February 11, 1926

CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

How? By

adjourning?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. NEILL:

I will tell the hon. gentleman that in a minute. Let me read something which I cut out of a newspaper which expresses the idea better than I can. It says:

The sentiment of the Canadian people for party is ebbing very low. What they want is not party triumphs, but action, action that will increase the earning power of the Dominion.

The Address-Mr. Neill

I think the longer we delay here, the less prestige will accrue to either party. The people did not send us here to squabble about finely drawn points of order. They do not applaud when we see such childish triumphs as we saw the other day of a large number of reputable members applauding a trivial incident in the mistake of the Clerk in announcing on a division that the government had fewer votes than they really had. They can get other people for less than $4,000 a year to do that sort of thing. As a protest against any further delay, I propose to vote against any future amendments, no matter what they are, to this particular motion, because I cannot regard them as anything but more or less calculated obstruction. My reason is that I want to get the legislation announced in the Speech from the Throne put through by parliament. I will answer the ex-Minister of Finance who asks: What business and when can we do it? What he means, I presume, is: Why cannot we sit on here? If I awaken my hired man in the morning and say to him: "It is time you got-to work", and if he goes out in his pyjamas, without boots, without his breakfast, and without an axe, at the end of the day, at what rate would I figure his intellect, his ability, and the results of his labour? I want the hired men, the government, to come here prepared for work, to have their programme ready, and then we will go on. I believe an adjournment is necessary to enable them to get their breakfast and their boots on, so to speak. When they do that and their measures are brought down, I intend to vote on each one of them entirely and separately on its merits.

Mr. 0. B. PRICE (Westmorland): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent the constituency of Westmorland in the province of New Brunswick in which is situated the city of Moncton, the hub of the Maritime provinces -and the former headquarters of the old Intercolonial railway. Conditions in industrial lines are not what they should be in that portion of eastern Canada, and aside from the employment situation as it exists at the present time, the farming industry is suffering. In that portion of New Brunswick we have a late season, a late spring and a very early fall, leaving a short season for our farmers, and any handicaps which may be placed in their path in the way of competition from outside in connection with dairy products or anything of that nature affecting the farming industry, would have a fatal result. The farmers in my constituency are

hard-working men. They have not the opportunities that farmers in other portions of Canada have. They have not 5 p.m. the freight rates and they have not the encouragement which others have in getting produce to markets where they can sell their goods at a profit. They have these difficulties to contend with, and in addition a great number of our young . men in the Maritime provinces have left for the United States to seek employment. While the employment bureaux throughout Canada may report that the employment situation is improving, if you will carefully examine the reports of the nearest United States Consul you will find out why those reports are forthcoming from the employment bureaux. The United States consuls are kept busy; they are working overtime making out passports for the young men and women of our country, the best we have, who are leaving to seek employment in the country to the south of us.

Freight rates have been very much in opposition to the progress of our farming industry. Our farmers find that they cannot pay the freights and look for a profit. For instance, from Charlottetown to Boston the distance is 770 miles and the freight on potatoes is 54 cents per 100 pounds. From Guelph to Boston, which is about the same distance-7G0 miles-the freight is only 47 cents per 100 pounds. As regards freight rates in connection with the lumbering industry, in which a great many of our farmers participate during the winter months, the same condition applies. Freight rates have increased so much that they cannot ship their lumber to the local markets which they formerly had accessible to them.

I am going to mention some of the obstacles which confront us in the Maritime provinces. The Maritime provinces are served largely by the Canadian National railways and more particularly by that part of it formerly known as the Intercolonial, which was built as part of the price of our entry into confederation, to enable us to market our products in central Canada. When this railroad was built the Maritime provinces formed a much larger proportion of the Dominion than they do today, and we consequently paid a much larger share of the cost of construction than is generally recognized. We have also borne a much larger share of federal expenditures on western railroads, central Canadian canals, harbours and other public works, from which the Maritime provinces derive little if any benefit. Among the several reasons which almost obliterated the Liberal party in the

The Address-Mr. Price

Maritime provinces, the railway situation was not the least. The revival of the Crowsnest pass rate and the Prime Minister's interference aroused our people to demand that like treatment be given the east, and his statement of October 29, 1924, at Vancouver, where, according to press reports, he said:

I shall! have to tell the people of the east that they will have rto wait until the west is satisfied.

