June 10, 1924

CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

This seems pretty far

fetched and cannot possibly be the law of Canada, because the divorcee has in hundreds of cases married again.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink
LIB
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The custom for fiftyfour years would establish the right.

Private Bills

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

This clause was incorporated in the bills passed in former years and I understand that it is only this year that it has been omitted.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is right.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It is being adopted

again.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The divorcee has never

been specifically permitted by any legislation to marry again; but the divorcee always has done so. Certainly it is the intention of parliament to continue that right, and if we are going to be so scrupulous and meticulous about the ancient canon law of England we had better go on and provide for the divorcee also.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink
PRO

Thomas George McBride

Progressive

Mr. McBRIDE:

As a member of that

committee, I might say that it was the Senate that made the change and not the committee of this House. When the matter came up in committee of this House there were present some of the legal department and the question was raised whether it was best to leave it as it was or have the change made. The chairman of the committee suggested that there should be a joint meeting of the committee of the Senate and -the Private Bills committee to take up the matter with the law officers and report back. When their report came back to the committee it was to the effect that it was best to leave the matter as it had been, and we therefore acted accordingly.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   RILLA MAY FREEMAN
Permalink

Section agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS


Bill No. 18, respecting a certain patent of The Fleischmann Company.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 56, for the relief of Theresa Agnes Sprague.-Mr. Kennedy (Glegarry and Stormont). Bill No. 57, for the relief of Terry Andrea Maxwell Bruce.-Mr. Boys. Bill No. 68, for the relief of Jessie Maria Watchorn.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 69, for the relief of Walter Scott Miller.-Mr. Logan. Bill No. 70, for the relief of Harriet Bertha Wiser.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 71, for the relief of Esther Mary Edwards St. George.-Mr. Chew. Bill No. 72, for the relief of Mabel Peters.- Mr. Stewart (Leeds). Bill No. 73, for the relief of William Thomas Trot. Mr. Stewart (Leeds). Bill No. 74, for the relief of Lucy Elizabeth Smith.-Mr. Carruthers. Bill No. 75, for the relief of Florence Luella Patterson Kelly.-Mr. Ross (Kingston). Bill No. 76, for the relief of Arthur Harold Mingay.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 77, for the relief of Isabella Guild. -Mr. Hudson. Bill No. 78, for the relief of Albert Lawrence. -Mr. Harris. Bill No. 79, for the relief of Douglas Lewin. Mr. Boys. Bill No. 80, for the relief of Mary Quinn - Mr. Wallace. Bill No. 81, for the relief of Marie Darling Irving.-Mr. Wallace. Bill No. 82, for the relief of Margaret De-Mello.-Mr. Wallace. Bill No. 83, for the relief of Mary Caroline Dooley.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds). Bill No. 84, for the relief of Barbara Gibb Duncan.-Mr. Martell. Bill No. 85, for the relief of Nellie Sinkins. *-Mr. Martell. Bill No. 86, for the relief of Catherine Jean Livingstone.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 87, for the relief of Alice Maud Knowles.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 88, for the relief of Jessie Ruth Haverson.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 89, for the relief of Arthur Foord. -Mr. Arthurs. Bill No. 90, for the relief of Harold Gordon Hendry.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 91, for the relief of Karl Peter Hansen.-Mr. Ladner. Bill No. 92, for the relief of Ethel Hadden. -Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 93, for the relief of William James McLaughlan.-Mr. Ross (Kingston). Bill No. 94, for the relief of Alyce Wilson. -Mr. Boys. Bill No. 95, for the relief of Lemuel Burkett. -Mr. LeSueur. Bill No. 96, for the relief of William Ewart Gladstone Pettinger.-Mr. Harris. Bill No. 97, for the relief of Anna Mc-Geachey.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 98, for the relief of Antonio Pietranglo.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 99, for the relief of Ella Vear.- Mr. McQuarrie. Bill No. 100, for the relief of Anna Welton. Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 101, for the relief of Marjorie Mahaffy Cox.-Mr. Kay. Bill No. 102, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Milne.-Sir Henry Drayton. Customs Tariff Bill No. 103, for the relief of Georgina Myrtle Potts.-Mr. Mewbum. Bill No. 104, for the relief of Guy Barrington Hutchings.-Mr. Spence. Bill No. 107, for the relief of Amy Selain Slater Therrien.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 108, for the relief of Harold Adrian Proctor.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 109, for the relief of Harry Charles Arthur.-Mr. Martell. Bill No. 110, for the relief of Tony Bazar.- Mr. LeSueur. Bill No. Ill, for tihe relief of Gordon Johnston Hutton.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton). Bill No. 112, for the relief of Douglas Carlyle Bell.-Mr. Ross (Kingston). Bill No. 113, for the relief of Elma Cath-eryne Caulfield.-Mr. Ross (Kingston). Bill No. 114, for the relief of Alice Bertha Boyce Baker.-Mr. Spence. Bill No. 115. for the relief of John Lee Williamson. Mr. Church. Bill No. 123, for the relief of Nora Pearce. -Mr. Boys. Bill No. 124, for the relief of Albert Francis Ray.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 125, for the relief of Irene Mildred Jeffrey.-Mr. Boys. Bill No. 126, for the relief of Florence Mitchell.-Mr. Martell. Bill No. 131, for the relief of Ruth Ethelind Jackes.-Mr. Ryckman. Bill No. 132, for the relief of Wilfrid John Mitchell. Mr. Simpson. Bill No. 133, for the relief of Edward James Bentley.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 134, for the relief of Elizabeth Sylvia Cameron.-Mr. Ross (Kingston). Bill No. 135, for the relief of Wilhelmina Aird McKay.-Mr. Preston. Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mary Ellen McClelland.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 137, for the relief of Annie Jane Bridges.-Mr. Harris. Bill No. 138, for the relief of Florence Rath-bun.-Mr. Thurston. Bill No. 139, for the relief of William Samuel Morrow.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds). Bill No. 140, for the relief of Ethel May Macdonald.-Mr. Church. Bill No. 141, for the relief of Stanley George Harris.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 144, for the relief of Evelyn Eira Awrey.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).


