there happens to be a coal shortage in this country. One of those embarrassing questions is being discussed at the present time. I hope the day will come and the Canadian National Railways will leave nothing undone to hasten that day when the people of Canada will not be dependent on the United States for their coal supply, except to a very limited extent.'* -

Mr. J. B. Shaw, the president of the Manufacturers' Association, speaking at a dinner of the live-stock interest at the Canadian National Exhibition, said that he approves of a national policy, and that every day the policy is postponed the country will be placed in a worse position, and that Canada should face the situation, and do it now.

Sir Clifford Sifton said at a dinner in Ottawa of the Conservation Commission:

We will live to see every pound of American anthracite driven out of Canada. It will mean $100,000,000 a year to Canada.

Sir Clifford Sifton said that a contract of $2,500,000 had been let the other day in Hamilton for the construction of a by-product coke oven, and that so surely as the sun rises the same industry will be started in Toronto and Montreal, and would succeed. Another high authority is quoted in the following news report:

"Canada is at the mercy of the United States in regard to the coal situation," Dr. Frank D. Adams, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science, McGill University, told the Young Men's Canadian Club in an after dinner address on "The Coal Situation" at the Windsor Hotel last evening.

"They have got us by the throat," he declared. "If they choose they could freeze us to death in one winter." All of Ontario and most of Quebec now depended for its supplies on the United States, because Canada's coal was located in the Maritime provinces and the Western provinces. In addition they had the assurance of American geologists that the coal supply of the United States would not last 100 years. ... It was "definitely certain" that in 80 years there would be no more anthracite in the United States and that in 25 years Canada would not be able to get any more anthracite from over the border. Canada had therefore to prepare for the time when she would have to provide her own coal. Western coal must be brought as far East as possible and Eastern coal must be taken as far West as possible. The matter was one of transportation and cost since Ontario and Quebec had no coal mines and never would have any.

The coal situation now was grave and the future held no prospect of things getting any better. It was one of the very greatest problems which Canada had to face at the present time, Dr. Adams concluded.

The following shows how this matter is regarded by certain United States authorities:

George Otis Smith, director of the Geological department of the United States, saying that it is a menace to the country to export every year forty per cent of their coal, that this raw material should be preserved to the United States for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying all the nations of the world with the goods they are in need of, we may expect before a very long time-and there is a persistent rumour to this effect-that they will impose a partial if not a total restriction on the export of American coal.

Then the last authority in regard to a national policy is Dr. Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines, who was appointed to investigate the coal supply of this country and who is head of the Federal Coal Commission. He is quoted thus:

The most feasible scheme appeared to be reducing bituminous coal to coke. He believed that the agitation in the United States against exporting anthracite would ultimately result in an embargo, so that Canada would be forced to burn something else.

Dr. Camsell said a coking plant, to be operated economically must be in conjunction with a gas company. The by-products could not be disposed of profitably by a plant whose sole object was reducing bituminous coal to coke.

Further, Dr. Camsell says:

The transportation problem is the principal one respecting the supply of fuel to the two coal-less provinces, Ontario and Quebec. Peat and wood were the only fuels native to these two provinces. He thought the peat industry could be developed to a point where it would replace to a considerable extent the use of anthracite in the homes. About 7,000,000 tons of peat a year were used in Ireland.

The people of Manitoba have, of necessity, had to adopt a national policy in regard to coal failing to get Pennsylvania anthracite this winter, and they have to thank the people of Alberta for the coal they gave them this winter. It is very fortunate that a large number of people in Manitoba to-day are buying Alberta coal, as this has done a great deal towards helping out Manitoba during the coal scarcity. The national policy adopted by Manitoba of using Alberta coal was a success, and to-morrow, Alberta coal should supply Ontario as well. I cited the quantity of coal which the great province of Alberta possesses. The question is purely one of transportation and, indeed, the coal situation on the North American continent is ninety-five per cent a transportation problem. We have a national railway and a government merchant marine, and the people of Canada have spent some $900,000,000 in direct and indirect aid to the railways of this country. During several months in the year, our national railway is sending to the West empty cars waiting for the grain trade. If a business man has a bargain day, -and the American people and departmental stores have shown the success of bargain days-why should our national railways not have a bargain day? Why should these empty cars be sent out West and left on sidings there for days and weeks when they could be utilized during the slack time to bring coal east to Ontario at a bargain-day or cut rate? I purpose showing in detail how this national policy can be carried out, and this is a constructive policy which I would urge on the government of Canada.

