February 12, 1926

CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

As usual, my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is right technically, because in the report itself increased protection, being regarded as a political question, is not dealt with; but I would refer him to the addendum to that report, which was what I had in mind. I venture to say that both gentlemen who sat on the commission with Mr. Hume Cronyn concurred in his view that increased protection was the only remedy, because, it seems to me, it is only the common sense viewpoint and therefore natural to concur in it. But apart from technicalities, this House as constituted-assuming that the government can continue to command a majority-will not be able to deal with the problem in the only practical manner possible, because as everybody from the Maritime provinces believes who has given the subject consideration, we must have increased protection on our coal and on our iron and steel products. I doubt even if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) will proclaim himself in opposition to an increased tariff on coal, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned.

Now, let us look at the situation. We are going to appoint another royal commission. Let us assume that that commission brings in a report to the effect that our coal industry can exist only by the imposition of increased protection, whether by way of an ad valorem or a specific duty. In what position is the government to carry out such a finding? Hon. gentlemen to my left are opposed to increased duties. They say that the solution of the coal problem in the Maritime provinces is to be found in a proper adjustment of freight rates. I am perfectly prepared to agree that in a very large sense transportation does enter into the solution. And, Mr. Speaker, after an absence of ten years from the House I am surprised to find that the genius of our people, as represented on both sides of this House, has not yet found a solution for our fuel difficulties, including rates on coal. It is no use for me to say that there is no ability on the other side of the House, Sir. There is ability there-not so much as there was before October 29-let us not be carried away by partisanship and deny that there is any ability among our friends opposite. I repeat, there is ability, but there seems to be lacking that determination to do something to solve any of the great problems that confront this country, particularly the fuel problem.

The Address-Mr. Foster

I have not a specific cure to offer the House, Sir, but I sometimes think-I hate to make the suggestion because I know it will be misconstrued-but I think that one party is afraid and the other dares not tackle this problem as the people have good reason to expect them to do. What is there about it that should frighten any party or any member? We are in control of the resources of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific-if we are not we ought to be. If we could do nothing else we could at least say to the one railway company that we own and control-for the board of management of the Canadian National Railways are the 'servants of this parliament, as we are the servants of the people-and we could say to that board: We require you to keep accurate accounts of the absolute cost of transporting coal from the Maritimes and from Alberta to the central markets of the Dominion. That is requirement number one. Then we could say to the premiers of the several provinces interested-and I submit that this would be a far better subject upon which to ask those premiers to confer with us than several other matters that I might mention; for instance, Senate reform; that can wait; we are in no great rush about that except that some of us are rushing to get into that chamber-we could say to those gentlemen: Coal is something that the people must have, whether we mine it ourselves or whether we import it from the United States, and therefore our fuel supply is of national importance. Now, let us divide the central provinces into three or four sections, ascertain the freight rate from the Maritimes and from Alberta to given points in those sections, and there set up municipal distribution centres, if you will, in co-operation with the provincial and federal authorities. Then let parliament, or whatever body has the power, say: We will

impose an ad valorem duty on coal sufficient to exclude the United States product, but the price of our coal to the Canadian people shall be so much and no more, that price to include a profit for the retailer, for the wholesaler and for everyone else who handles it- even for the producer. Hon. members may say to me: That is a fantastic doctrine. I do not care if it is. We have a national problem to solve, and this is a suggestion towards its solution. I would sooner hear a man make a foolish suggestion than remain silent.

I was speaking of the proposed royal commission. Suppose it inquires into this subject in Nova Scotia and finds that the transportation costs are too high; then what are we

to do? Day after day in this House we have seen the Minister of the {Interior (Mr. Stewart), whose department deals with manes, rise in his place and say: All freight rate

problems are settled by Sir Henry Thornton and his associates, and this government can do nothing to help you; you must go to them. Suppose the royal commission makes its report to this House, and these problems are presented to us; what is the government going to do then? Are they going to say: You must go to the railway under Sir Henry Thornton. We go there and he says: We

cannot carry this coal any cheaper; I am put here as the president of this road to show a profit, not to carry on in the interests of the people whom I was appointed to serve; I am here to show a profit rather than a loss, and I cannot lower those rates. Then how much further are we towards a solution of our problems in Nova Scotia?-assuming that the royal commission reports on this matter, and it is one of the things it cannot escape from reporting on.