SECOND READINGS


Bill No. 167 to amend the Act to incorporate the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.-Mr. Duff. Bill No. 168 for the relieif of James Koniaris.-Mr. Wallace.


CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT


The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb for the third reading of Bill No. 127, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.


CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Mr. Speaker, when the

House rose at six o'clock I was pointing out to the House that the imports of iron and other products which we ourselves could produce, and which we had in large proportion in this country, amounted to a very large sum. I have since looked up the figures, and although I unfortunately have been unable to get the figures for last year, I find that two or three years ago the imports of coal amounted to $70,000,000, of oil to $46,000,000, and of iron and its products to $175,000,000, in round figures. These figures may vary somewhat from year to year, but roughly speaking they would represent the average annual importation. When we consider that we have in this country the second largest coal deposits in the world, the United States only having deposits greater than ours, it seems ridiculous that we should import coal to this amount. Of course, it is true that due to -transportation difficulties the coal of the West and the coal of the East is found difficult to be brought into the central part of Canada. At the same time, I am one of those who would be perfectly willing to see some method worked out whereby the people of Canada generally would be able to give some bonus, if necessary, in the shape of freight rates, on, say, the coal of western Canada being brought to the East, and the coal of eastern Canada being brought westward, so that we would be able to correct to a certain extent our adverse balance with the United States as shown in the figures I have just mentioned. I know that last year in my home city we used a great deal of coal from the prairie provinces, and it was very satisfactory. I am entirely of the opinion that we have been pursuing a wrong policy in using anthracite coal where we might have been using our own softer coals. I believe that that, among other things, has been helping to make our cost of living higher. It is another instance, as Jim Hill once said, of the high cost of living being due to the cost of high living.

So far as coal is concerned I think we might well consider the payment of a bonus through railway rates so that eastern and western Canadian coal could be brought to the central part of Canada. There is a crying need for that.

Customs Tariff

It is true that we are not producing much oil in this country, but we have very heavy oil deposits, and that is where the bounty would come in. We could produce part of our own oil and prevent practically that $50,000,000 importation of oil' which we are now getting from the United States.