Canada's Coal Supply

The war has not changed Canada's national status. Canada still remains where she did in the days of Upper and Lower Canada. In time of emergency we can say: "We will go to war," or "we will not go to war," or "we will ask for further information," as .we did recently in the case of the Dardanelles. I am not afraid of danger to Canadian autonomy from Downing street. But I am alarmed about the possibility of danger to Canadian autonomy from the hard and soft coal fields of the United States. The account between the people of Canada and the people of the United States is not one-sided by any means. The Americans are our own kith and kin; blood is thicker than water; and they stand for the same high principles of civilization just as much as we do. But in America, to-day, the coal supply is purely a business arrangement and the United States will soon adopt a national policy and place on us a coal embargo. The other day the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) brought down an answer in the House which shows the situation very clearly. Canada's national autonomy is a myth as long as a great part of our country depends for its coal supply on the United States. This account which I have made up from the return shows that in 1921-22, the last year of which we have record, the imports of bituminous coal from the United States to Canada amounted to 9,734,041 tons, the cash value being $34,305,964. Imports of anthracite coal from the United States to Canada in the same year amounted to 12,515,014 tons, valued at $22,042,584. If you add together the values of the bituminous and anthracite imports into Canada for 1922, the total value of that tonnage of 12,249,055 tons is $56,348,548.

Every dollar of that amount of money which Canada sends to the United States should go for the payment of wages of Canadian or British workmen in the Maritime provinces, Alberta and Wales, and every pound of coal required in Canada should be mined and coked and under the British flag by British miners, not only in Wales, but in the Maritime provinces and Alberta. The people of Toronto have shown that they can bring coal from Wales at a cost of $15.50 per

4 p.m. ton, even when freight rates were high; and the people of that city will not wait for any government to act. because they are to-day considering measures to get coal themselves from Wales, the Maritime provinces and Alberta. I should like to see the government carry out a similar national policy. I do not say that this can be accomplished in a day, but the government can work up to it in the years that are to come.

In addition to this tremendous amount of money going to the United States in payment of coal imported from that country, the people of Canada have been charged on this coal by American railways the highest rates known in the history of railways in this country. We are to.d by some people that American coal is a necessity for the industrial life of this country. Industrially, American coal is not more necessary to the industrial life and domestic comfort of this country than the Canadian electricity from our water-powers is necessary to the industrial life and domestic comfort of the people of the United States. It is the duty of the government and of parliament to assist in removing our dependence upon United States coal by substituting for these 12,249,055 tons of anthracite and bituminous coal imported every year from the United States into Canada, coal coked or mined under the British flag; and the day when that is accomplished cannot come too soon.

There are in the United States great areas that are dependent for their electric power on the 158,000 h.p. of energy generated from Canadian water-powers and exported to the United States every year. Exports of Canadian electricity supply power equivalent to the power that could be generated by the consumption of 1,400,000 tons of American coal every year. The cash value of American coal that would be required to produce the energy from Canadian water-powers is not less than $8,000,000. Canada gets no credit for these imports of electricity from the United States, and they are not recognized as an offset to exports of United States coal to Canada. The mayor of Buffalo and the mayor of Boston, have their officers counting the cars of coal crossing to Canada. Why does the mayor of Buffalo not order his officers to count the units of Canadian electricity that go into Buffalo to keep the factories of that city from dependence on United States coal? Sitting near me is the hon member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), one of the Niagara Falls Park Commissioners. What do you see on the Canadian side of the Niagara river to-day except around Niagara Falls, Welland, Thorold, and Inland? You see a boulevard and very few factories except those which are coming into being on account of the cheap power supplied by the HydroElectric Commission. But across the river from Lewiston as far as Buffalo, you see a regular chain of factories, every few hundred yards. Why are those factories there? They are there because of the magnanimous and generous policy of the people of this country in exporting electricial energy to the extent

Canada's Coal Supply

they do, thus enabling these large American concerns to locate on the borders of the river. The mayor of Buffalo does not give us any credit for that, nor for the $56,000,000 in wages which the people of Canada are sending over annually to the United States for coal, wages which might go into the pockets of the miners of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Wales. As I said, in addition Canada has to pay the American railways the highest rates that can be charged for the transportation of American coal. But we get no credit for all this; the chorus of protest suggests that Canada is a Lazarus, prone in the dust, the coal dust, and prostrate beside the tracks of American coal roads, waiting to pick up

lumps of anthracite or bituminous fuel from United States coal cars. The United States coal barons pick pretty easy money out of the pockets of the people of Canada- they pick it a good deal faster than Canada picks free coal off the United States freight cars."

Canada does not need to throw American coal overboard as the tea was thrown overboard in Boston harbour on a certain historic occasion. Canada does need a government that will work out a declaration of independence that would free the homes of four millions of this country's population from their present dependence on United States coal. It is true the United States has been worse in word than in action. It is true also that these repeated threats to cut off our coal supply are also humiliating. In a word, we should adopt a truly national policy in the matter of coal. It is true that the American people are friendly to us, but their papers are not at all sympathetic in dealing with the export of coal to this country. For instance, the New York Times says editorially:

As Canada, though she won't admit it, is "Our Lady of the Snows," to deprive her of the American coal to which she has been accustomed would be cruel. But it is reasonable to ask the Canadians why they do not use their own coal, .of which they have in Cape Breton as much as they choose to dig.

It is soft coal, to be sure, and not the best of soft coal at that, but it is quite good enough to use at a pinch, even for the purposes called "domestic," and as most of us down here have been driven to the supplementing of our scanty anthracite by means of such sorry stuff, there is no reason why our neighbours should look across the border for help they can get at home.