caused considerable consternation amongst our people. When the Meighen government left office in 1921 the amalgamation of the various lines of railway now going to make up what is known as the Canadian National railway system had not been completed. During the election campaign of 1921 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), then Prime Minister, in a speech delivered in Moncton, gave considerable attention to the railway problem. He stated in the clearest terms the policy of his government and the policy of the board of management as then constituted. That policy was that on completion of the amalgamation the Canadian National railways should be composed of three grand divisions, one for the east, to be managed from Moncton, and the other two to be known as the central and western divisions. The eastern division, the present leader of the opposition said, should comprise the Intercolonial railway and all that part of the Grand Trunk system east of Montreal. Supporters of the Liberal party, as led by Mr. King, sought in every way to discredit my right hon. leader's policy as applied to the eastern division. They said that the Intercolonial railway should be divorced from the Canadian National system, and managed from Moncton, entirely free from outside dictation. They declared this would be done if the Liberal party, led by Mr. King was returned to power, and that the few officials sent to Toronto would be returned to Moncton. Moncton would then be the Chicago of the east. There was also to be a readjustment of freight rates to afford our manufacturing concerns and our farmers opportunity to compete in central Canadian markets as intended by the fathers of confederation. Theirs was to be a great policy for the old Intercolonial railway and the Maritime provinces.

What has since been done is a matter of record. When Mr. King became Prime Minister the old board of management, with Mr. Hanna at the head, was dismissed, and a new board created with Sir Henry Thornton as president. The amalgamation was completed largely along the lines laid down by the Hanna board and the Meighen government,

but with this difference: Instead of three

grand divisions there are but two grand divisions, designated as "regions," and one inferior division or region. The system as constituted by the King government and the Thornton management is made up as follows: Atlantic region-lines east of Riviere du Loup on the old Intercolonial and .east of Monk on the Transcontinental railway operated from Moncton, comprising about 2,800 miles; central region-lines west of Riviere du Loup on the old Intercolonial railway and west of Monk on the Transcontinental to Port Arthur and Armstrong, with 'Grand Trunk western lines and the line to Portland, Maine, operated from Toronto, total 8,670 miles; western region-lines west of Port Arthur and Armstrong to the Pacific coast, operated from Winnipeg, total mileage, 10,400. Under the Hanna board and the Meighen government the Moncton management extended all over the Intercolonial railway to Montreal and over the Transcontinental from Moncton to Armstrong in Ontario. Under the. Hanna-Meighen control the authority of the Moncton management extended to over 4,100 miles; under the Thornton-King control it extends over a distance of only 2,800 miles. The mileage taken from Moncton by Thornton and King is approximately as follows: Riviere du Loup to Montreal, 278 miles; Monk to Armstrong, Transcontinental, 1,050 -total mileage cut from Moncton control, 1,328 miles. The old Intercolonial railway from Riviere du Loup to Montreal is equal to the total mileage of the main line from St. John to Halifax. The line from Riviere du Loup to Montreal enjoys a large suburban freight and passenger business from the cities of Quebec and Montreal, the grades are easy, and it is one of the best paying sections of the old Intercolonial. The effect of cutting it off has not only been to degrade the Atlantic division from an operating standpoint but to discredit it in the matter of earnings. The officials have not been brought back to Moncton, but the staff of one of the largest offices has been removed to Montreal where the general management of the entire system is located. There is one exception- the Grand Trunk western lines, whose headquarters remain at Detroit, and I understand that owing to a ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission this section will not be included in the system. This, in brief, is the record of the two parties in connection with the Canadian National.

No greater injustice was ever done Moncton and the Maritime provinces than that done by the board appointed by the King govern-

The Address-Mr. Price

ment in the regional division of the Canadian National. And yet Premier King comes to the Maritime provinces and says he does not know what Maritime rights are! On October 29, 1925, the people of the Maritime provinces did not repeat the mistake they made in 1921; they returned 23 of their 29 members to oppose the King administration.

Now, Sir, this reduction of the mileage managed from Moncton, the hub of the Mari-times, did not occur without protest. The provincial government protested, and leading Liberals protested. The president of the Moncton Board of Trade wired to their representative, an ex-minister of state, either to do something or come home. A Maritime delegation visited Ottawa, met Premier King, and returned home disappointed.

Under the Hanna management the audit department had been satisfactorily conducted at Moncton, including audit work on all lines west to Winnipeg, while the headquarters of the directors were located at Toronto. With the management moved to Montreal by Sir Henry Thornton, 300 miles nearer to Moncton, the Liberal party thought the change of offices unnecessary and resented it. A reduction in staff affecting 115 families in one department followed, as well as a reduction in pay, except that of officials, who received a substantial increase.