While on the subject of coal, let me say this: We had a debate in this House this session lasting practically an entire day-I mention this in passing because it is of vital interest-and we debated the situation, and finally the government made certain suggestions. But what do we find? That between the government and the railway there is a snag of some kind existing, a hurdle which nobody seems to be able to get over. Besco, we are told, is willing to mine 15,000 tons of coal and bring it up to Montreal notwithstanding the fact that there is more coal banked there than they can use, and although they will lose one or two dollars a ton on this freshly mined coal; yet they are willing to absorb that loss, and all they ask the railway to do is to give them the same haulage rate as was given by the railway, at the instance of this government, on the haulage of coal from the west to the central provinces. That is all that Besco is asking. What is the .counter proposition? The counter proposition the railway makes to Besco is this: We are not satisfied to do our part; we are not satisfied that you should absorb a loss of $2 or S2.25 per ton, which you are willing to do; we ask you to bank this coal down at North Sydney, and we will take it off your hands as banked coal next summer. Then what is the situation? Besco finds, in the first place, that it will lose 50 cents a ton on banked coal. In the second place, with their facilities for banking they find it will cost from three to five dollars a ton more to bank that coal, with the cost of handling, and so

90S

The Address-Mr. Foster

forth. Therefore, they say, and very properly: While we are prepared to absorb a loss of $2 or $2.25 a ton if the railway will reduce its rate, we do not feel we ought to go all the way and take care of this charity proposition, because, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is; it is a charity proposition. All we are asking the people of Canada for is this: Eigh-t or

ten or fifteen thousand dollars. Why, this jHouse only a short time ago entered into an arrangement, over the heads of the Railway Commission altogether, whereby carrying charges on certain products in this country were reduced by $20,000,000, and we in Nova Scotia cannot get $10,000 to keep our people in the eastern part of the province from starving.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the major portion of the ills of the province of Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces generally is simply an excellent way of sliding over the difficulties and putting the whole thing into a pigeon hole. It is just getting by a serious situation, instead of tackling the problem as it exists to-day man-fashion.

I had some doubts in my mind, having been away for ten years, as to what the feelings of the central provinces and the rest of Canada was towards the difficulties in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and towards the difficulties in the Maritime provinces, and I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been absolutely amazed, and delighted at the same time, to find the representatives of the people from the rest of Canada who sit on this side of the House not only willing to consider the problems of the Maritime provinces and of the west, but anxious to help in affording a remedy when a remedy is proposed along sound, businesslike, common sense lines; and so, whereas there might have been a necessity a couple of months ago to get some of the men from the central provinces to come down into the province of Nova Scotia to look into our problems and difficulties, I find that with the delegation we have here from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, making their position clear in this House, there is not a man sitting cn this side of the House who is not willing to give his attention and his earnest consideration and assistance towards the solution of our problems-and that is a very happy thing.

I was not very much concerned as to the question of leadership until I began to examine into the situation, I may say frankly I am here as a supporter of the right hon. the leader of the opposition, not because I am so keen about the results that have accrued to the

