May 28, 1930

CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Before the bill passes, I do not presume to request an amendment to clause 3, but I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a fact that should, I think, call for an amendment at some future time. I am not referring to my own particular circumstances, although I have two families of

grandchildren dependent upon me. But it has come to my notice that there is a very considerable number of cases in which the father of a family has been killed in the war or has died on account of wounds suffered during the war, and as a result the grandparent has been called upon to provide for young and growing families. Under those circumstances I think the grandparent is equally entitled to and should be allowed the same exemption of 8500 as is allowed in the case of an individual who is supporting a parent, grandparent, brother or sister incapable of self-support on account of mental or physical infirmity I know of some other cases, in which, owing to war service, young men have become not only physically but mentally incapacitated and where the pension tendered in such case by the pension board is utterly inadequate to provide properly for their children's care. I think there should be some exemption when a grand-parent, is called upon to make provision for grandchildren who are suffering under such circumstances.

Topic:   INCOME WAR TAX ACT
Permalink
LIB

William Daum Euler (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

I should like to congratulate my hon friend upon not pressing the matter at this time. Further consideration may be given to it on another occasion when the act is being amended.

Section 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   INCOME WAR TAX ACT
Permalink

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT


Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No 345, to amend the customs tariff. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

I find the bill is not

yet ready.

Progress reported.

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT
Permalink

BOUNTY ON COAL


Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second) reading of Bill No. 312, to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal. Mr. FINLAY MaclDONALD (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, before the motion for the second reading of this bill is passed, I desire to say a few words in regard to it along the lines of my remarks when the resolution was before the house. I do not intend, however, to repeat what I said at Bounty on Coal



that time. I may point out now that the bill as introduced is somewhat different from the resolution and no doubt clause 2 of the bill was introduced for the purpose of defeating the amendment that I moved when the resolution was before the house. As hon. members are aware, the bill provides for the payment of a bonus to the steel company of fifty cents a ton on every ton of coal used in the manufacture of steel. The object of my amendment was that the money so paid to the company should find its way into the wage envelopes of the workmen. Clause 2 of the bill was evidently framed for the purpose of defeating that amendment. It is nothing more nor less than, camouflage. It is in exactly the same position as the coke oven legislation which was introduced by the government some two or three years ago and which was held out by the government as tending to implement the recommendations of the Dnucan report regarding the establishment of coking plants in different parts of Canada. Clause 2 means shortly that the company will receive the money and may do with it what it pleases. If there is a law in the province of Nova Scotia and the company does not comply with it, then this government may withhold the payment of the bounty. Now there is no eight hour law in the province of Nova Scotia. Hon. members of this house attach great importance to this eight hour law. I may say that for the men employed in the steel works at Sydney it is not a question of eight hours or twelve hours a day, but it is a question of getting some hours of work. When I was speaking on the resolution I pointed out that hundreds of men had been thrown out of employment, and that others had been given only two or three days' work a week. I gave as an illustration one man who in the past four months had earned only $144. Let this money go into the wage envelopes of the men. Put on a restriction, if you want to, about eight hours, and give them extra pay for extra time; but do not let us try and shield ourselves behind the province passing an eight hour law or any other kind of law. Has anybody ever considered what the effect of a province passing an eight hour law would be? If Nova Scotia passed an eight hour law covering the industries of the province, say the boot and shoe industry, what would happen? The result would be that that industry would immediately pull out of Nova Sootia and go to some other province where there was no foolish law of that kind. You cannot pass legislation that is going to go up against the economic laws. I may saj' for the information of hon. gentlemen in the corner to my left that there is a great body of the men employed in the steel works at Sydney who are in favour of protection. It is true that there is a number of them who are discouraged and disheartened, men who have spent twenty-five years of their lives in the employment of that company and who now find themselves no better off than they were when they began. It is only natural to expect in such cases that these ment would be quite content to take desperate chances on ditching the company by denying them any protection at all. Hon. gentlemen in that corner pretend to be free traders. Let me ask what pressure a free trade government coudd bring to bear on an industry such as the steel industry at Sydney to give their workmen any increase in wages or shorter hours. The only pressure that you can bring to bear on them is the pressure that arises from the protection that you give them. I quite appreciate the fact referred to by the Prime Minister that difficulty would arise in trying to put any such provision in the tariff as was advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). But there is no such difficulty with regard to this bonus. This is money that is going out of the federal treasury into the hands of the company, and there would be no difficulty in attaching to it a provision that that money should go to the benefit of the wage earners. I may say that we had hoped to get a great deal of assistance from this bounty on coal. It is calculated that between four and five tons of coal would go to make a ton of steel, which would mean a bounty of $2 to $2.50 on every ton of steel.


LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

If the hon. gentleman

would allow me to interrupt him, I understand that he is going to conclude his speech with an amendment. I think I know the nature of his amendment. It is with respect to attaching a provision to the bounty. That amendment would not be in order on the second reading, but it would be in order to move it on the committee stage of the bill. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow the second reading to go through and then move his amendment in committee.

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink
CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):

I have no abjection to that, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair. Bounty on Coal On section 1-Adjustment to facilitate further development of native iron and steel industry.


?

Mr. MacDGNALD@Cape Breton South

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, we had hoped that a bounty of 50 cents a ton on coal would mean a bounty of $2 to $2.50 on every ton of steel. But, according to the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) the other night, that under this bill there would be only a certain amount of coal used in the (primary operations, which will not carry through to the point where steel is manufactured, instead of receiving a bonus of $2 to $2.50 a ton on steed we shall receive, according to his calculation only between 70 and 80 cents a ton. If that is going to be the result, and in my opinion the hon. member for Piotou knows more about this question than the tariff board and all! the experts they have ever employed, then I say it is going to be a great disappointment for those of us in the maritime provinces who have been fighting this fight for the Inst three or four years. I do not wish to take up any more time, and therefore, I move that section 2 be struck out and-

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

We are not yet on section 2.

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Before that section carries

I should like to ask the Minister of Finance exactly what interpretation is to be placed upon these words:

-the governor in council may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to manufacturers of iron or steel, of forty-nine and one-half cents per ton of bituminous coal mined in Canada and converted into coke by a proprietor of coke ovens at his coke ovens in Canada, and used by such manufacturers in the smelting in Canada of iron from ore or in the manufacture in Canada of steel ingots or steel castings. No such payment shall be made more than once in resfpect of any coal so used.

I understood the Prime Minister, I think it was, last evening to state that this section was intended to implement to the full the report of the commission which sat and considered maritime province claims. I have not before me the report of the Duncan commission, but I remember its words quite well, and I understood from that report that all coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel should receive a sort of differential bounty, if I may call it that. I listened later to the statements of the hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) to the effect that these words exclude from the so-called bounty all coal which was really used in the manufacture of iron and steel except that smaller portion of the coal which was converted into coke; that

the coal used in all the other processes of the manufacture of iron and steel was excluded from the so-called bounty of forty-nine and a half cents per ton Now, what is the minister's understanding? Is this bounty to apply only to coal which is to be converted into coke?

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I think that is the clear

expression of the clause; but I understood from the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister that this was to implement the Duncan report, and certainly it does not.

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink
LIB
CON
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

I have the report and I will read it:

We were asked to recommend that a bounty should be again made available. In this connection we have thought it right to give consideration to a point which was emphasized m the course of the evidence, viz: that a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty is given when imported coal is used for metallurgical purposes, and that this is tantamount to giving a bonus of that amount, since it means that the Dominion is yielding up money which otherwise under its general policy in regard to bituminous coal would accrue to it. While there are, no doubt, other angles from which this concession can be regarded, it does in its operation have the effect of a bonus, and it is difficult to see how the same bonus can be denied to native coal.

Having regard t-o the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.

This bill places native coal in exactly the position of coal which is imported and on which a drawback is paid only when it is converted into coke.

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I followed the hon. minister as carefully as I could. Is the drawback given at present upon every ton of coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel, or is it given upon every ton of coal used solely and exclusively for the purpose of producing coke?

Topic:   BOUNTY ON COAL
Permalink

May 28, 1930