During the forty-seven years from confederation to the end of 1915, when the Intercolonial railway began to be consolidated with the other roads that now form the Canadian National Railway system, the expenditure on the Intercolonial, together with that on the Prince Edward Island railway and all the branches of both lines, was $117,622,410. The total operating deficits for all those forty-seven years were $11,869,762. Since then very little has been spent on the Maritime roads, but over a billion dollars has been spent on the Canadian National system in central and western Oanada, to which the Maritime provinces have contributed their proportionate amount. During 1924 the total expenditure on the Canadian National Railway system amounted to $320,123,579, which was about one and a half million more than the total expenditure of the Dominion government, including interest on the national debt. During that year the total earnings of the Canadian National Railways were $201,224,493, and the total net deficit was $118,899,186, which is about $1,200,000 more than all the money that has been spent on the Intercolonial railway from confederation to the end of 1915. In 1923 the net deficit of the Canadian National Railways was $116,033,186. During these two

years the total mileage owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways was not increased; in fact there was a noticeable decrease in this item during these two years. At the beginning of 1923 the total mileage owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways was 20,314, and at the end of 1924 it was 20,267. Nor does the earning power of the road seem to be improved by the continued expenditure of these large amounts annually, for the deficit continues to grow, at least in so far as all returns to date show.

Just let us look at this gigantic annual expenditure for a few moments. Had all other Canadian railways spent a proportionate amount, the per capita expenditure for railway services in Canada during 1924 would have been nearly $75. The per capita expenditure of all - railroads in Canada during that year was $64.30, which is about twice as high as it should be. The per capita cost in South Africa for the same year, where they have nearly twice the mileage proportionate to population-one mile per 130 of the white population, whereas Canada has one mile for 219-it was $42.50. In Australia, where there is also a greater mileage proportionate to population-one mile per every 203-the per capita cost was $37.80. In New Zealand, it was $23.65 during the same year.

In the annual statement of the Canadian National Railways for 1924 there is some evidence of attempts to curtail expenditures, but it is interesting to see where these occur. The outlay on trainmen during that year was cut by $1,124,965, as compared with the previous year. The outlay on train engineers was decreased by $1,021,607 as compared with the previous year. Also the item under station employees was reduced by $448,280, but the item of superintendents was increased by $286,815 and the item of salaries and expenses of general officers was increased by $35,615.

The average hourly rate of the poorest paid class of employees was reduced from 32.1 cent per hour in 1923 to 27.2 cents per hour in 1924, while the class with an average hourly rate of $1.26.2 per hour in 1923 was increased to $1.33.5 in 1924. I have especially referred to these details for two purposes: first, to

point out that they show quite a tinge of selfishness and a strong disposition to work along the lines of least resistance, which you will agree is not indicative of the highest type of executive. And I refer to it for the purpose of correcting an impression that it is the wage earner in the railroad business who is getting the plums. Unskilled help in the employ of the Canadian National Railways in my constituency is very poorly paid and the semi-

The Address-Mr. Price

skilled help together with our skilled mechanics have been obliged to accept a reduction per hour since 1922.

The Maritime provinces contain little more than one-ninth of the population of Canada and hence are contributing about $13,000,000 a year to the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, which is nearly $2,000,000 a year more than the total amount of the operating deficits of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways for the forty-seven years previous to 1915.

It is difficult to ascertain how much of these high annual expenditures of the Canadian National Railways is being spent in the Maritime provinces. The most we can do is to form a general idea from an examination of a few items, and one of the best is that iabelled "Industrial and Immigration Bureau." The expenditure under this heading is made to bring in settlers and to encourage and assist in the creation of new industries and the development of the country's natural resources.

In 1919 the total amount spent by the Canadian National Railway system under this heading was $101,430.64, of which $912.12 was spent in the interest of the Intercolonial. In 1920, $153,979.18 was spent on this item of which $3,479.47 waj spent on the Intercolonial. Out of a total of $156,475.37 spent on this item in 1921, $6,294.77 was spent on the Intercolonial. In 1922 the total spent was $127,937.99, of which the Intercolonial received $10,334.71. In

1923 the total spent was $284,618.24 and in

1924 it amounted to $728,157.04, but in the report for these two years the expenditures are not separated so there is no way of ascertaining how much was spent in the interests of immigration and industrial development in the Maritime provinces. Unlike the Canadian Pacific Railway no attempt has been made through colonization to create traffic through a country capable of development.

There has not been enough attention given to this important matter. The money contributed for these and like purposes by our people has been spent on other parts of Canada.

But there is another more important factor that we have overlooked. The Intercolonial railway was built to enable the people of the Maritime provinces to reach the markets of central Canada at a transportation cost that would enable them to compete with goods produced in Quebec and Ontario.' Prior to ten years ago we were able to do this fairly well. But since the absorption of the Intercolonial with the Canadian National system the whole rate structure has been changed. The central 14011-58

Canada markets are no longer within our reach. In fact the eastbound freight rates, classifications and conditions are so much in favour of eastbound freight as compared with that going west that we are finding it difficult and in many cases impossible to hold our own interprovincial trade against the competition of goods from central and western Canada. The local freight rates of less than carload lots between Maritime points is in many cases higher than the through rates on the same class of commodity from Ontario and western points.

