Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

This is one occasion upon which I can agree with the policy of the government, because that policy

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

is merely an amplification

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

Mr. BENNETT:

Fuel policy.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I though!

we would have some brand new system ol dealing with coal reserves and distribution, but I have found that the government has simply extended the bonuses on transportation; with that policy I fully agree. I doubt if there is any other remedy, if we are going to bring eastern coal westward to its proper market or bring western coal eastward to the market in Canada it should have. The government of which I formed a part began this policy in 1925, and from year to year we extended the assistance because we found it was beneficial.

My hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) to some extent discussed the coking proposition. May I say to him that we were the fathers of that idea. We began operations in Hamilton, and I may say to hon. members that during the period of its inception that industry went through some very difficult stages. The recent terrific slump in the price of coke has jeopardized the position of that industry. While coke is not at present under discussion I understand that at a later stage we shall be dealing with the duty on that particular commodity. The encouragement to Wales and Scotland to ship anthracite coal into Canada has resulted in real competition in the anthracite field. The displacement of anthracite coal by coke in the last six years has cut down the importations from the United States by about one-half. At the present time we are importing anthracite to the extent of less than 3,000,000 tons. I do not think the 40 cents a ton duty on anthracite is required at all. The better quality anthracite from Great Britain is rapidly supplanting the market held by Pennsylvania anthracite. There is no question about the fact that coke is a cheaper fuel -than anthracite and does everything my hon. friend has said it would do. The problem however is to educate the peopie how to use it. I think my hon. friend might have said that all that is necessary is to be careful not to shake the grates down, but to leave a bed of ash. In that way coke may be burnt in anthracite grates; that fact was proven long ago, and I may say that the experiment was tried in Hamilton. It cost us some money to educate the people to burn coke as a substitute for anthracite.

I am in agreement with all the proposals of the government in this respect, but I doubt the wisdom of the imposition of the duty. I admit at once, however, that such duties will help Alberta coal. Last year the increased subventions were the means of capturing the market in Winnipeg, which formerly had not been enjoyed. There is a further competitor in southern Saskatchewan receiving the advantage of the subvention. I do not complain about that competition because I believe the Saskatchewan people are as much entitled to the market as are the Alberta people. Undoubtedly the added subvention will bring that coal at least one division point past Kenora and add to the market of the Alberta and Saskatchewan fields.

I wish briefly to congratulate the government upon the increase in subventions. Their action has been to add to a policy which we encouraged and were working out very successfully. I hope that policy will be equally beneficial to the eastern mining fields so that bituminous coal may be brought further west, into Ontario. There is an area in Ontario however which undoubtedly will have to pay an increased duty. I am bound to say that the hon. member for North Waterloo did not mention that the government have in other directions been extremely kind to the manufacturers by increasing the duties on the commodities they manufacture. Perhaps they can stand the added 25 cents.

Mr. DUFF:

The consumer will pay.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

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

Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):

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

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

hard time. While the St. Lawrence is open and the Montreal market available, up to this year we have always enjoyed a fair measure of prosperity and comfort. This is the first year the miners of Cape Breton have had to be helped by charitable neighbours and their locals.

The simple question is this: Are we going

to let that industry die? We must either let it die or take steps to rejuvenate and help it. In its platform this government gave a promise to the people of Canada that it would inaugurate a national fuel policy. What is meant by a fuel policy for Canada? It means that, as far as our resources will permit, Canada is to supply the fuel necessary to run its furnaces and stoves. This government has taken two steps in that direction; it has increased the duty on soft coal to 75 cents, and it has increased the subventions which will enable us to extend our markets further west into Quebec and Ontario. I want to say on behalf of the miners of Cape Breton that they appreciate what this government has done for them; they appreciate the fact that this Minister of Finance is keeping the pledge he made to the miners of Glace Bay when he visited there last year.

Hon. members opposite have asked how the additional 25 cent duty will help. Let me tell them that at many competitive points in Ontario a difference of 15 cents turned the scale; when a manufacturer could buy American coal for 15 cents less than Canadian coal, the order went to the American firm. The subventions will enable us to carry our coal a little further west in Quebec and Ontario, and it has been calculated that those subventions will net us something over one million tons a year, which to us means the difference between adversity and prosperity. The duty and the subventions are two elements only in a fuel policy, but they are the two fundamental and essential elements in the creation of such a policy; they are the evidences given by this government of its intention to keep the pledges it made, something I presume hon. gentlemen opposite do not understand.