That they like hard coal better than soft is no reason for pretending that they will freeze if they do not share our inadequate supply. Besides, there still is wood in Canada, and good hardwood at that, and it is not so many years since no Canadian ever thought of warming himself and his family with anything else.

I submit that no part of this Dominion should be left dependent on the United States for its coal supply, and the only way in which we can become absolutely independent in this

matter is to adopt the good old Conservative way, the national policy, the policy of protection put into force by Sir James Whitney and other leading Conservative statesmen in their hydro-electric development. It was this policy which gave us our hydro-electric system in Ontario, which to-day is supplying over

1,000,000 horse-power to the towns and cities and country districts of that province. The demand for power from the Chippewa development is growing at such a rapid rate that by next September the cities of Toronto, London and Hamilton will be able to get no more and will go begging for more power. Now, had it not been for the national policy we would have no hydro-electric power. I think we should extend the principle of that fine old national policy so as to encourage the coking of Nova Scotia coal and the importation of Welsh coal.

The question may be asked, where would we find the money for the adoption of such a policy, money to pay bounties on the production of coke from Nova Scotia coal and to adapt our systems of land and water transportation to the delivery of Welsh anthracite? I reply that we should extend the principles of protection, apply the good old national policy, and so secure a supply of fuel coked and mined under the British flag as a substitute for the 12,249,055 tons or $56,348,548 worth of anthracite and bituminous coal now purchased in the United States and burned in Canada every year. I would take the money not out of the pockets of Canadian coal consumers, but out of the pockets of the American CQnsumers of newsprint. Canada's pulp resources are almost entirely in the hands of Americans. The last pulpwood lands of Canada have become the happy hunting-ground of United States operators. All Canada gets out of her enormous pulp resources is the price of the comparatively ill-paid labour employed in converting the pulpwood into paper. These wages are almost as low as the conditions of the labour market will permit.

I would supply the bounty for the production of coke and the importation of Welsh anthracite by putting an embargo of ten per cent on the newsprint exported to the United States. According to a return laid on the Table of the House the other day our newsprint exports in 1921 reached a total of $62,860,142. A duty of ten per cent ad valorem on this value would yield $6,286,014 per annum Therefore the proceeds of that export duty would supply a yearly bounty fund of over $6,000,000, from which could be drawn bounties to encourage the production of coke from Nova Scotia coal, and to aid in the freighting

Canada's Coal Supply

of Welsh coal, or of our eastern and western coal to Canadian markets.

Canadians would not consider that the state of Pennsylvania was guilty of an unfriendly act if it exercised the powers that state has, and confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and placed an export duty on every ton of coal mined in Pennsylvania. Nor would we be guilty of an unfriendly act towards the United States if we imposed an export duty on our newsprint.

Canada must face this issue of an all-British coal supply. We cannot go on shirking the obligation to deal with the condition that confronts us-a condition that must become more and more a menace to our national life. The question of Canada's coal supply becomes simply a question of whether Canada shall live in the strength of an all-British coal supply or die in the weakness of dependence on an American coal supply. The miners of Nova Scotia are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, so are the miners of Wales. I am told that Nova Scotia coke makes an almost ideal fuel-better than American coal, anthracite or bituminous. Canada's coal supply must be put on a permanent and national basis. The government should encourage the production and organize for a supply of Nova Scotia and Welsh or western coal. Such a supply would displace our present annual importation of over 12,000,000 tons of anthracite or bituminous coal from the United States, and would divert the $56,000,000, now paid into wages or profits taken by men under the Stars and Stripes, into the pockets of workers under the British flag.

The Geological and Mines department of the government can tell you that there are millions of tons of good steam and coking and other kinds of coal east of the Rockies and in Alberta-enough to supply Canada for more than a century. The only reason why none of it comes to Ontario and the East is found in the high transportation charges, because the coal is immediately accessible to or within fifty miles of the railroads in the districts of Lethbridge, Jasper, Brazeau, Edson, Nordegg and Edmonton. Now that the National railways are owned by the government, for patriotic reasons a government commission or committee should investigate the tonnage of coal that exists, the cost of mining and transporting it, and report upon the Canadian fuel situation generally. It should be shown how much Canada spends annually outside of her own country for fuel, and ways and means should be devised of making us independent of the rest of the world for our fuel supplies.

It is only proper that the expenditure made by Canada on fuel should be distributed in our own land, and provision should be made to ensure an adequate supply of coal for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian citizens generally; the matter should not be left to the cupidity of foreign coal miners and railroad owners. The matter of the supply of coal is a national question, and the freight charges should be so adjusted as to ensure the movement of Canadian coal from one point to another in our own country so that all our communities can get it. If steps can be taken to loosen the shackles which at present encumber us in this connection; in other words, if the necessary arrangements can be made whereby we in this part of the country can secure an ample supply of Alberta coal, the benefit conferred on the people will be second to none. There are possibilities in the use of peat, oil, Welsh coal, Nova Scotia coal; there are many ways in which we should be able to make ourselves independent of the United States for our ordinary fuel supply. There is no doubt about the fact that the day of anthracite coal is practically gone; it will never be cheap again. The coal measures are running out; as time goes on the cost of operation will increase, strikes will be frequent, and transportation difficulties will make themselves more felt. Let us therefore bring this coal down from Alberta to the head of the lakes; let the shipping men tell us what it will cost to distribute this coal in car lots to the ports of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.