There is still another important point that has been overlooked. We are annually contributing millions to the support of the Canadian National Railways which are regularly and deliberately carrying large quantities of Canadian tonnage for export to the port of Portland, Maine, to the detriment of our Maritime ports. The Canadian National Railways, have an agreement with the White Star line to deliver as much tonnage as possible to its boats at that port. Some facts concerning this agreement are to be found in the evidence given by Mr. D. O. Wood of the freight department of the Canadian National Railways before a select committee of the United States Shipping Board and Emergency Fleet Corporation, exhibits of testimony, part A, pages 432-434. I mention this report to show that the port of Portland has been built up by Canadian traffic. I think it is the duty of this government to remedy this situation, and to bring this freight which at present is being exchanged between the White Star-Dominion lines and the Grand Trunk at Portland, Maine, over Canadian railways, to St. John and Halifax.

The examination of Mr. D. O. Wood, general foreign agent, Grand Trunk Railway, follows:

Commissioner Thompson: What is your official

capacity, Mr. Wood?

Mr. Wood: General foreign freight agent of the

Grand Trunk Railway.

Commissioner Thompson: Proceed, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Wood: Mr. Commissioner and gentlemen: We

only have one agreement at the present time at Portland, Me., and that is with the White Star Dominion line. This agreement or contract is a survival of a very ancient one, possibly 30 years old. The present agreement is dated August, 1913, and may be terminated on six months' notice, said notice to be given prior to the March 1st of the calendar year.

I think, sir, that I had better give a little history of this service, because it is very pertinent to the question under consideration. In the first place, the service at Portland we have with the White Star Dominion line, is simply a continuation of a service which applies to the port of Montreal in summer time. Portland, as you are aware, is the only winter port so far as trans-Atlantic service is concerned. In the early days of the Grand Trunk Railway it was almost impossible to have any steamship in the

The Address-Mr. Price

* Atlantic service come to that port, by reason of the fact that it was the one port in the United States to which it was difficult to send traffic. If you will note the situation, there is only the one line that can initiate traffic and send it to Portland, and that is the Grand Trunk Railway. The Boston & Maine Railroad is in Portland, but they are on the other side, not at the docks, and I understand that their interests will be Boston.

The traffic which comes through the port of Portland is, I should say, without going into exact figures, possibly 80 or 90 per cent of Canadian origin.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Frederic Kay

Liberal

Mr. KAY:

I rise to a point of order. Has the hon. member's speech anything to do with the amendment before the House?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have already desired hon. members to adhere in their speeches to the question at issue. In the present instance the amendment has reference to the dairy industry and as far as possible hon. members must connect their statements with that subject. On the other hand, I am bound to remind the House that new members are usually given some latitude, particularly in two debates, the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and the budget. Hon. members who speak to the amendment at present before the House might not have an opportunity to discuss the Address itself inasmuch as if the amendment were adopted the nature of the Address would be affected. I think, therefore, that some latitude might be afforded hon. members. However, I would ask hon. gentlemen not to forget that there is an amendment before the House, and if they speak on the Address they must relate their remarks to the amendment.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Otto Baird Price

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PRICE:

The report goes on:

The large amount of tonnage which you have noted in your records as having been put through Portland in 1920 consisted chiefly of grain, of which some four hundred and odd thousand tons was taken up by tramp steamers-no regular line. Of course, the regular lines received a certain amount; all lines do take a certain amount of grain, but the chief commodity shipped through Portland is grain, and that grain is almost entirely of Canadian origin.

Commissioner Thompson: You don't mean combination passenger-and-cargo liners?

Mr. Wood: I mean liners, whether combination or regular freighters, as long as they are in the regular line. The grain, as I have said, is almost entirely of Canadian origin. It may happen in some steamship companies when there will be a big crop of American corn, that there might be some corn coming through Portland, but not to any great extent.

Now, the port of Portland has been practically built up by the Grand Trunk railway, and largely from Canadian traffic. There are other lines coming to Portland, of course, besides the White Star Dominion, but we have no contract, with them; they come there because we were instrumental in the early days in having them come there by trying to help them fill their ships as far as we could. We have now worked up a trade which enables them to come there with limited service. We have at the present time at Portland

arranged at this season for three lines, all of which are using United States Shipping Board vessels. The Rogers and Webb line-at least Rogers and Webb are the agents, having certain vessels assigned them-are using the port for service to Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg. The Sprague line, so-called agents, will use the port for Scandinavian service. We have another line, the Northern and Western Steamship Co.-and this may seem rather peculiar-operating Shipping Board boats who take traffic through the Panama canal to the western coast of the United States, so that we have a United States Shipping Board line helping us to reduce our transcontinental rates by rail.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Mr. POTJTJOT@Translation

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member instead of referring to his notes is reading the text itself of his speech which, moreover, has no connection with the subject under discussion. I raise the point of order simply because the hon. member is not allowed, under the rules of the House, to read his speech,