It was with the question of iron and its products that I was dealing more particularly this afternoon. It is a question in which I am much interested because in 1918, 1919, 1920, and 1921, I spoke in this House along the lines of doing something to develop the iron industry in Canada. I was supported in those years by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson), and by a number of other members, some of them on the Liberal side of the House. I do not know if I was supported by any of the Progressive members, but there were not then so many of them as there are now. At any rate, this is a question which has been before the people of Canada for a great many years. Away back in 1896, a large proportion of the iron ore we were using was Canadian iron ore. To-day we are using practically none that is produced in Canada. There is a point I mentioned before recess, and in the interim I ran across my file and found a letter dealing with this side of the question, that Canada should develop her iron resources-and her oil resources, for that matter, but iron particularly-because it furnishes heavy bulk traffic for the railways. I have here a letter written to me in 1921, after one of those speeches of which I have just spoken, by the commissioner for the National Railways on this very important question. Mr. Green, then commissioner for the National Railways, wrote me as follows:

I have been trying to find the official paper from which X gleaned the information regarding the British government assisting iron production during the war.

He goes on to say that he cannot find it, but that he is convinced that during the war the British government, a free trade government, assisted in the production of iron and iron products in that country. He goes on:

I am keenly interested in this subject, which I believe is a vital matter to t'he Canadian National Railways; in fact. I do not know anything of greater importance to Canada as a whole than the development of our iron resources.

I do not know whether this aspect of the case has struck you, but it seems to me that apart from all the other considerations that we have got to do something as a protective measure, as the exhaustion in the hematities of the United States, the lake Superior region, is within measurable distance, and we do not know when that source of supply may be denied us.

IMr. Manion.]

He mentions there a side of the question I shall deal with in a few moments, but before coming to that, we all know in this House that we have in Canada a greater mileage of railway per thousand of population than any other country in the world, and that is the reason we have on our hands a railway problem, and we can only solve it by increased traffic for the railways and increased population. The development of our own coal and oil resources is one of the ways in which we can increase traffic for the railways and the population of Canada.

I come now to the side of the question he mentions in that letter. He points out that it is possible in the years to come the United States may find it reasonable to stop the export of some of these products into this country. Now probably the very first thing it vrould stop would be the export of iron ore, because, as Jim Hill said, in thirty or forty years the iron resources of the United States will be within sight of exhaustion. When the United States sees that day coming it is not going to permit iron ore to be shipped into this country, and it would be a serious matter if Canada at this time did not look far enough in advance, or had not vision or imagination enough now to develop, to a certain extent at least, her own iron ore resources. I might point out that if a bounty were paid upon iron ore, as suggested by the Conservative government of Ontario at the present time, there would be no bounty paid unless the iron mines were developed. In other words unless there are results no bounty is paid out, and no expense is incurred.

During the dinner hour I went to my room and obtained a report which has a very important bearing upon this question. I had forgotten that report this afternoon as I spoke without preparation. The subject is one with which I am more or less familiar but I did not prepare my remarks and I had forgotten the report in question. It is the report of the Ontario Iron Ore committee, which I had leift lying on my desk and which I have not looked at for some months. This committee-and by the way its report should be of particular interest to hon. gentlemen to my left-was appointed by the late Drury government. This is one of the few acts of that government which I would care to praise. The Drury government appointed a committee whose members I do not know, with the exception of Mr. Cowie. I do know that he is in the iron business in Sault Ste. Marie and has been in it all his life. That committee was appointed for the purpose of

Customs Tariff

looking into the whole iron ore question. With the approval of the House I am going to read a few paragraphs from the report. At the time this report was drawn up the final report had not been printed-this is only a mimeographed copy. The committee say:

The committee appointed by order in council, October 25, 1922, to make research, investigate and report upon the extent and quality of the deposits of low grade iron ores in Ontario, the best commercial methods of beneficiating the same and generally what steps or measures should be adopted to enable the low grade and other iron ores of this province to be utilized in the production of pig iron and steel, have the honour to submit their report herewith.

I have glanced through the report and marked a number of paragraphs which very briefly I wish to place upon the record because they are of interest. But before I do that I wish to repeat that this committee was appointed -by the late Drury government- the Farmer-Labour government of the province of Ontario-and this is the report of the committee appointed to deal with this very question. Their report in brief is to the effect that we should give a bounty to develop the iron ore resources of Canada. However, I am going to read some of their observations and recommendations. They say this:

It is with some satisfaction we assert that, though to-day Ontario iron ore requirements are supplied wholly from the United States, that we could, if stern necessity demanded, produce from our own deposits sufficient ore to maintain our own furnaces in blast.