Now, I sympathize with the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart); he has this matter of the coal supply to deal with as well as his other extensive duties, and I think he is doing very well. But speaking on the subject the other day he quoted a freight rate of $16 a ton on Alberta coal. The figures I have show that it can be brought down here for $6 a ton if coal got the same rate per ton as grain. I have a letter here from a gentleman who is an officer of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy at Edmonton. I will quote only a few words:

I submitted a memorandum to Sir Henry Thornton with a view to the inauguration of a through fast coal freight train service from the coal fields of Alberta to Ontario.

With the letter he sent me copies of educational material being used in the Alberta fuel campaign at Winnipeg during the past winter. I may say that Alberta is entitled to a great deal of credit for the propaganda it has carried on in this respect in Manitoba, and we ask the people of Alberta to come down to Ontario and make a success of that same

Canada's Coal Supply

policy here. Alberta is very anxious to make Canada entirely independent of any other country in the matter of fuel supply. This communication states, in support of that position :

One reason being that we are good citizens of Canada in the West, and the other that the elimination of $11,000,000 for United States coal would reflect itself enormously in all industries of Canada, as well as establish the coal of Alberta.

This gentleman goes on to point out that in connection with getting coal from Alberta, ninety per cent of the difficulty is in the transportation end of it. He says:

The Hon. Mr. Stewart stated in the House that "Canada must depend largely on the United States for its fuel supply," and suggested that plants for coking American bituminous coals be set up in various points in Ontario. The matter has been taken up here by many public bodies, and particularly the Alberta branch of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, which sent on Saturday a telegram to Hon. Mr. Stewart, copy of which is enclosed. This telegram was also sent to the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy which is now meeting in convention in Montreal

It is felt here that a very determined effort on the part of the Dominion government should be made to make Canada independent in the matter of her fuel supply, and by so doing add materially to the prosperity of the country as a whole, assist in stabilizing the coal industry of Alberta and largely increase the earnings of the Canadian National Railway. It might be pointed out that there is at present in effect a freight rate from Coal Spur, a branch of the C.N.R. west of Edmonton, to Prince Rupert on the Pacific coast of $3.40 per ton. If this rate were put into effect from Edmonton to Toronto we would then enjoy a rate of $8.02 per ton instead of $12.50 as at present.

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

May I be permitted to correct the hon. gentleman? I did not say that $16.40 would be the freight rate on coal from Alberta. I said that Alberta coal should be sold in Ontario at about $16.40. I may say that is a mistake the people made out West with respect to my statement.

Mr. CHURCH; I do not wish to misquote the minister, because I think he has been very fair. I realize he has done a great deal to assist this matter. However, this is the statement made in this letter; I shall be glad to give the minister a copy of it. The letter continues:

It might further be pointed out that this Prince Rupert rate is on a mountain haul and on car lots. The suggestion made to Sir Henry Thornton was that coal should be transported from the various fields of Alberta to Ontario in train lots and if this mountain rate is profitable, which it presumably is, it seems reasonable to suppose that it should be possible to transport on prairie haul in train lots on a fast schedule at considerably less.

The minister said the other day that it would cost $4,000,000 to build a connecting line from the existing right of way of the railway to the coal mines. But I would say

81 i

that even that expenditure would be relatively small. The fixed charges would be $250,000 a year, and when you consider that Canada burns over 12,000,000 tons of United States hard coal annually, the fixed charges on this railway extension would be saved a thousand times over. I believe it would be good business for Canada generally if a low freight rate on this coal from Alberta to Ontario and the East generally could be obtained. A gentleman in Alberta, one of the largest rate-payers in Edmonton, writes me as follows:

It is certainly a move in the right direction for Ontario to secure a supply of coal independent of the United States. It struck me, however, that possibly you were not familiar with Alberta coal and that Alberta contains about 17 per cent of all the known coal of the world. We have the Canadian National railway tapping the greatest portion of the coal area and reaching a large part of Ontario. The C.N.R. has a number of idle cars from say March first to September first of each year. Hundreds of train men are laid off during this period owing to lack of freight to haul. The cost of upkeep of the 2,200 miles of road-bed will be* about the same whether coal is hauled or not, as if idle the rails and ties will rust and rot out instead of wearing out. Would it not be good business for Canada generally to secure a low freight rate on this coal to Ontario on train loads if necessary, during the period mentioned, and give the residents of Ontario a chance to use the best coal in the world for domestic purposes.