It is possible that in some parts of Ontario the price the manufacturer will have to pay for his coal will be slighty increased, but I am bound to say from my personal observation and knowledge that the Ontario manufacturers are meeting the situation in a patriotic spirit. They realize that the maritime provinces have furnished them with a market for everything from hats to boots; we buy everything from *them. They have taken from us all our banks, our trust companies and our financial resources, which are now located in Ontario

and Quebec. We are the fringe of confederation, but we claim the right to live, and we ask the Ontario and Quebec people to make in a patriotic spirit any small sacrifice that may be necessary. In this world of ours we cannot take everything and give nothing. We are giving the manufacturers a market, and we ask them to accept, if necessary, a slight increase in the price of coal in order to enable us to live. The industry must have this assistance or it will perish. This government says it is not going to perish but that, it is going to live, and those of us who come from the coal counties of Nova Scotia feel that in this government they have men who are determined that this industry shall have a fair chance to prosper.

The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat takes credit for introducing the subventions some years ago. At least he might have given some credit to those of us who worked on the coal committee in 1926, which suggested these subventions to the government of that day. He might also have given some credit to those of us who stood up on the other side of the house and fought for maritime rights, as a result of which we obtained certain concessions. Though at present, the skies are dark and the situation is very distressing, still we have hopes that when present contracts have expired and new ones are being made we shall be able to meet competition, no matter whence it comes, on an even basis, thanks to the good sense, the sound judgment and the patriotic effort of this government.

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

Mr. Chairman, so long

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

3Si 4

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

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

So far as I can understand subventions and the tariff, this will not give any assistance to that particular type of mine; yet it is at least as important a part of the industry, in proportion to the number of men employed, as any other. Last year during the short session I hoped that some assistance would be given out of the $20,000,000 voted for the relief of unemployment. At that time I pointed out the situation to the Prime Minister and asked him whether it would be possible, under the terms of that vote, to pay a small bonus or subvention to Canadian steam coal equal to the difference in cost to the railways as between Canadian and American steam coal. The amount required would be comparatively small, and I suggested that a bonus, from the point of view of employment, would perhaps be better than assistance in any other form. I had hoped that this would be done, for the Prime Minister at that time stated that one of the objects of providing the relief was to meet such a situation as I had described. When I wrote to the manager of the company a short time ago to ascertain the exact condition of the industry I asked whether anything of that kind had been done, and he said they had not received directly or indirectly one dollar of bonus or subvention, nor assistance in any other form to enable them to extend contracts. At present, unless there has been an increase during the last two or three weeks, the only contract outstanding is the contract with the Canadian National Railways for

10,000 tons per month, and obviously that will not improve conditions.

I confess at once I do not believe that, in the long run, bonuses, subventions or tariffs are an economic way of improving the situation. But while that system is in vogue and industries are receiving protection, while that policy is being put into force, it should be extended to cover the whole of this industry in all its peculiar operations. The same situation exists in part of the Crowsnest area; I am told that the Canadian Pacific Railway is their sole market. I would urge, therefore, that these particular districts, the Brazeau district and that Crowsnest area, be given consideration and that an attempt be made to extend to them some measure of assistance comparable to the assistance which the government contemplates giving to domestic coal in the other coal producing provinces.

