Mr. BAXTER:

This subject requires I think and will obtain the most careful consideration of this committee. I want to say something from the standpoint of the province of New Brunswick. I do not pretend to know the whole lumber or pulpwood situation in New Brunswick; but I can say to members of the House that, as in Quebec, there are the government lands which have unfortunately been most disastrously ravaged, first by the bud worm and in the last two weeks by fire. Our resources in that respect are considerably affected, and the government of that province must be seriously concerned with the question of what policy it shall adopt. We have also privately owned lands. For some reason the policy of New Brunswick has been to prohibit the export of pulpwood cut from government limits; but that prohibition has not been and, perhaps, could not be applied to privately owned lands, on all production of privately owned lands where there is not enough to support one pulp mill, because to impose a prohibition of exportation in absolute terms, would be really to throw people into the hands of local buyers. The government of New Brunswick has not compelled that course to be taken. Where an owner of freehold lands has also been a leaseholder from the province, the government has permitted him to export from Crown lands a quantity equal to that which he might have taken off his privately-owned lands, but so that t-he total quantity would not be greater than that which he sent out of the province. It was necessary to pursue a course of that kind. The policy I speak of is the one which was first adopted by New Brunswick. Then a succeeding government prohibited the exportation absolutely, and they had to come back to the original proposition because of the extreme difficulty of adjusting the pulpwood business.

Under these circumstances, I think legislation by order in council or directly requires the very closest co-operation and concurrence of the provincial governments. This, I think I may say, is a matter of vital importance to

__

the government of New Brunswick as regards revenue. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will say to me that his government will take all these things into consider-atiton. But may I ask: When will they do this? Between now possibly and the next session of parliament. But is it to be expected that any regulations in the nature of absolute prohibition would be brought into effect so quickly as that? Would not a period of time be given to allow the very serious readjustment which must take place of people's business? I would say that an anticipatory note of at least a year would only be fair, and yet I want to see every bit of forest value preserved for the people of this country. So far as the legislation is in that direction, it has my sympathy and it should have my support; but I want it to be brought into operation in such a way as to cause just as little dislocation of industry as possible. Therefore, I think I am right in assuming, and I think the minister will be one of the first in the House to concede that a change of the character ought not to be brought into effect instantaneously or with a notice of only two or three months. If that is conceded, I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), which I think has great merit, that there should be a commission. I understand the minister is favourable to that. As regards naming commissioners, I do not think that there will be the slightest difficulty in obtaining them without resort to the ranks of party supporters on any of the three sides of this triangular House. One name, that of Mr. Frank Barnjum, stands out pre-eminently. He is a man who has spent a great deal of his money and who has devoted his energy to the work of endeavouring to preserve to the people of Canada that heritage which they possess in standing timber. A man of that character with another similar to him, associated with him, could give a report that would be of value, and it would come in quite time enough if we had it at the next session of parliament. I am not going to inveigh any more strongly than my hon. friend (Mr. Power) has just donq, against government by order in council. It is sufficient that the emergency of war has passed, and I think all parties agree that there should be as little government by order in council as there may be. Very much of the administration of the government of the country must be conducted by order in council; but when we come to a matter of such great importance as this, to a complete change of policy, I do not thint-it would be out of the way to ask that a