I believe for the Ontario climate, the best grades of Alberta coal will prove superior to even anthracite, as it can be controlled more readily, will hold fire for a longer period without going out, and quickly respond when heat is required. A freight rate of not more than $6 to $7 per ton from the mines in Alberta to any point touched by the C.N.R. is feasible and should be secured. I do not claim to be a railway expert but am informed by experienced railway men that coal in train lots can be hauled profitably at $2.65 per train mile with half of this for the returned empty cars. On a 2,000-ton train of coal from an average point in Alberta to the average point in Ontario, mileage 2,200 would leave a profit of almost 25 per cent at $6 per ton. This matter is, I believe, being taken up by the various boards of trade, the Rotary Club, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and by many others.

I 6hall not go into the history of Nova Scotia coal, as that was referred to in the House the other day. I am glad to see the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) present. I appreciate what he is doing to educate the public as to the vast importance of Nova Scotia coal and coke. It is true that there is not a market at the present time for any more Nova Scotia coal than can be disposed of in Quebec and other places, but as an Ontario man I want to say that we can take millions of tons of Nova Scotia coal. I believe Nova Scotia coke is superior to any other coal in the world, and if the government would give part of the bounty of $6,000,000 or $7,000,000, such as I mentioned a few moments ago, and, coking furnaces were established, I believe that Nova Scotia coal would go a

Canada's Coal Supply

long way towards solving our fuel problem, and Ontario would certainly welcome such a step and would take all the Nova Scotia coke it could get-it would keep our merchant marine busy.

I shall touch on just one other matter and then I am through, and that is the development of a national policy as to water-power. I have referred to the Hydro Electric System, and a return has been brought down to the House by the Minister of Interior which shows the development along that line. It is only within the last two hundred years that scientific discoveries have given to the world the power inherent in fuels, namely, coal, gas, oil and falling water, distributed in the various forms of heat, light and electricity. It has been estimated that the total water-powers of the world amount to about 100,000,000 horse-power, of which only about 17,000,000 have so far been developed. The Dominion of Canada possesses about 20 per cent of the world's total water-power, and also approximately the same percentage of the world's water-power already developed. The people ' of Ontario and Quebec are especially interested in this power situation. In Ontario we have no coal. We have to depend for our coal suppy on the Maritime provinces, and the far West and the United States. The United States will run out of coal in about forty years, as has been shown by the report of the Conservation Commission of that country. The first of these stores of energy to be utilized by man was coal, as we all know. This fuel is very widely distributed and exists in immense quantities in various parts of the world, but there is no denying the fact that the supply is limited and that the world is not any too economical in its expenditure of coal. The supplies of oil and gas are also limited, and prices very high. Our remaining source of energy, then, is water-power. Sir Adam Beck, speaking at Belleville the other day, said that eastern Ontario next year could have no power, and he is urging the immediate development of the Morrisburg dam-by the municipalities east of Belleville. It cannot be constructed any too soon. As was said the other day by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre), and by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers), American capitalists to-day not satisfied with grabbing the timber wealth of this country, are now trying to get control of our water-powers not only in the St. Lawrence river but in other parts of Canada. They know that their own country will run out of coal in a few years, and that is why they wish to get control of the main water-powers in this country. I think it is the duty of the government to lay

down a national policy with regard to the export of our power.

In conclusion, I believe that an educational campaign should be conducted to educate the people as to the necessity for a national fuel policy along the lines I have suggested. The people have accepted a national policy as to food and clothing, and I say that the time has come for us to lay down as a national policy the using of our own coal from coast to coast-close our ranks, declare a closed-door policy, develop the mines of Alberta and the mines of the Maritime provinces, and use our merchant marine to bring out coal from Wales and Nova Scotia. If the Mother Country can send about fifteen millions of coal to South America and South Africa and parts of the world not under the British flag, it can afford to give Canada five or six million tons of Welsh anthracite to help replace the

12,000,000 tons we get from the United States. [DOT] We have a merchant marine in this country with deficits. What is it doing? It could not be put to any better service on behalf of the people than to bring out coal from Wales, and to transport Nova Scotia coal up the St. Lawrence through the Welland Canal to the head of the lakes. Alberta as well can do its part, as it is doing now, to supply Manitoba, and then they can come over and help us in Ontario. If Alberta will do that, she will find us good customers. I send to the Solicitor General also the Macedonian cry- to come over and help us in Ontario with Nova Scotia coal. Let us lay down here and now a national policy with regard to fuel, so that every ton of coal used in Canada shall be mined and coked under the British flag. Not because we do not want to trade with the Americans; they are good neighbours, and we want to keep on friendly terms with them; but we should not sponge on them any more for our coal. If we have a merchant marine, let us use it, and let us use the national system of railways and develop a national coal policy. The National Railways and merchant marine will prove a great asset to the people of the country if they will engage in this work, instead of being unsuccessful as at present and going behind millions of dollars. Let us not wait for commissions to report but let the government now give notice to the mine owners of Alberta and the mine owners of Nova Scotia to get ready now, to wait no longer, but put on extra men and get the coal out. The time to get ready for next winter is right here and now. Let us notify them to put on their extra men and work night shifts, if necessary, in order to get out

Canada's Coal Supply

the coal required. Let us utilize the National Railways and the merchant marine. I hope the minister-and we have a good one-will lay down a policy in this House when his railway estimates are before us of utilizing these national transportation means along the lines I have suggested. The government should first ensure a supply of all-British coal, and then invite this parliament to enforce and extend the glories of the good old national policy and put on a duty that would keep every pound of American bituminous and anthracite coal from being sold in Canada.