Mr. HACKETT:

An impression has gone

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

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

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

Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):

Mr. Chairman, representations have been made to me regarding the coal subventions. A short time ago I asked a question of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) and I was pleased to hear that the problem of the lignite coal miners of southern Saskatchewan was receiving some consideration. I notice in the budget speech that the subventions have been changed to one seventh of a cent per ton per mile on coal from Alberta going into Manitoba, and one third of a cent per ton per mile on coal going into Ontario. These rates apply also to Saskatchewan coal, but I would point out that this coal has obtained quite an extensive market in the city of Winnipeg. The people in that city are becoming more and more accustomed to the use of this coal, due to certain mechanical devices which have been installed and which make the burning of the coal much more profitable and beneficial. A short time ago I noticed in one of the papers that an engineer connected with one of the new central heating plants being constructed in the city expressed a preference for Saskatchewan lignite coal. The subventions now being offered are to replace the subvention of 50 cents per ton formerly given to our coal; instead of 50 cents per ton we now are to receive about 40 cents per ton, whereas the Alberta coal is to receive an increased subvention. It would seem as though the Saskatchewan lignite fields are being discriminated against to the extent of about 23 to 25 cents per ton. This business is carried on under a

very narrow margin of profit, and this discrimination would mean that they will be excluded from the Winnipeg market. The minister has assured me that this problem is being considered and I would suggest that the subvention given to Saskatchewan lignite coal be the same as that given to Nova Scotia coal, that is, one fifth cent per ton per mile into Manitoba and one third cent per ton per mile into Ontario. I believe that that would enable our Saskatchewan lignite miners to retain the market in Winnipeg which they have established through hard work. It would be nothing more than justice.

Mr. YOUNG:

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the worst feature of this system of granting bonuses and handouts to special industries or special localities is, to borrow an expression of the Prime Minister, the fact that it debauches the people with their own money.. It is proposed to take money out of the public treasury in order to pay part of the freight on coal from Nova Scotia into Ontario. It is proposed to take money out of the treasury to pay a part of the freight on coal from Alberta into western Ontario. It is proposed to take money out of the public treasury to pay part of the freight on coal from Alberta and Saskatchewan into Manitoba. It is proposed also to take money out of the public treasury in order to bonus bunker coal mined in British Columbia to the extent of 25 cents per ton. The result is that every hon. member who has any coal industries in his constituency is clamoring for more handouts. Even the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) whom we have looked upon as being one of the incorruptible members of this house, so far forgets the principles upon which he and his party were elected as to ask for an extension of this principle to certain kinds of coal mined in his district. I would ask the government to tell me candidly upon what principle of equity one man's money can be taken to pay another man's freight. What right has the government to ask the farmers of Saskatchewan, who perhaps are suffering more from the present depression than any other class of people in Canada, to pay a part of the freight on coal hauled from Alberta right past their own doors to the city of Winnipeg in order that the people there may get coal more cheaply than it can be obtained in Saskatchewan?

Mr. MaeDONALD (Cape Breton South): Did not the hon. member support this identical thing last year when the Liberal government brought in its subvention?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

Mr. YOUNG:

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

Mr. BENNETT:

It is the hon. member's own mistake.

Mr. YOUNG:

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

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, even at this late hour I am afraid I must intervene for the purpose of answering the observations made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I think no more imperative duty rests upon any government than to assist the development of the natural re-[DOT] sources of the country. Even the most rabid free trader will agree to that doctrine, with perhaps one notable exception and that only when in opposition. When not in opposition the hon. member espouses the cause of the protectionist and votes gladly for bounties to be paid to the coal industry when proposed by the ministry he supports; when that ministry is out of power, he finds it not convenient so to do, and he asks upon what principle the taxpayers of Canada are asked to contribute to the development of the resources of the country. The answer is a fairly resonable one-the greatest good to the greatest number. For the same reason that five cents per bushel is being paid to the farmer for his wheat, this contribution is being made with respect to coal. On the same basis that the producers of wealth in eastern Canada are willing to assist other sections of the country in times of crisis, I take it that when in an emergency we endeavour to develop the natural resources of the country we might expect that those who are most prone to dwell upon the necessity of the development of these resources would give their assistance to the policies so proposed.

There is no country in all the world so blessed with coal resources as is Canada One can commence at the most westerly point, Vancouver island, travel to the most easterly point, Cape Breton, and he will find coal in every part of the country with the exception of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where the geological formation is such that coal has not yet been found in substantial quantities. Coal is found on Vancouver island, and to the north of the Skeena river where there are deposits of anthracite coal unrivalled in the world. The late Lord Rhondda said that

within a century he believed these deposits would be looked upon as being the most outstanding in the world.