On page 8, the committee say:

The unanimous opinion of this committee is. that our iron and steel industry will suffer severely as the United States lake Superior ore reserves, now being rapidly used, are conserved to a greater and greater extent for American furnaces and that we must, during the next ten years build up an iron mining industry that will largely free Ontario from the necessity of importing ore.

And then on page 19 they say:

This committee believes then that some of the higher grade magnetites (over 50 per cent iron natural) and siderites, such as are found at the New Helen mine, can be produced to-day at a cost approximately equal to their market value, but there is little in the present iron ore mining situation in Ontario that would tend to attract capital. Some new factor must be introduced if we are to get the industry under way in the near future.

I am not quoting passages particularly favourable to my contention; [DOT] the whole report is along the line I am arguing. The report consists of 175 pages, and I am merely picking out a few passages which give the gist of the whole thing. On page 23, are to be found the recommendations of the committee as follows:

Recommendations

We, the Ontario Iron Ore committee, unanimously recommend and urge:-

(1) That the province of Ontario provide a bounty of one cent per unit of iron, on each long ton oi merchantable iron ore, natural or beneficiated, produced and actually marketed from Ontario deposits and that such bounty be available to Ontario producers of merchantable iron ore for a period of ten years.

That in brief is their recommendation, that one cent per unit be granted on each long ton of merchantable iron ore. That is to say that if there is one per cent of>

iron produced they get a bonus of one cent; if there is fifty per cent of iron produced they get fifty cents; the idea being that when the iron ore is low grade iron and it is beneficiated, or brought up to a certain degree of iron by beneficiation they give a bounty of one cent per unit. Then on page 24, there is another passage I should like to quote, which I thought was particularly applicable to hon. gentlemen to my left because it is a statement by this committee appointed by the Drury government, and it deals with the same question with which I was dealing before dinner. They say regarding bonuses:

Many people believe that any industry that must be bonused or in some way artificially supported, is unnatural and unworthy of that assistance. Yet in devious ways assistance is being given to nearly every industry. Experimental farms are operated by the governments to give guidance to the farmer. Thoroughbred stock is distributed at public expense. To per petuate fishing, hatcheries are maintained. The credit of the province has been pledged to provide cheap power for the manufacturer. These are but a few of the illustrations that could be used to illustrate the point that bonus or bounty is known under many names.

I shall read three paragraphs more and then conclude. On page 29 the committee give reasons why the Dominion government should help to establish this industry, and I agree entirely with them. The committee say:

Finally, we are of the unanimous opinion that one-half of the bonus recommended should be provided by the Dominion government, and cite the following reasons:-

(1) The active development of our iron ore resources and the enlarging of our steel industry, will be very effective in maintaining a favourable international trade balance.

(2) The colonization of northern Ontario is largely dependent upon the mining industry, and that portion bordering the non-productive sections of our National Railways, is dependent largely upon our iron resources.

(3) Largely increased traffic may be obtained for the National Railways from domestic production of iron ore, and perhaps it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the profit to/be made by our publicly owned railway would, in the gross, equal, and in time exceed the proposed Dominion share of the bounty.

Then, on page 53:

Deducting the 1920 and 1921 shipments from the lake Superior districts, we can calculate an assured ore reserve of approximately 1,477,000.000 tons, and if the average production from this district is taken at 45,000,000 tons, it is apparent that the

9 p.m. positive ore reserves will be exhausted in about thirty-two years. If we include the estimated probable ore reserves, this period is increased

Customs Tariff

to a little more than sixty years, less, in each case, such period as will compensate for a gradually increasing production to care for a growing per capita consumption of iron and steel products and any wider distribution that would result from decreased transportation rates.

Now on page 56, and this is the last quotation I shall give from the report, they say:

The supplies available to open market from whence we draw our requirements, must continue to dwindle at an accelerating pace, and long before the conclusion of the estimated thirty-two year period, we must provide for our own requirements from our own resources, or pay a profit to the United States producers of iron ore that will place our steel companies in Ontario in a position where they will experience real difficulty in competition against foreign prices.

These are just a few paragraphs from the report which will repay the reading by any hon member in this House and particularly the hon. gentlemen to my left, because they oppose bounties, oppose anything in the shape of protection, in spite of the fact that most of the countries of the world have built up their industrial life under protection. The United States iron development to-day is the greatest iron development in the world barring none. It surpasses that of Great Britain. Before the war Germany surpassed Great Britain in that respect, or was about to surpass her. The United States much surpasses Great Britain, and she produces a vastly larger amount of iron and steel products per year than does the Mother Country. The United States built up her iron and steel industry upon a protective system-not by a direct bounty perhaps, but by a high protective duty against iron ores from other countries.