I want to thank the House for the kindness and courtesy with which they have so patiently listened to me, and on my own behalf I want to thank them for their patience.

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I wish to remind the House that though the motion is quite in order and the principle involved in it quite an important one deserving to be debated, yet one phase of this same principle, namely the shortage of coal, has already been debated in this House the other day in Committee of Supply, under item 368 of the Main Estimates, and quite properly, I think, because the question then was a vote for the Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research. What I wish to remind the House is that there is a rule in our parliamentary procedure that debates must not be anticipated, and there is another rule that debates must not be repeated. That is one of our unwritten rules. While I do not wish to prevent anybody from speaking on this question of the shortage of fuel, I would remind hon. gentlemen that their remarks should be limited to the essentials, as the question has already been largely debated by this House.

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):

I think the thanks of the House and the country are due to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church) for his very interesting and instructive speech. I did not intend to make any remarks upon this question. When the debate on the Address was before the House, I made a few remarks with reference to our coal supply and pointed out at that time that although wo had in this House a standing committee on Mines and Minerals it had never functioned in the last twelve years, and I suggested that perhaps it would be the proper thing for this whole question of our fuel supply to be referred to that

committee during this session of parliament. Had I known, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) would reach his resolution so early in the day I

would have consulted him regarding a possible amendment, or an addition, which I would like to make to his resolution. There is no doubt in the world that the question of a fuel supply for Canada is, perhaps, the most important domestic and national proposition that this country will have to deal with from now on. I am sorry to say that the people of the large cities of central Canada-Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and other great centres-are, for some reason or other, prejudiced against the use of soft coal as a domestic fuel. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the minister entrusted with the administration of the Mines branch would be doing a thing of national importance if, next summer or during the course of next year, he would get his coal experts at work in the large centres referred to and have the public instructed in the use of bituminous coal as a domestic fuel.

Now, the resolution in its present form may not get us anywhere, and I would like to suggest that the following words be added to it:

And that the whole question of fuel supply for Canada, together with the question of costs, transportation, desirable interprovincial action, and other means whereby Canada may be made self-sustaining and self-supplying as regards fuel, and to inquire into the necessity and possibility of supplying substitutes for coal, be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals, and that said committee report to the House. [DOT]

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
CON

Richard Burpee Hanson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It had not been my intention to speak on this resolution, but I cannot allow the offering of the amendment to pass without making some reference to it. I am very strongly of the opinion that this whole question should be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals, and that they be empowered to investigate the matter and make a report to the House during the present session. We have in Canada supplies of coal that are very valuable in my judgment and I have given some study to the question. Making these supplies available to our people is, however, very largely a question of transportation, coupled with the ability of our mining and fuel experts in this country to disabuse the public mind in Canada of the prejudice which it entertains against the use of bituminous coal. I think that the question is of sufficient importance to warrant a considerable amount of time being given to it by this committee.

We are facing in Canada a condition which will become more and more acute from year to year, inasmuch as the supply of anthracite coal from the neighbouring states in the country to the south is becoming scarcer each

Canada's Coal Supply

year. Therefore it behooves this House to take some steps that will ensure a supply of fuel to our people, especially to those of the central provinces of the Dominion. One of the members of the government speaking on this question the other day stated that the matter was one for commercial houses to handle. I think the situation has now gone beyond that stage and, in view of the fact that it has become of national importance, requires different treatment. In my own community, in New Brunswick even within a few miles of bituminous coal mines there has been, at times, a great scarcity of coal, especially of anthracite coal, and the people, of necessity, have had to turn their attention to the use of bituminous coal for domestic purposes. The possibility of using this coal resolves itself into a question of transportation. But even with the present rates in force on the railways and although coal be made a low grade commodity in the rate classification of railways, it is not feasible commercially to ship Maritime province coal by rail beyond Montreal. Unless that condition is remedied, and the railways are willing to accept a smaller return than they do at present, I do not see much prospect of coal from either the Maritime provinces or Alberta ever reaching central Canada. It is true that shipments of coal are made by water from Cape Breton collieries. That, of course, is a benefit, and reduces the price but not very materially, especially in view of the fact that there is no control over the rates of the shipping companies. Aside from any small benefit derived in that way the people of the central provinces of Canada have not reaped the benefit they should have reaped from the presence of large deposits of fine grade bituminous coal in the Maritime provinces. For this reason, and for others with which I will not weary the House by reciting, I very cordially support the principle of the 'motion, and the concrete principle contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll).