East of the mountains we have the great deposits to which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) referred. In the southern portion of British Columbia and extending into Alberta there are great deposits. Alberta is underlaid with three layers of coal. The upper layer is not so good, but of the second and third layers of lignite I shall speak presently. In the north, the hardness of the coal makes it a semi-anthracite, while in the south, outside of the Lethbridge field, we find the great fields of coking coal. The coke ovens at Hosmer and Fernie supplied coke for many years to the mines at Great Falls, Montana. This was continued until our neighbours put up their tariff and made it impossible for us to meet successfully their requirements. This field was opened up through the vision of the late J. J. Hill and Elias Rogers in order to supply the requirements of the Great Northern Railway. The deposits in that area supplied for many years the requirements of a great number of people and enterprises in the United States, but later on the tariff of the United States provided that if we imposed a tariff upon the importation of bituminous coal into our country, an equal countervailing tariff would immediately become applicable against our coals.

Lignite coal has developed a substantial market in the state immediately south of the province of Alberta. The grade of lignite coal at Lethbridge has the reputation of being the finest domestic fuel of that type that we have any evidence of in that part of Canada, and the result is that substantial quantities of that lignite coal are bought not only in the state immediately south but also a little to the west in eastern Washington. Those exports have grown to very considerable magnitude. If a duty be now imposed upon lignite, under a recent ruling of the treasury the effect would be the same as though it were bituminous coal and the countervailing duty would immediately apply.

The coal referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that reached Vancouver from Bellingham is not, according to my appreciation of the proper definition of the term, lignite coal. Lignite coal, according to the definition arrived at by our scientists, Doctor Haanel being our representative, means a coal that carries six per cent or more of moisture. Many tests of varied character have been imposed to determine what constitutes lignite coal, but finally scientists arrived at the conclusion that the fair and the

3S17

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

only effective test that could be applied was that of moisture content. It was therefore concluded that if coal carried a moisture content of six per cent or more it should be classified as lignite. If it carried a less moisture content, it should be classified, as we speak colloquially, as semi-bituminous, or really as a bituminous coal. The result is, in my appreciation of the matter, that the plea which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has expressed this evening as to the loss of market to the coal of Vancouver island, because of the effect of the application of the countervailing duty in the United States upon coal, is perhaps unwarranted. In other words, if the United States coal is not lignite, then it cannot be said that the countervailing duty shall apply to it. That is, if the coal coming in from Bellingham is not a lignite coal, it is not affected by this item. Thait is as far as that goes.

But let us proceed a step further as we come east. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba there is a further deposit of lignite coal. Scientists tell us that the quality of that coal is not as high as that of the lignite coal to which I have previously referred. It is now being briquetted. During the war and after we spent a substantial sum of money in experiments, in this connection, as a result of which, supplemented by more recent scientific knowledge, that area or measure of coal has been developed by the production of briquettes and a substantial market has been created in the city of Winnipeg and elsewhere in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the products of those mines.

There are then no further coal deposits until you come east to the province of New Brunswick, where at Minto you have a substantial deposit of a soft quality of coal which has been utilized to some extent to meet the requirements of the railways and as a fuel for the population. Then there are the great deposits of coal on Cape Breton island and elsewhere in Nova Scotia. In fact, one might fairly say that the whole province of Nova Scotia is underlaid with coal. It is a singular circumstance that the cost of production of coal in Vancouver island has reached a very high mark, and it is undersea mining, and that in the island of Cape Breton the cost has also reached a high level and it is likewise undersea mining. Therefore you have, 3,000 miles apart, two great coal measures, the winning of coal from which necessitates undersea mining. Those are the conditions that confront the Canadian people.

When I say that there has been a universal expression of opinion on the part of Canada -and I speak broadly-that there should be developed a national fuel policy, I state but the bald truth. It is not quite correct for the hon. member for West Edmonton to take the credit to himself or to the administration of which he was a member, for, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has remarked, this was not the outcome of the thought in the mind of one man or two men or a government. During the war it was realized it was absolutely essential for a country such as this, possessing the vast resources we have, to utilize and develop them, and the sums expended in Saskatchewan together with the sums expended for the production of tri-nitro-toluol during the war indicated, first, the value of our deposits, and, second, the necessity for their development. Under those circumstances I say that every part of Canada was agreed that we should endeavour to originate and maintain a national fuel policy. Spasmodic efforts had been made to this end. The question was: How was the result to be attained?