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is true that members may not read their speeches; that is contrary to the usage of parliament. The hon. gentleman who has the floor must not read his speech, but should simply refer to his notes. I have followed the hon. member since he began his remarks this afternoon, and I have thought he was only referring to his notes. Besides, hon. members who have sat longer in the House must be indulgent towards the new members who are just, as it were, breaking the ice. Now, as regards relevancy, Redlich's Parliamentary Procedure, volume II, page 59, confirms what I have already said:

The general political character of the king's speech leads to the result that the course of the debate upon it is untrammelled as to subject-matter, a circumstance to which the modern adoption of the principle that general debates should be as much as possible avoided has given great importance. General criticism of the government from all imaginable points of view, demands for redress of grievances, the statement of aspirations and proposals of all kinds, are rendered possible.

So, as one can see, in the debate on the Address and in the budget debate members are not confined to speaking strictly to the question, though they must not wander too far away from it. Free scope is given to hon. members in order that they may bring to the attention of parliament any grievances which may exist throughout the country. I think I am justified in applying to the present case this principle which is laid down by Redlich, one of the greatest authorities on parliamentary procedure.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Otto Baird Price

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PRICE:

This matter to which I have directed attention is entirely in the hands of the government. We have taken over this Grand Trunk railway, and even its officials, and the White Star line could be asked to make St. John or Halifax their port, and the

The Address-Mr. Price

Canadian National railway carry on through our own Canadian ports, exchanging cargoes at our own wharves. This would answer the cry for a return cargo, which is one of the many objections which are raised.

It may be pointed out in this connection that the cars carrying a great deal of the grain which is shipped through American ports come back light, as there is no traffic offering in the opposite direction. In 1889, when the Canadian Pacific railway completed its Transcontinental system between Vancouver and the port of St. John, and when energetic efforts were entered upon to renew and enlarge the development of the port of St. John, the Canadian Pacific Railway showed a very kindly feeling and co-operated closely with the business men of St. John. For many years the winter port traffic of Canada had been going through Portland and other United States Atlantic ports. The federal government had been rendering assistance by granting subsidies to steamship lines carrying Canadian goods through the port of Portland. The people of St. John made a strong appeal for the utilization of the port of St. John for Canada's winter port traffic, and they demanded that the subsidy contracts that were being granted to the steamers from Portland, Maine, should cease. The withdrawal of these subsidies was decided upon in 1896, and on December 3, 1895, the Lake Superior docked at the Canadian Pacific Railway's Sand Point wharf. This was the turning of the tide, and a little later the $25,000 subsidy was withdrawn from Portland and given to St. John, as well as $325,000 for harbour improvements. St. John, let it be said, has contributed over $2,000,000 of its own money for harbour and dock improvements. Now if the contract of 1896 could be cancelled by the Dominion government, as I have pointed out was done, in order to transfer the subsidy from an American port to a Canadian port, it is my opinion that the Dominion government could to-day bring about a change in the agreement between the Grand Trunk and the Dominion White Star line.

I wish now to submit a comparative statement regarding the transportation of grain from Port Arthur to St. John, and Port Arthur to Portland. It has already been stated that to move 50,000,000 bushels the difference in favour of Portland represents approximately $197,000. For the sake of argument we may say that the difference is $200,000, in favour of Portland. To move this amount of grain will require approximately 1,250 trains, or ten trains per day for four months. These trains, each containing 40000 bushels, will require the labour of 100

train men per day on one subdivision alone of the Canadian National railway, and at the average -rates of pay will represent $500 per day. The coal used on these trains will cost $600 per day. So that we have a total of

2,000 train. miles per day at an approximate cost of $8,000 per day, or $180,000 per month. The difference in train miles in carrying this amount of grain as between St. John or Portland would be approximately 900 train miles in the United States to 9,000 in Canada per day, giving the greater advantage of labour, supplies, coal and so on to the Canadian divisions of the National railway. Hon. gentlemen will readily understand the great benefit to be derived by our Canadian train employees by the movement of ten trains per day in and out of St. John over the Transcontinental railway, besides the incidental advantages to the merchants of St. John. To this statement should be added the salaries of elevator employees and the wages of dock yard hands, to say nothing of the money spent in connection with the visit of steamers to the city of St. John during the transportation of this grain. While the advantages already enumerated in favour of Portland over St. John may seem large, they are nothing in comparison to the gains to be made by St. John, by the employees of the Canadian National railways and by other branches of labour, in connection with the shipment of this grain, to say nothing of the far-reaching advantages to the merchants, shippers and citizens of the whole province.