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

I want to say a few words on this subject which is very important to the people of Ontario, and to the people of other provinces as well. One suggestion of a practical character I would make is, that there should be created in Canada, in connection with the government, a department of fuel and power which would give its main attention to the study of the production of power from our waterways and the procurement of fuel for our domestic and industrial needs. No outsider can imagine the hardship which the people of

[Mr. Hanson.1

Toronto suffered owing to the lack of fuel last winter. I know something about it. I have seen the lines of people in front of the coal offices endeavouring to get coal, when many individuals offered as high as $20 a ton for coal but in vain. And yet we have immense beds of coal in our own country to supply all our needs, and there are new fields to be opened up. I hope that in the province of Ontario, northward in the direction of Hudson bay, some new fields will be opened up in the coming year; and there are other fields in the different parts of Canada where coal can be got. As a matter of fact, however, we have great fields of coal in Nova Scotia and Alberta where supplies can be obtained. The hon. member who preceded me went to the very heart of things when he explained the reason why this coal is not at present available for use. In connection with our transportation problem we must insist on a new freight classification on essential commodities like coal and grain, and some others. It is not feasible to carry fuel for long distances at present freights; and in the matter of wheat perhaps one of the main prospects of relief to the farmers in the West would be found in placing that commodity under a lower freight rate. And it is in measures of this kind that relief will come, but the relief will have to come from Parliament. The responsibility to take care of this question will be on the government. It will not do to trust the profiteers of the United States. We know that they will sell coal at a high price and make enormous profits. I am sure that as much as $6 a ton absolute profit has been made out of the anthracite supplied to the people of Ontario and of Montreal in connection with this coal famine. They will take any price they can get, and they are only like other business people in that respect. The government must intervene and must have a policy in regard to coal, and that policy must go so far as to request for instance the directors and the management of our National railway to consider the question of a new classification of freight rates, on the lines of a lower freight rate for basic commodities, like coal, ores, and articles of that kind. If we adopt that course we will get some relief. Canada should be independent of every country in the world in regard to fuel.

The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) referred to water-powers. We should prohibit the export of water-powers when it comes to be a menace. The suggestion the hon. member made in reference to bounties is well worthy of consideration. If there is that immense export of our pulpwood which is

Canada's Coal Supply

absolutely necessary to the people of the United States they should perhaps pay an export duty on that. In that way we could get sufficient money to pay a bounty on the shipment of coal, or we might lower the freight rates and reclassify all these articles such as I have mentioned, especially coal and wheat. If we adopt that course and the government and parliament realize their responsibility, we will get relief in a short time, in regard to a matter which promises to be a menace and to cripple the interests of the country. If it had not been for Sir Adam Beck's hydro-electric policy in Ontario, I do' not know where we would have been. There are four millions of horse power on the northern slope of the Hudson bay which could be utilized to electrify the National railway and other railways from Winnipeg to Quebec, and give enough power to work all the mines and probably save fuel in other ways.

I heard some of the details of the proposal to establish coke ovens using bituminous or soft coal. The cities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg could very well afford to start immense coking plants there for the conversion of soft coal into coke, and the production of many other by-products, mainly gas, which may or will be used in five years in those cities for the production of heat. You can convert coal into coke and get an immense amount of gas, which can be distributed by pipes through a city. They have now a much better and simpler system for hot-water heating of houses by gas than by coal. All it requires is capital and

science, and some kind of encouragement by the government, and our fuel problem will be solved. I hope some one on behalf of the government will tell the House that this question is to be considered, and that an effort will be made to remove a great public grievance at the present time.

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) :

This matter has been very ably discussed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). The question is not at all new to this House. It has been said to-day that it is of a national character, and it certainly is. While speaking for myself, I cannot say that I have not a more or less selfish interest in the matter, as I come from a province where they sell coal. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker I assure you that I am sufficiently broad and sufficient of a Canadian to have the widest possible national interest in this question, and without boasting in any way, I am sure my record in this

House will show that for the last fifteen, or twenty years I have always endeavoured to bring home to the Canadian people the necessity of being independent in regard to their fuel supply. It is impossible to accomplish that independence without using the fuel supply we have within our borders. It is only a question of bringing the fuel to the place where it is now most needed. It is a great satisfaction to be able to say that the quantity of coal which we possess both east and west is not a matter of speculation or doubt. There is in Nova Scotia to-day-and this is not mere miners' talk about prospective minerals-to be seen and handled enough coal to last for many generations yet to come and supply the whole country. Can you imagine a territory along the northern coast of the county of Inverness, from twenty-five to sixty miles along the coast, of a virgin solid block of coal not yet touched? This stretch of coal area for sixty miles has an average width of four miles, with seams 13 to 16 feet, one underlying the other. Those who are familiar with coal mining know that it is not only one seam of coal that is usually found in these places, but one underlying the other, and it is only a question of cutting through the upper one to get to the lower, or to all the seams that you may require. This coal area in Inverness is not regarded as the largest coal area. In Cape Breton there is the virgin territory of which I have spoken. There is an equally large coal area in the county of Cape Breton and other counties. So that we can speak with assurance of the quantity of coal we have in Nova Scotia. Our coal fields in Nova Scotia are not confined at all to Cape Breton. Coal fields exist in Pictou county and in Cumberland county as large as in Cape Breton. I am making these observations to encourage our friends in Ontario and Quebec, and to show them that we have the coal and'that we have the proper facilities for the bringing of that coal to the place where it is required. Let me say that from a national standpoint we have not been treated quite properly by the people of Ontario, the people of Quebec, and of other parts of Canada, in relation to our exports during and after the war. Our miners in the county of Cape Breton and in the whole of the province of Nova Scotia, but particularly the county of Cape Breton, are sturdy, loyal, fighting men. As soon as war broke out, they were immediately ready or got ready, left their work, threw down their tools, and as quickly as possible they were found in the trenches in France and Flanders. We were all glad to see them go, but nevertheless the result was