Maritime provinces by virtue of confederation, for in my humble judgment we have contributed, and are still contributing year after year, far more than we have received; but how can you have a great united Canada unless there is a disposition to bear each others burdens. The problem is to find out how much of a contribution is necessary. Are we contributing more than our proper share? Is a royal commission going to find that out? Why, that is already on the records of Hansard here, and hon. gentlemen opposite have helped to put it there in the last fifteen or twenty years. We need no royal commission for that purpose, for the House is perfectly aware of these contributions and receipts. I am a follower of the right hon. leader of the opposition because he came to Nova Scotia and instead of asking, "What are your difficulties here, what are the Maritime rights so-called?" he recognized our problems, and went as far as he could to commit the party which he led to a sane solution of our problems, or some of them at least; and so I had no alternative but to support him. I was amazed in my home town of Kentville to find the Prime Minister of this country, if he gets a seat, making the statements that he did, surrounded as he was on that occasion by men I have known, some of them, for a considerable number of years. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are not without ability; but they did not seem to be able to impress upon the Prime Minister what the problems of the Maritime provinces were, notwithstanding the fact that every supporter of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, after he had left the Maritime provinces, was at great pains to tell the people how the solid sixteen from Nova Scotia session after session at every opportune time had placed before parliament and the Prime Minister the rights of the Maritime provinces. I was driven to the conclusion that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, must have been a thickheaded fellow indeed, but I confess to you I think that was an erroneous conclusion. I do not know him very well, but he must have had some ability to get to be leader of the great Liberal party, or what is left of it; nevertheless I was amazed that he should appear in the Maritime provinces and make the statements that he did. A great many of the men from Nova iScotia in the solid sixteen were elected in 1921 on the platform of a redress of the grievances of the province of Nova Scotia; there is no question about that; and seeing that the Liberal party had only a majority of one in this House, any one of the solid sixteen, or any two of them, had more power in this House for bringing about

The Address-Mr. Foster

a redress of Maritime grievances than any of the great men or any of the minor men who have ever come here from the Maritime provinces and had a seat in this House, had they chosen to use it. They had only to make a serious request to the government of the day, as hon. gentlemen in this House are doing today, for certain legislation in the interests of certain parts of this country. I say they had only to make that request, and the government would at least have hastened to examine into the situation.

But what is the position of hon. gentlemen to-day? Notwithstanding all that has been Said in the press of this country about Maritime rights based on grievances arising out of their geographical position m respect of the rest of Canada ; notwithstanding all that sixteen Liberal members from Nova Scotia said to their Prime Minister when they were here-and I assume that they must have said something to him about it; notwithstanding the fact that the ex-Liberal premier and a delegation of members of boards of trade from the province of Nova Scotia waited on Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King and his cabinet in December, 1924, and notwithstanding the fact that a delegation of all the boards of trade of Canada waited on the same gentleman and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) only a few weeks before this House opened-notwithstanding all these attempts, hon. gentlemen opposite to-day are unacquainted with what Maritime rights are and propose to appoint a commission to go and find' out. It seems amusing to me; I cannot conceive of anything which is separated to a greater degree from common sense-and after all, common sense should be the basis of the solution of these problems. In days gone by, hon. gentlemen opposite have taunted members on this side with being Bourbons. Surely we have a right to conclude that Bourbon stupidity could not be better exemplified than in the present proposal to appoint a royal commission to inquire into this matter.

I should like to point out to the House that in December, 1924, the Hon. E. H. Armstrong, then Premier of Nova Scotia, introduced a delegation of Nova Scotians to the government at Ottawa presided over by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. The delegation was composed of representatives of Nova Scotia boards of trade, and they asked for protective duties on coal and steel that would be sufficient to preserve those industries and give the workers engaged in them a square deal in the matter of employment and wages. On January 6, 1925, after the delegation bad gone home, Hon. Mr. Armstrong

followed up their visit here by writing the following letter to the Prime Minister.

Province of Nova Scotia,

Office of the Premier,

Halifax, January 8, 1925.

Ht. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., LL.D., M.P., Prime Minister,

Ottawa.

Hon. and dear Sir,

I have the honour to submit herewith, for the information of the members of your cabinet and yourself, a brief summary of the various suggestions and views submitted to you iby the members of the delegation and myself on 2nd December last.

May I be permitted, on behalf of the delegation, to express our hearty appreciation of your personal courtesy and that of your respective colleagues in according to the delegation such an ample opportunity to express our views so fully.

Let me emphasize that, in case some hon. members may not have fully grasped it; he says that the Prime Minister gave them ample opportunity to present fully the views of the province of Nova Scotia.