From a casual glance at the map it might be thought that Portland lies in a more direct route to the European and other world markets than do the ports of St. John, Halifax and Sydney. But from a study of railway methods it will be found that routing does not depend so much upon this factor as it does upon the existence of a healthy interest on the part of the management and representatives. A few days ago a oar of maple sugar was sold by a Montreal merchant to Denver, Colorado. He asked for railway quotations and received a rate of S1.95J per hundred via Chicago, and $1,791 per hundred via Boston and Newport News. He accepted the lower rate and consequently, his goods were carried to Boston, transferred from the oar to the boat which took them to Newport News, again transferred from the boat to the car, and taken across the continent to Denver, Colorado. It is surprising the amount of Canadian freight that is being routed in a manner calculated to give the lion's share to American roads. This is due to the keen interest which the management of American roads and American

The Address-Mr. Price

shipping display. On the other hand I cannot see that there is much of this spirit shown on the part of any person in the interests of the Maritime railways and ports.

There is another matter which I am sure will surprise many people in this country, namely, the agreement which the Canadian National Railways has made within the last few weeks for the shipping of Canadian wheat via the port of Norfolk, Virginia. In this connection I wish to read from the Halifax Herald, of January 7, 1926, an item concerning the new agreement which Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors have entered into for the shipping of Canadian wheat within the last few weeks:

Baltimore will welcome new grain trade of great benefit to port. Large shipments of wheat from Canada's producing centres expected, says official.

An arrangement is expected to be completed in the near future between the Western Maryland Railway and the Canadian National Railways for the routing of Canadian grain destined for European shipment through Baltimore, it was announced last night by Maxwell C. Byers, president of the Western Maryland.

The traffic division of the Western has been working with the Canadian railroad on arrangements for some time. Mr. Byers said. It is probable that the project will go through within two weeks, he added, and shipment of grain via the Baltimore route would be started at once. Mr. Byers pointed out that the new arrangement would be beneficial to this port and many vessels probably would come here to load grain for European ports.

The Western Maryland has adequate facilities for handling the grain at its elevators and terminals at Port Covington, he declared, and large shipments could be handled here. He said a large part of the grain would consist of wheat. In the past the Western Maryland has had no such arrangement for routing Canadian grain through Baltimore, Mr. Byers explained. Much of the products has been exported via Canadian ports and New York, with a smaller quantity going through Philadelphia.

The arrangement for bringing the grain to Baltimore probably will be permanent, it was said.

Mr Byers pointed out that the Great Lakes are frozen at present and all grain must be shipped to ports by land routes. He declared the new arrangement would not damage the trade of Canadian summer ports, but would be a good thing for Canadian shippers. Wheat to this port will come from virtually all large wheat-producing sections of Canada, he said.

Arrangements with a number of American railroads :are necessary to bring the grain from the Canadian National Railways to the Western Maryland lines, Mr. Byers explained.

Now, Sir, if this government permits this agreement to be carried out it will be flying pretty strongly in the face of public opinion. We have been told that it is too long a haul to route grain from the west to the ports of Halifax and St. John. Very well; let us look into this question of mileage for a few-moments. In this connection I offer the following comparisons.

Railway Mileage Miles

Winnipeg to St. John, C.P.R 1,884

Winnipeg to St. John, C.N.R. via McGivney.. 1,862 Winnipeg to St. John, C.N.R. via Moncton.. 1,906

Winnipeg to Moncton 1,816

Winnipeg to Halifax (Transcontinental) 2,001

Winnipeg to Baltimore, Md. (Western Maryland Railway) 1,901.3

Winnipeg to Norfolk (U.S.A.) (Western Maryland Railway) 2,166.4

Ocean Distance Miles

Norfolk, U.S.A., to Liverpool, nautical miles. 3,233

Baltimore, U.S.A., to Liverpool 3,375

St. John, N.B., to Liverpool 2,700

Halifax to Liverpool 2,431

Now, Sir, it will be noticed that the shipment by rail from Winnipeg to- Liverpool via the Norfolk route is much longer than it is by the all Canadian route. That will be seen by reference to the following tables:

Miles

Rail route Winnipeg to Norfolk, Va 2,166.4

Ocean route Norfolk to Liverpool 3,235

Total 5,401.4

Winnipeg to Liverpool via Norfolk, Va 5,401.4

Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.P.R. via St. John,

N.B 4,584

Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.N.R. (Transcontinental)

via McGivney, St. John, N.B 4,562

Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.N.R. (Transcontinental)

via Moncton and St. John, N.B 4,606

Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.N.R. (Transcontinental)

via Halifax 4,432

.The Norfolk, Virginia route from Winnipeg to Liverpool is 969.4 miles longer than from Winnipeg to Liverpool via the Transcontinental through the port of Halifax; in other words the all-Canadian route is practically 1,006 miles shorter. From Winnipeg to Liverpool via Baltimore the distance is 844.3 miles greater than the all-Canadian route through the port of Halifax and 714 miles greater than via St. John. Yet Canada, with its Transcontinental line which cost $170,000,000, built specially for the purpose of transporting traffic through Canadian territory to Canadian ports, permits the carrying of grain over a thousand miles longer haul through United States territory to United States ports on to Liverpool, with a loss of $20,000,000 in wages and transportation charges which should rightly go to our own army of unemployed and mechanics and trainmen who are idle in Oanada. There are permanent employees of our railways today paying into a Provident Fund, and losing time most valuable to their superannuation allowance if they are to participate in the benefits of that fund.