I submit that Canada should develop some of these vast natural resources of which we are continually speaking. Some years ago I used to speak a good deal more about the natural resources of this country than I do now, but I came to the conclusion that it was rather tiresome for the people of Canada to be continually listening to our public men speaking of our vast natural resources when those resources were of no 'use unless we developed them. Unless we develop them we might just as well not have the resources at all. Possibly that is an extreme position because in the future they may be used; but so far as the present generation is concerned unless we develop some of these resources they are of no use to us, or of no use to the country. We might as well talk of the salt of the ocean as the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) interjects. The point is that we have to fight to-day to have anything done to develop these natural resources. With respect to the oil bounties the Acting Minister of Finance is intending to cut off

the bounty now granted; and yet in the case of iron ore the Conservative government of Ontario at the present time is proposing to adopt a method by which these natural resources can be developed.

Earlier this afternoon hon. gentlemen to my left asked why we could not do this in competition with the United States. Well, it is a common sense proposition. A country which started ahead of another in its development, and is much richer, as the United States is, has a vast advantage over the country which has not done that. There has never been much development in Canada so far as iron ore is concerned. The most we ever took out of our mines, I think, was something like 200,000 tons, and this came mostly from the rich Helen mine, the Magpie mine, and other mines in the Sault Ste. Marie district. Outside of that we have done practically nothing in connection with the development of our resources of iron ore. The United States began to develop its iron resources in the lake Superior region, but the ore there was not the rich soft variety which one hon. gentleman mentioned this afternoon. That was the type of iron which in some of their mines they could dig out with a steam shovel. It was only after they had mined iron ore over a period of years that the type of iron was much like the iron which we have to-day. It was hard, difficult to work, but by the cutting, the digging and so forth which go on to develop these mines, they reached those richer deposits which they have today and they have now the greatest iron and steel development in the world or in the history of the world, so that Canada, I think, might well copy some of their methods.

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

Does the hon. member

want to convey the idea that the hard substance that the iron is found in in the first place is over what they are getting with the steam shovel now?

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

I did not wish to convey anything, but I wish to say that much of their rich ore was discovered after development had taken place. The hon. member is pointing out that some of what is uncovered now is uncovered and dug out by a steam shovel. That is quite correct, and I have no interest in stating anything which is not a fact. But in many cases the rich ore of the United States was discovered after the poorer ore had been worked off the surface, and the richer ore was discovered after they had worked deeper down into the mine. Is it common sense to imagine that after the international boundary was reached the good Lord

Customs Tariff

stopped putting rich ore in the ground and refused to give any to Canada at all? The same iron as in Minnesota extends over the north shore of lake Superior. Why should fate, if you will, have stopped at the international boundary and kept the good iron ore on the American side and left the poorer ore on the Canadian side? I do not believe that was done. I believe we have rich iron ore in this country, and the development of our ore will show that we have.

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Thomas Wakem Caldwell

Progressive

Mr. CALDWELL:

Does the proposed

Ontario bounty apply only to Ontario or to Canada generally?

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

To Ontario. British Columbia offered a greater bounty than Ontario. Some of my hon. friends from British Columbia can give me the exact figures, but I think some years ago British Columbia offered a bounty of something like $1.50 a ton. The bounty in Ontario was proposed to be only 50 cents a ton. Some four or five years ago I did not think that bounty would be of any use and I doubt if it is now; but if it is of no use, it would not cause any harm because the development would not go on. I was on a train coming down with Mr. Cowie, who is on the committee and who is in the iron business, and I discussed the matter very thoroughly with him. He is convinced that a bounty of 50 cents or, at most 75 cents a ton, would bring about the development of iron ore in Canada. Supposing we paid out a few million dollars over a period of ten years for the development of the iron resources of this country, would that not be returned one hundred fold in the railway traffic which it would give, in the markets for the people which it would give, in the development of this vast area which happens to be a gap between the East and the West, and in keeping at home some of the young men and women who are leaving our country and hunting for work in the United States? In all those ways the development of our iron ore resources would bring back one hundred fold what has been lost to the people of Canada. I am finishing, but I wish to submit again-

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT
Permalink

June 10, 1924