Those who constituted the delegation represented the various cities, towns and sections, as well as the boards of trade, that are directly concerned in the coal and steel industry in Nova Scotia. Among the delegates was one of the steel workers of Sydney. You will note, therefore, that the delegation was thoroughly representative. Let me further assure you and personally impress upon you the idea that none of those who constituted the delegation were so actuated by any other desire than to lay before your government and yourself the existence of facts that in the opinion of the delegation are very disturbing and alarming, and who genuinely believe that conditions exist that not only require a remedy but can be remedied.

May I be permitted also to add my personal en-dorsation to the views expressed by the delegation, and to reiterate them and to urge upon you such relief as may be afforded at the earliest possible moment.

Let me again thank you and the members of your cabinet for the cordial reception which was so manifest at the time, in the earnest hope, coupled with the feeling of confidence, that the proposals submitted, of which the attached memorandum is a complete summary, will be accorded very careful, early and sympathetic consideration.

Again thanking you,

I have to Honour to be,

Yours very truly,

E. H. Armstrong,

Premier.

Well, Sir, could t'he government put on a royal commission anybody who would know the situation in Nova Scotia better than Mr. Armstrong so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned? I have some idea that they would not be quite willing, perhaps, to accept the assurances of the present premier of that province; but here is a gentleman of their own political faith, the head of the province at that time, bringing a delegation to Ottawa, and here is the reception that was given to that delegation.

The Address-Mr. Foster

Now what did the delegates ask for? I might answer the question by quoting a few excerpts from the statement which they presented. The memorandum to which Mr. Armstrong referred contained the following:

The allied coal and steel industries of Nova Scotia have been for some years in a depressed condition. The prospect for the future is that there may be even more serious depression and resultant poverty. The province of Nova Scotia is largely dependent upon these industries which are the main, and in some instances the sole support of the population in important centres. This will be easily understood when it is considered that from 20,000 to 25,000 men are employed in the mining of coal and its associated industries; and that directly dependent on these there are not less than 100,00 to 125,000 people, or more than one-fifth of the population of the province.

The delegation asked the King government for adequate tariff protection to prevent foreign coal and steel products from flooding Canada's markets; to stabilize and promote the coal end steel industries in Nova Scotria; and give the working men engaged m them steady and remunerative employment.

I pause for a moment to.say that with a majority of one in this House, and with members on this side pledged to protection, the government of to-day could have granted that relief as well as not.

The steel industry of Nova Scotia is the only portion of the general steel industry of Canada which is in any real sense seUf-contained or able to produce manufactured material of genuinely Canadian origin.

It is >the one industry of its kind in Canada the output of which is the result of the expenditure of practically its total cost in the form of wages paid to Canadian or other British workmen.

The coal used is mined by Canadians, the ore by Canadians assisted by their neighbour Britishers in Newfoundland, while all the work of smelting and refining is done in Canada by Canadians, many of whom have given years to the acquisition of their art, which is now a valuable asset that is in danger of being lost to their native country. In the other steel plants in Canada both coal and ore for making pig iron and refining it to steel are imported from the United States, and should that source of raw materials for any reason become unavailable, iron and steel manufacture and the fabrication of iron and steel into finished goods would necessarily cease. For this reason the steel industry of Nova Scotia deserves especial consideration. It is the only possible native source of the primary material of the iron and steel arts, and for national preservation, and to avoid complete dependence upon the outside for iron and steel supplies, requires to be kept in existence.

The tariff was, the deputation believes, designed to assist in building up a self-contained steel industry in Canada, but omission to revise the schedules has resulted in a discrimination against semi-finished steel which is proving disastrous to the steel plants of Nova Scotia.

Continued increase of imports of semi-finished steel, occurring simultaneously with decline of blast furnace and steel mill plants in Canada, are shown by the statistics contained in this memorandum to be the outstanding features of the general industry.

This tendency is killing iron and steel works in Nova Scotia, and is the reason for the appearance before the government of the deputation to plead the cause of unemployment workers. It would seem likely to be equally disastrous and to be bound up with far

reaching dangerous consequences if, by continuation of the discrimination against the production of the primary forms of iron and steed, the Nova Scotia plants are forced out of existence in favour of the United States as a source of supply of these indispensable materials.