Export Act-Pulpwood

definite measure should be laid before and receive the sanction of parliament. Reading this resolution, how do I know, how does any other hon. member know whether this is a move-and it might be a right and proper move-on the part of the Minister of Finance in the direction of bargaining with the United States? It may be simply intended to force them to better terms with regard to their tariff. I would not reprobate it if it were for that purpose. Perhaps the minister cannot state that very publicly, and I would possibly vote for it if that element were in it. On the other hand, how do I know that with the comparatively limited view of the subject that must be taken in government circles, immense injury might not be done, not only to private interests, but to public interests in the provinces which would be principally affected? Therefore I say, before anything is done, there ought to be first a proper investigation. If that investigation is made by competent men and if the recommendation seems at all suitable to the conditions which they find, those recommendations ought, if possible, to be accepted by this House. But even before that, there ought to be an opportunity for discussion, for proper representation, for consideration, before we enter upon this thing which, however praiseworthy it may be in itself, may very easily lead to an absolute dislocation of a very important branch of industry, may stop employment, may drive people to the wall, and may seriously impair in the province from which I come the very funds upon which the government must rely in order to carry on the everyday business of that province. Therefore I join the hon. member for Quebec South in pressing, so far as I may do so, upon the minister the advisability of proceeding now by commission and letting the result of that commission come before the next session of parliament. Then let us have a government policy which will be clear and distinct, which we can debate here and to which, if we see any objection, we can suggest amendments, and perhaps suggest to the government some better course which will do good to all and harm to none.

Mr. LOVETT:

I must congratulate the

government on the resolution now before the committee dealing with the question of an embargo on pulpwood.

In the recent budget debate, I spoke at some length on the subject of forest conservation; but I wish again to urge on hon. members of this House the great necessity of immediate and drastic steps being taken to conserve our forest wealth, and as a means to this end, to support this resolution which

empowers the government to take prompt action.

No element of consideration for what is considered individual rights of the estimated two per cent of Canadian farmers who wish to export pulpwood from Canada should be allowed to blur our vision or influence the hon. members of this House on whom rests the grave responsibility of safeguarding our national interests. This is not a matter of the moment; it is not a matter of respecting minority rights; it is a matter which makes for the weal or woe of Canada in the future. And in the light of clarified vision which will surely come in the future on this question, the parliament of 1923 will either in the future appear as the protector and preserver of Canada's great forest wealth or it will be blackened by its failure to act decisively and promptly in what must be considered a serious situation. We have often heard the argument advanced that the restriction of pulpwood export is a violation of individual rights and liberties.. In answer to this argument let me say that all laws for the benefit of a country as a whole must infringe on personal liberty. Where would this or any other country be if individual liberty of action were not controlled by laws when that action was detrimental to the general good? As well might one say that we should not control the personal liberty of our fishermen by establishing fishing seasons, or of our huntsmen by defining hunting seasons, as well as to say that we should allow pulpwood to be cut from fee lands at the owner's will regardless of the loss to the country as a whole. All are natural resources and as such can never be wholly individually controlled. An embargo on the exporting of pulpwood cut on fee land might apparently work hardships on a small percentage of the estimated farmers who wish to export it but ultimately it would result in public good by forcing pulp and paper companies to locate in Canada, thus increasing the home market for their products, both forest and agricultural and increasing the chances of employment for their children, capitalized industries sharing the weight of taxation under which Canadians labour to-day and will labour for some time to come.

Other countries, notably Norway, Sweden and Finland, the very countries which our Canadians meet as competitors for the world's trade in pulp and paper products have not hesitated to prohibit the export of pulpwood, and these great industrial countries are looking upon Canada with amazement that for a few petty obstacles she is acting the spendthrift with her forest wealth

Export Act-Pulpwood

The United States' capitalists whose business acumen is undoubted will accept this embargo as an evidence of ordinary business sense and already they are preparing for it by buying large tracts of available pulp lands; and the}' will locate plants here for the manufacture of raw material unless they are still allowed to get it out of the country to be manufactured into the finished article by their own workmen. It is estimated that the United States have only enough timber of their own to supply their mills for five or at most ten years. Are our Canadian forests to be depleted as under present conditions they surely will be by the United States while that country's supply is conserved? These are facts. Let me recite some of them. The original virgin forests of the United States amounted to 830,000,000 acres; at the present time they have only

130.000. 000 acres. Their annual deforested areas from all causes total 26,-

000,000 acres. The United States depends on Canada for 50 per cent of its newsprint and 30 per cent of its pulp. Canada exports yearly of pulpwood 5,000,000 cords. Forest fires in Canada last year totalled 5,000 while the ravages of the bud worm destroyed 150,000,000 cords. The capital invested in Canada in pulp and paper industries approximates