Canadas Coal Supply

that we could not produce the coal. In our province, every man is not permitted to take up the pick and go and cut coal. He must pass an examination, like any other professional man; he must be permitted by license to cut coal, and for that reason, when our miners went to the front, we were crippled as regards producing the quantity of coal required. Moreover, the ships which we had for the conveyance of coal from ports of the island of Cape Breton to Montreal and other ports, were commandeered. In that way, our miners and our means of conveyance were taken away, and we could not meet the contracts which we undertook to fill. The result was that the Americans got our markets at Montreal, Toronto and every other place in which we had a market, and people when they start dealing in a certain direction, are not very ready to break off dealing in that direction when the old source of supply again becomes open to them. The difficulty was that after the war was over, we lost connection with the ports and places which I mentioned. It also took some time to get our ships back, and in that way we were largely crippled in our coal industry. I am glad that our capitalists, our miners and the men generally engaged in that business have fought with that difficulty and are back again pretty much to the condition in which they found themselves before the war. The reason why I mentioned that we were not treated fairly in that regard was that because our miners left their vocations and went overseas for the protection of Canada and the Canadian people, and the reason for which our ships were taken from us was also of a national character. Therefore, stock should have been taken of this situation by our friends, and as rapidly as possible we should have been restored to normal conditions as they existed before the war.

We have the coal east and west; the market for it is in the great centre of this country, and we must provide the means of utilizing the resources which we have for the benefit of our own people. As regards the places where this coal is produced, supposing, for instance, Nova Scotia could provide the major part of this coal which now comes from the United States. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) informed us that over $56,000,000 goes out of this country every year for the purchase of coal. Let us suppose that at least 75 per cent of that money could be expended in Nova Scotia. It is only a matter of calculation to show the number of men that could be employed, and the advantage that would come to our people through keeping this money in Canada and utilizing the resources fMr. McKenzie. J

of our province. This would be good, not only for the workingmen, but for Nova Scotia which derives a revenue from the sale and production of coal.

I am glad that this question is once more going to a committee. If I were not as well acquainted as I am with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and the mover of the motion, the hon. member for North Toronto, I would be disposed to think that they are sidestepping this question and shelving it for a while. But I am sure that such is not the case, and I trust that no time will be lost in the committee submitting to this House and to the government whatever practical decisions they may reach upon this subject.

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Is there a committee on this subject now in existence?

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

There is a standing committee, appointed not especially for this purpose, but for the purpose of dealing with mines and minerals, to which committee I understand it is the intention to submit this matter. I was just going to say, in conclusion, that two years ago we had what was known as the Fuel committee, or a committee for . the investigation of the fuel resources 5 p.m. of Canada. There was a very exhaustive and full investigation lasting over quite a number of weeks. A late member of this House, Dr. Steele, an excellent gentleman, who was very much in earnest about this question, was chairman of that committee. They made a report, and gave very useful information as to the quality of our coal; the means of transportation and so forth, received exhaustive attention before that committee. Let me inform the hon. member for North Toronto and the members of that committee that this report is in the form of a blue book, and that they will find in that book very useful information. I trust they will take advantage of it. I see that the Senate is at present taking an interest in this matter, and that it has a committee at work gathering information in connection with this very question. Let me suggest that there should be no overlapping in connection with this matter; that there should be no estrangement of any kind between the committee of the Senate and the proposed committee of the House of Commons. If possible at all, they should work and co-operate together, and let parliament and the country have the full fruition and benefit of what conclusions they may reach.

We used to hear the expression that "somebody could not wait." It is an old expression in this House that "somebody could not

Canada's Coal Supply

wait," for the emergency was too strong for time to be lost; but I need not assert in my own way that the people of this country, both those who are producing and those who are in need of coal, cannot wait very much longer, for the time is at hand and fully mature for practical and active co-operation and the producing of satisfactory results in this country.

The hon. member for North Toronto hoped that some member of the government would speak on this question. I am speaking, not as a member of the government, but simply as the representative in this House of Cape Breton North and Victoria, one who has the good fortune of representing many sturdy, hale and hearty good miners and producers of coal. I have been representing them in this House for many years, and I am glad as such, not is a member of the government, to have this word to say on a question which, I think, is of vital importance to them as well as to the country generally.

Topic:   CANADA'S COAL SUPPLY
Subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. CHURCH FOR A NATIONAL FUEL POLICY
Permalink

March 19, 1923