I think we are almost in agreement when I say that two methods and two only offered themselves for the moment: one, the utilization of tariff as an instrument for that advancement, and, second, the payment of such moneys as would enable equality of cost to be established if possible to those who had to use the coal. It may well be said that bonuses and bounties are objectionable, and yet two of the greatest industries we have in Canada to-day owe their origin to a bounty. I recall the first session I was in the house that a bounty was extended to lead, and the great industry that has now developed to such an extent at Trail owes its origin to a small bounty that was given for the production of lead. The same thing is true with respect to copper refining, and there are other matters that one might mention. Bounties, bonuses, have been applied almost from time immemorial for the purpose of developing in the early days the great natural resources of a country-and when I say "early days," I mean the early stages of their development. In other words, to aid pioneering effort in that regard we have utilized the public purse, because we believe we are aiming to establish a national policy that in the end will be advantageous to every part of the country, east and west, north and south.

It is possible of course the price paid may be too great; but possessing as we do 12 per cent of all the known coal in the world, we do not believe it is at all reasonable that the Canadian people should have to send $25,000,-

3S1S

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

000 or $30,000,000 abroad for the purchase of a commodity which exists an such quantities in our midst. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni quoted from observations that were made by members of the party which I had the honour to lead in opposition, and an extract, I think, from the platform adopted by the party at Winnipeg. I agree with the hon. member for West Edmonton that the consensus on the part of the Canadian people was that such a policy should be adopted. Having adopted it and having secured from the electorate a mandate, this government proceeded to put that policy into effect. The extent to which the government may be able in its first session to realize all its hopes and expectations in that regard is in the lap of the gods. But this at least we have done: we have, I think I may say without egotism, made a courageous step forward in that direction. If that be so-and I think most people will admit it is so-the letters read to-night-are interesting, not because of their flattery of individuals or their tribute to what has been accomplished, but rather because they indicate an appreciation of the effort that has been made to develop a national policy in this respect.

That being so, let us see what the position is in detail. It has been suggested that as regards Vancouver island we should pay a bonus of $1 or $1.25 a ton for every ton of coal exported. Representations have been made to me 'by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Diickie). No man is more moved by the pain and suffering of others than the hon. member for Nanaimo, and in season and out of season he has urged upon me and upon other members of the government the desirability, nay the necessity, of action being taken for the purpose of providing against the calamity that threatened the miners in the Nanaimo and Ladysmith areas. I received a deputation consisting of himself, the member for Comox-Albemi and the candidate who opposed him in the recent election. They presented to me a petition signed by thousands of people. The gravemen of the petition was this: Here was an industry that might fall, and the calamity would be very great. There is one of the oldest coal mines in the country. The almost romantic circumstances under which -that coal deposit was discovered will be recalled. A pioneer Scotchman crossed the isthmus of Panama and made his home on what is now known as the island of Vancouver. He disturbed with his foot a piece of coal, and having a true appreciation of the value of coal, he at once saw what he believed to be a great opportunity for development. He developed the

coal deposit, and the family of Dunsmuir was associated with that development through I think two generations, when the industry passed into the hands of a corporation. Its securities were offered to the public under circumstances that put a very high value upon the deposit, shall I say, and it has been very difficult since for that corporation to make sufficient profit to meet its fixed charges. For a time it was in the hands of a receiver- I speak subject to correction as to that-

Yes.