8380.000. 000, with a yearly productive value of $200,000,000, providing employment for 30,000 people, with wages amounting to $28,000,000. The industry uses 644,805 horsepower or nearly one-third of the developed hydraulic resources of Canada. It is estimated that some of our large pulp and paper plants in Canada have barely five years' supply of wood in sight. In 1920, of Canada's cut of pulpwood, 31 per cent was exported to the value of $16,000,000. If exported as manufactured pulp instead of raw wood, the value would have been $84,000,000 and exported as paper, it would have been $105,000,000. If the collected data of indisputable facts can not convince us of the seriousness of the situation we must admit that as in olden times the Heavens have displayed signs of warning. The dense pall of smoke that has hung over Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific during the past few weeks, pervading even this building, is indubitable evidence of the wiping o it of our forests, and their approaching extermination if every possible method is not applied, and quickly applied, to stem this devastation. We must recognize these facts. Our commercial and agricultural prosperity will largely vanish with our forests; our hydraulic powers will be diminished; our fanning country will be left bare and arid; our

pulp and paper industries forced out of existence by lack of raw material, while Canadian money invested in these industries will be lost.. More than that, the exodus of our population in search of employment will b' greater. Our game and fur-bearing animals, a source of great wealth to Canada, will be homeless and will disappear, and Canada, the-land of primeval forests with their priceless value will be a tragic monument to the blunders of its legislators. This is not a party problem and we should not so consider it. It is far above the realm of partv. It reaches down to the very foundation of Canada's national existence, and the way in which we solve it means our continuance as a prosperous people or our speedy retrogression into national bankruptcy. It has been truly said that a dying forest means a dying nation. Let me urge hon. members of all parties in this House to disregard any local situation that may influence their action and support this resolution which authorizes immediate and effective action for the preservation of our forests.

Mr. McBRIDE:

I am fully in sympathy with the resolution. If the people of Canada do not look after their own interests and protect their forests, who will? Last fall I was up in the Cariboo country and I saw a lot of men working in the timber. I went over and found about two hundred Japs cutting our forest down. They were towing the logs down to Vancouver and putting them aboard Japanese ships for Japan. What was Canada receiving from her forests? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. POWER:

Was this in the form of logs?

Mr. McBRIDE:

I said logs.

Mr. POWER:

This resolution covers pulpwood only.

Mr. McBRIDE:

Well, what is pulpwood but logs cut into small portions? I have seen in British Columbia the finest logs ever taken out for pulpwood. You do not grow the class of timber down here that we grow in British Columbia. Some years ago I noticed that on every dollar's worth of manufactured goods shipped out of the United States 85 per cent represented labour, while for every dollar's worth shipped out of Canada only 10 per cent represented labour. It is about time that we manufactured our natural resources and got the utmost out of them. If this pulpwood exportation is stopped it will only be a few years before the American concerns will be establishing factories on the Canadian side

Export Act-Pulpwood

of the line and giving employment to our people; and that is what we want.

Mr. DICKIE:

I endorse the remarks of

the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride).

I think it is time we also drew the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to the exportation of raw material from British Columbia in the form of logs. Ruthless destruction of our forests is proceeding and in another generation the forests of Vancouver island will pretty well have disappeared. I have seen one of the grandest forest areas of America wiped out in one generation,-the forest area of the state of Michigan is now a farming country. We do not want our potentialities to be wasted without getting some proper return. I do not think we fully realize what we lose by the exportation of pulpwood. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken quoted some figures. I have other figures which I think will prove conclusively that it is time we did something.

In 1920, 31 per cent of our pulpwood was exported for which we received in round numbers, $16,000,000. We exported 28 per cent as pulp with a value of $76,000,000; 25 per cent as paper worth $87,000,000. Had the $16,000,000 worth of pulpwood exported-been converted into pulp, it would have had a value of $84,000,000; if into paper, $105,000,000,- making a loss to labour, to capital and to Canada of from $68,000,000 to $89,000,000 in one year.