Let us show to the Canadian people, and to our neighbours to the south, that there is one policy at least upon which we can all agree, an east and west policy, a policy providing for the transportation of Canadian

The Address-Mr. Price

products at rates which will bring the eastern and western sections into contact with our central provinces, creating an internal development which Canada has long required. If we are to progress as the Fathers of Confederation intended, there must be harmony and contentedness among our people. The Maritimes are entitled to traffic and commercial union with central Canada. They will never consent to company control of that portion of the Canadian National Railways known as the Intercolonial railway from Montreal east through the Maritimes.

Another matter which I would like to bring before the House is in connection with the taxes which arc paid by the Canadian National Railways. I wish to show that the Maritime provinces do not get a fair deal. For the year ending December 31, 1924, the provincial and municipal taxes paid by the Canadian National Railways were as follows:

Provincial Taxes Municipal Taxes

Nova Scotia .. 6,092 25 16 25New Brunswick.. .. 45 70Quebec .. 1,350 00 419,370 97Ontario .. 371.042 65 940,089 65Manitoba .. 523,692 00 32,730 37Saskatchewan .. 76,212 00 10,126 00Alberta .. 16,239 82 108,583 19British Columbia.. .. 46,417 00 102,731 60United States .. 103,590 00 78,290 33$1,245,806 08 $1,691,984 06

Of the $2,937,790.14 in taxes, municipal and provincial, received by the Canadian provinces and the United States of America, the Maritimes get $6,154.20. of which New Brunswick get $45.70. With headquarters, immense shops and offices located at Moncton, and with the large equpiment that goes with the Railway department, it seems that our city should get something in taxes. The total provincial and municipal taxes paid by the Canadian National Railways in 1924 was $2,937,790. Of this amount the Maritime provinces, proportionate to population, contributed $325,000, but the Maritime provinces only received $6,154.20, while the othei provinces and the United States received the balance of $2,931,625.94, including the $319,000 contributed by the Maritime provinces, which on any equitable basis, would have gone to the Maritime provinces. This gives some idea of what the Maritimes contribute and what they receive.

The King government, while promising to complete the Hudson Bay railway at once and at any cost, puts off the Maritimes with the promise of investigation by a royal commission. But why a royal commission? Maritime rights were written into the statutes

of the country at confederation, when the Intercolonial railway was built, and again when the Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental railways were projected. Premier King and his colleagues cannot be ignorant of these facts. A royal commission could learn nothing new and could not suggest anything that could not be brought about by the government and parliament without delay. A royal commission is just a way of putting off the day of reckoning. Is the patronizing of American ports not an acknowledgment on our part of our inability to make use of our well equipped railways, including the Transcontinental? If we were waiting for the construction or the completion of a railway through our own country to sea ports on our own coast, then there would have been an excuse for the use of American lines, but having built particularly the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton at an enormous expense to the country for the express purpose of carrying freight-over Canadian lines to Canadian ports, it does seem that our own means of transportation should be put to work, and if facilities at our Atlantic ports are inadequate for the handling of grain, the construction of any additional requirements should be started forthwith.

The sympathy and help of our Canadian people will not be withheld from any province in this Dominion whose population is struggling with embarrassments and disabilities which can be remedied by the enforcement of legislation already on our statutes. What we want is our rights in the premises; we want justice; we want the Maritimes to function as an active part of the whole Dominion; we want to share the pulse beat of Canadian expansion and advancement. We want the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Maritime ports made use of in accordance with the express provisions under which it was constructed. We want the pledge that its construction would mean the transportation of freight originating in Canada over an all Canadian line to the Atlantic seaboard carried out in every particular. Had we the hundredth part of that spirit of foresightedness, aggressiveness and determination possessed by the Fathers of Confederation, we would not require months to solve our present day problems. If we are going toi become an independent country in due course of time, we must approach these questions in a spirit of determination and sane judgment to find a solution for our disabilities.

Consider the case of the Maritime provinces. They did not seek the union. Mr. The Address-Mr. Price

Tilley, afterwards Sir Leonard' Tilley, made that clear at the Quebec conference in 1864, when he said, "Delegates from the Maritime provinces are not seeking this union", and the people of New Brunswick confirmed it in 1865 when they voted almost solidly against confederation, while Prince Edward Island withdrew from the negotiations and did not come in until later. It is true that New Brunswick reversed its position in 1866, after its governor had been recalled to London and returned a convert to the union and most urgent appeals were made to the loyalty of a people whose loyalty to the flag has been a tradition ever since the close of the American revolution. The people of Nova Scotia did not get a chance to vote on the question until after the union had been consummated, but they overwhelmed its authors in the first federal election thereafter. However, the Maritimes came in and took up their struggle against great odds, with what result? They are unable to compete industrially with the central provinces unless they are permitted to share in the special concessions granted other provinces in the matter of getting their natural products to market. The Maritimes want a fair deal; they want justice, but they are net getting it.