Mr. BENNETT:

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

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

Now it is said that to assist that industry we should have been willing to put a duty on fuel oil coming into this country. I have already said in this house, and I repeat it tonight, that the time has gone by when that remedy would have redressed the grievance complained of. The time to do that was when oil was a new fuel and before it became a serious competitor of coal. But that day went by. At present there is a duty of half a cent on fuel oil. That duty was imposed by the Minister of Finance of that day for the purpose of encouraging the coal industry of British Columbia and other parts of Canada. It was not a Conservative minister of finance that placed that duty on fuel oil. But great industries have been built up on the Pacific slope, paper mills, lumber mills and other industrial enterprises, in which the furnaces are arranged for the utilization of fuel oil, and this has created such a situation that to pass legislation that would have the effect of preventing the use of fuel oil for those industries would bring wreck and ruin upon them. In the early part of this year it was suggested that we should enact legislation placing a higher duty upon fuel oil. I should like to assure the house that within a few days after that suggestion was made in the press we were actually receiving from those industries telegrams by the score stating very frankly that to do so would spell ruin to them in these days. I mention that because it has been suggested-and the hon. gentleman did it very insinuatingly-that under the circumstances we could not be expected to place a duty against fuel oil. Now there is a duty against it. To have increased that duty would have brought about the conditions to which I have referred.

But there was a far greater difficulty than that. You had your duty on crude oil. The crude oil was brought in as a raw product. It was treated at the refineries on the Pacific coast-whether the Imperial, the British American or the Shell, matters not-and after the gasoline was extracted there was left a residuum that becomes the fuel oil of commerce. It was suggested that that fuel oil should bear an additional tax. Now, how would it be possible to put an import tax upon the residue after the raw material had paid duty and there had been extracted from that residue the commodity for which it had been imported? Clearly, it would have to be an excise tax, and to impose an excise tax would be injurious to the very interests that I have mentioned and would not, I think have given the redress which has been sought.

At any rate, the government did study the problem and arrived at the conclusion that on the balance of economic results to this country it was not warranted at this time in doing so.

Recently the miners of England and Wales have been carrying on an agitation demanding that fuel oil should be no longer used on battleships, but that the admiralty should return to the use of coal, for the very reasons that have been given in this house. And yet Britain with her immense coal deposits and no petroleum deposits has been compelled by the very nature of things-the economic value of fuel oil, its cleanliness in use, its superiority in quickly raising steam, and its other advantages-to use it for her battleships and other naval craft. The great ocean liners that come into Montreal, Quebec and New York, and an increasing number of cargo ships are driven by fuel oil. It may not be improbable that in the laboratories of our great universities or in those of our research council there is some young man working on the problem of converting into liquid form the coal of these great western deposits. I hazard no guess, but I have every reason to believe that as progress is made in scientific research some such result will be achieved. In the meantime by subventions, by tariffs, or by any other means within the power of this government, we will use every effort to bring about an orderly sustained development of the great coal resources of Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people.

If it be felt at times that a given policy does not result in the uniform advantage that those in all parts of this vast Dominion seek and expect, we can say only that in a country so vast, with a population so limited, it is not to be expected, in the nature of things, that from the very inception of these efforts you can secure uniform results. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) referred to steam coal. The largest consumers of steam coal are the two great railway companies. The development of the mines on the Canadian National railways are for the use of those railways. For its own purposes the Canadian Pacific Railway has carried on great developments at Bankhead, Hosmer and other points. The Great Northern Railway has developed the Fernie mines for its own use. We have reached a situation where steam coal to be used by private enterprises other than the great transportation companies is almost an impossibility, because as we come east the demand becomes more limited. There is an increasing use ol electricity. The hon. member for North

3820 COMMONS

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

Waterloo (Mr. Euler) referred to the white coal which has taken the place of black coal in western Ontario; that applies also in other parts of Canada. Around the city of Winnipeg industrial development has taken place; the waterfalls in that locality have been utilized and have brought about changed conditions. That applies in other parts of Canada, and British Columbia is no exception. I say to my hon. friends from that province that part of the difficulties under which they now labour have arisen from the utilization of electric power or energy in the development of the industrial life of that province,

I have dwelt upon these matters at greater length than I had intended, because after all I think it necessary that we should have a clear appreciation of these problems. It is not so much a matter of difference of policy, but sometimes it is a difference of methods and principles of approach. When my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni talks so strongly to-night I am wondering why he has been silent through all these years. What about the island in days gone by?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

May I say to my right hon. friend that the hon. member was not silent.

Mr. BENNETT:

His silence at least was

felt by those in the house, but not by those out of the house. His views were not put forward with that strength of conviction-

Mr. NEILL:

Oh yes, they were, again and again, in Hansard.

Mr. BENNETT:

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