Surely, Sir, this exportation of raw material is the acme of economic folly. In 1921 we produced 2,180,578 cords of pulpwood which were converted into pulp and paper worth $108,677,520. We exported 1,902,533 cords of pulpwood to the United States for which we received only $14,617,610. "And so the play goes on." The folly of it must be apparent to all honourable members.

In Canada we have invested in pulp and paper plants $380,000,000 and an army of men are employed. Why not keep all raw material at home and with it another capable army of men that is leaving for the United States following our raw products to engage in their manufacture. They are following our raw products just as they are following our $172,000,000 which constitute our adverse trade balance with our American neighbours. We are being bled white by our neighbours. Certainly no company would conduct business along these lines, and no country can persist in doing so and not precipitate national disaster. The cry of the world is for lumber and paper. Let us take full advantage of our splendid opportunities and aim for maximum results. Despite

substitutes, the demand for lumber is continually increasing. Yet, Sir, we of British Columbia sit idly by while immense booms of our saw logs are being towed across the line to the state of Washington and our men are following to work in the mills of that state.

It is time we awoke to the necessity of doing something. It is said that if we prohibit the export of pulpwood the Americans might retaliate by placing an embargo on anthracite.

I think if we got our house in order this is the best thing that could happen. In Alberta vve have immense areas of coal which even at present prices would make it good policy for Ontario to buy in preference to looking to Pennsylvania for her fuel requirements. In British Columbia we also have immense coal areas, but it is out of the question to ship our coal so far east as Ontario. In Nova Scotia there are also immense supplies of coal available which could be placed on the market in Ontario at a price just as cheap as that charged for American coal. Why not bum Canadian coal and so s-ave the many millions of dollars that we pay the Americans every year?

We send our pulpwood over to the American side and our men follow to engage in the work of manufacturing it into paper, which is worth many times more than the raw material. We are simply throwing ourselves into the arms of those people who say, "We do not want a pound of your butter unless you pay an import tax of eight cents a pound." At the same time we allow their butter to come into Canada on payment of a duty of only four cents a pound. Why turn our cheek to these people? For every cord of pulpwood that goes over there we may say that six dollars is lost in labour for every dollar that comes into this- country. When we consider that we are losing from $70,000,000 to $90,000,000 by the exportation of pulpwood, is it not time that we quit temporizing and took a bold stand even if somebody has to suffer? And somebody must suffer, but we can easily recompense the five hundred farmers or so who may be hurt by the prohibition of the export of pulpwood. I would impress on the minister the urgent necessity of looking into the exportation of saw-logs from British Columbia. There, by adroit legislation, we have what amounts to an export tax on all timber cut in the country on privately-owned land, but if the wood is worked up in sawmills the tax is remitted. I think the tax runs to about $1.50 per thousand, but that is not sufficient to repay the national loss. We have many American companies operating in British Columbia, and I know one institution that

Export Act-Pulpwood

has spent over a million dollars on a logging railroad. Every log from that camp is sent across to the American side and our men are following the logs to work in the American mills.

How can we expect to succeed unless we take a bold step? Let us use our own coal and manufacture our own forest wealth, and see if we cannot set an example to the world of a country that does not have to tell its people: We cannot pay our way year by year.

Mr. LEGER:

In my part of the country

the people cut most of their wood in the month of June, and therefore if this prohibition of export went into effect at once it would mean a great loss to them. As they are dependent on the returns from their wood to pay their taxes and expenses, I trust the government will defer putting this proposed legislation into effect for this season, so that the people I have referred to may have sufficient time to become acquainted with the regulations and act in accordance therewith.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I am entirely in accord with any effective steps that may be taken to preserve our timber supply,and I think something along the lines of this resolution is necessary as one of those effective steps. But I do not think it will get us very far alone, it must be part of a much more comprehensive policy. In the matter of principle I associate myself very earnestly with the views expressed by my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). Indeed, I believe that the law and the prophets is pretty much in his words. I am of course compelled to* admit that his sentiments, while good horse business sense for this Dominion, are sadly out of harmony with those idealistic principles of free trade which we once heard so frequently from hon. gentlemen opposite, but which wa now hear no more. I had some sympathy with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when he displayed an abhorrence of broken pledges and principles and showed that in its every feature this was a violation of those things for which his party was professing, and had in the past very emphatically professed, to stand, and which it yet proclaims as some beautiful ideal that it loves but is sorry that it cannot reach much sooner; all the while it is moving directly the other way. I know they have to fly in the face of every profession to pass this legislation. There is only this to be said: They must always do this if we are ever to get any sensible legislation. We must either do without the government or do without the sensible legislation. But