What is the situation b>day? We present to the outside world a country wealthy in natural resources, the greatest wheat exporting country in the world, a country possessing a railway from our wheat fields, with four-tenths of one per cent grades built over a finely graded roadbed throughout Canada to Canada's own ports, the nearest ports to the word's largest markets on the North American continent. And what occurs? The largest percentage of many million bushels of grain exported finds its way to United States ports. It does not pass over our own lines to Canadian ports, but is Shipped to Boston, New York, New London, Buffalo, Philadelphia and as far south as Baltimore and Norfolk, West Virginia, the two latter being a longer haul than to the port of St. John. What of the millions paid over to United States railways to build up their ports and give employment to an army of trainmen, shopmen, longshoremen and wharf hands generally, while in Canada a magnificent railway built at an expenditure to the people of $170,000,000, constructed especially for the very purpose of handling this traffic, is allowed to rust, and our own trainmen, enginemen, machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, carpenters and painters, either remain idle or seek employment in the United States?

What is true of our railway situation is also true of our mining conditions. Millions of ton?

IMr. Price.]

of coal are imported from the United States, while the mines of Alberta and the Maritime provinces could well supply the Canadian market if given an opportunity. We want the Transcontinental put to work.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Joseph Elijah Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speeches recently delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mothenvell) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) dealing with the treaties -French, Australian and New Zealand-I am more convinced than ever that all these trade agreements are in opposition to the best interests of Canadian agriculture. If from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture you take the material prepared by the dairy commissioner in support of the government's position, and the bluff and bluster of the minister himself, you have very little left. Let me quote briefly from the speech, taking that part where the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) interjected a question:

Mr. Meighen: What about the French Treaty?

Mr. Motherwell: I was not aware that that affected the daily industry very substantially.

Mr. Meighen: The hon. member is not aware that it raised the duty against us on condensed milk by 50 per cent?

Mr. Motherwell: The effect has been so infinitesimal that even with the aid of powerful X-rays the dairymen have not been able to discover it yet.

Mr. Meighen: It killed the condensed milk trade with F ranee.

Mr. Motherwell: That is too bad.

Let us see what that treaty really did to our condensed milk trade with France. The following statement shows the condition at a glance:

Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Branch Exports of Canadian Condensed Milk from Canada to

France

Pounds Dollars

1922

4,367,900 568,1931923

60 231924

956,800 119,4051925

88,900 7,140

Note: The Franco-Canadian Trade Treaty was entered into on the 15th of December, 1922, but did not come into force until the 5th of September, 1923.

I have before me a statement prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, sent to me by Mr. Warne under cover of the following letter:

In compliance with request from Mr. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am mailing you herewith statement showing imports under treaty tariffs, of foodstuffs that compete with Canadian farm products, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925: showing (a) total imports under treaty tariffs; and (b) imports from France under French Treaty; also total fish imported under said treaty.

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)

I do not wish to burden the House by reading the whole statement; I will simply take certain portions of it and ask the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, to place the full statement on Hansard, in order that hon. members may realize this significant fact, that the tariff concessions granted to France are automatically extended to twelve other countries. Those countries have been sending their farm products into Canada to an extent that to my mind is alarming. Take, for instance, bakery products and prepared foods: the total value [DOT]of our imports from Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands under the French treaty amounted to $43,714; from France, $19,220. From Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands we also received canned fruits to the amount of 127,638 pounds; from France, 102,585 pounds.

Of cheese there came from Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands under the treaty 483,952 pounds, and from France 136,149 pounds. Of canned goods there came from Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands 3,100,364 pounds and from France 607,705 pounds. Coming into Canada in 1925 under the French treaty there was an aggregate of $1,223,906 worth of farm products which could all have been produced in Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

What did these imports consist of?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

Did I understand the hon. member to say that he was quoting from statistics prepared up to March 31, 1925, or has he given importations since the treaty came into effect?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO
CON

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

The Minister of Public Works says, less than that.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

The minister's estimate was less than that.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

He gave the figure of 4,000,000 pounds, but we will take it at less than that if the Minister of Public Works says so. But what assurance has the Minister of Public Works that not more than 4,000,000 pounds will come into this country during the present year?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

I have the same assurance that you have; you are just prophesying.

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

I am not prophesying; I am quoting the Minister of Agriculture.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

That is worse.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

February 11, 1926