my objection to this resolution is mainly another urged by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). It is not legislation at all. It does not even foreshadow legislation; it is simply a proclamation of the government to the House of inability to frame legislation. They say: We cannot bring any legislation before you; we cannot work it out; we have not any policy, but if you will give us the summer we will try to frame something, and we want authority now from the House to make it legislation. In other words, they say: We who almost destroyed our vocal organs for years denouncing order in council government come here and ask for power to pass any orders on earth respecting this new form of policy. Nor is this bill different from any other bill. The hon. member for Quebec South thought this perhaps the most audacious yet offered to get order in council powers, but it is not a particle worse than the last bill. In the worst days of the war- and war times are very different from peace times-powers of this kind were not asked for save on matters directly concerning the prosecution of the war.

Mr. POWER:

What about the Grand Trunk?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

As to the Grand Trunk, we came down with all the conditions, all the principles affecting the legislation.

Mr. POWER:

By order in council.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No, in the bill. Look at the act. Look at the Canadian National Railway Act; look at the Grand Trunk Acquirement Act.

Mr. POWER:

Was not the acquisition accomplished by order in council?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No, not at all. Why, the Grand Trunk Pacific was laid at our door, pitched at us by the management. They wrote us a letter on the third of May and told us that on the tenth of May they would be out of business.

Mr. POWER:

The right hon. gentleman is right.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Certainly I am right. In acquiring the Grand Trunk we asked parliament for all the powers and stated the terms upon which the road would be acquired. Had we proceeded as I will describe in a moment, we would have followed the course adopted here now. Had we brought in a resolution which read as follows: The Governor in Council may acquire the Grand Trunk railway upon such terms and conditions and at such price as may be fixed and according to such regula-

Board of Audit

tions as may be passed by the Governor in Council,-that is the resolution we would have introduced had we followed the course this government is following in introducing this resolution; nor would it have been a bit more audacious. Look at the Grand Trunk Acquirement Act and compare it with this. There is nothing left to regulation except the merest detail. The whole principle of acquirement, the terms of acquirement-everything is there. That is what the government ought to have here. That is legislation; this is not legislation at all. It is merely a flouting of parliament, by those who -were supposed to be rescuing the country from the evils of order in council government, by those who were going to bring back the days of control by legislation. What control is parliament going to have here? The government may do something or it may not. If it does anything, it may do it on whatever terms it likes. It may exempt whomever it likes; it may bring within the circle of the legislation whomever it likes. It may bring one province in and let another province out; there is nothing it may not do if legislation following this resolution passes. Again I say this is not foreshadowing legislation; it is merely asking for a blank cheque from the House of Commons that the government may pass what legislation it may deem wise or expedient for itself later on. It is to be expected that those who talk the loudest about the return to control by parliament are those who act the most defiantly in the very face of parliament when they are in power. I protest against that feature of the resolution and I ask the government to come down with a bill stating upon what terms they propose to prevent the exportation of pulpwood. If the terms are reasonable, I will support them. I am in favour of the principle. I know there are some who will be injured by it, but the individual interest, subject perhaps to proper compensation, must needs bow to the general good. I say I am in favour of the principle, but I ask for legislation. I do not like being asked day after day, sometimes half-a-dozen times a day, simply to sign a parliamentary cheque to an administration which hopes at some later time to be able actually to evolve a bill.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 242, to amend the Export Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.