The deputation, to summarize their representations, can only repeat that the condition of the allied coal and steed industries in Nova Scotia, and the varied interests that are dependent thereon, is truly desperate and they can see no hope of relief from present difficulties, nor any hope of permanent prosperity in Nova Scotia unless remedies are applied by the government, which alone has the ,power to take the necessary action.

American coal is still pouring into Canada, even into Nova Scotia, and the same condition exists with regard to American steel products. Every year $140,000,000 worth of steel products come into this country from the United States. A large part of this could be made at Sydney and Trenton, and a IaTge part should be manufactured in the central province of Canada. We in the Maritime provinces are quite prepared to support a policy which will enable the steel mills of this country to again operate in the interests of this country and to provide employment for the thousands o-f people who have gone elsewhere to find it.

Well, Sir, these extracts which I have read to you come not from a political opponent, but from a political friend of the government, backed by the business men of the boards of trade throughout the province. If you have a royal commission go down there and investigate the situation, who is to be called before it? These self-same business men, these same people, will be called upon to give the views which they have already presented, views which have been placed before the government. I submit that the government knows or ought to know what the findings of this royal commission would be before it is appointed, so far as these particulars are concerned at any rate.

But if they did not find sufficient in the information before them to enable them to move in this regard in preparing the Speech from the Throne and subsequent legislation, they might have had recourse to the addendum to the report prepared by Mr. Hume Cronyn. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) in a very excellent speech placed that matter before the House, and I shall not go into it on this particular occasion. But I will remind the House that so far as examining into agricultural conditions in the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, there is to-day a commission composed of local members of the legislature sitting at various places in the province; in fact, they have completed their sittings and met the local House on the ninth of this month. Another volume of information will therefore be available, obtained from the same agricultural and business men throughout the province-the identical men who would have to

The Address-Mr. Foster

be called by any royal commission to furnish the commission with the facts. So I ask, why should we in this House support the proposal outlined in the Speech from the Throne for a royal commission to investigate conditions in the Maritime provinces? The only reason, Mr. Speaker, that I can see for asking support of such a proposal is this: The government has no legislation prepared on this point, they have nothing to submit to parliament, and having nothing to submit to parliament they can get over it for the time being by summoning to their aid a royal commission.

The other night in this House a member asked: "What are Maritime rights?" I submit that after the exhaustive speech of the member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) in this House a day or two ago-a speech as replete with information as any speech on this subject delivered in this House-hon. members need have no doubt as to some of the things that were regarded in that portion of the Dominion as being Maritime rights. But I place them in order more or less in this way-

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles-Philippe Beaubien

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

Was I not right in asking the question, in order to obtain the information which I did obtain?

Mr. FOSTER. I think the hon. member for Provencher was quite right, and I greatly appreciate his interest in the matter. I did not mean in my reply-if my tone insinuated it-to say that he ought not to have asked the question. I am delighted to have the question asked, because I want hon. members to my left, in the other corner of the House, to be as much interested in the problems of the Maritimes as I am interested in the problems of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Having travelled over the western country for six or seven months at one time, and at various times for a number of years, and having intimate relations with that part of Canada, I desire to make the suggestion that at some time during this session, if it continues with hon. members opposite in power-although I have no hope my suggestion will be adopted-I would like to bring in a bill or take some other means whereby one or two hundred dollars of the people's money would be placed at the disposal of members of parliament for expenses in order that every member might travel over the Dominion from one end to the other. You will never get people together, as a rule, unless you have something to drive them. I say the greatest thing which we could do in the parliament of Canada would be to

get our members from one section of the country to go and visit the other sections, and find out what their problems are. We would thus place ourselves in a better position to examiue these problems, and would have far less difference of opinion in regard to them.

The first and most important of the rights of the Maritimes is the restoration of the Intercolonial to its original status. I am not going to cover the ground traversed by the hon. member for Pictou further than to say this: I am not a constitutional lawyer

or a lawyer of any kind:. In fact I know some men in the legal profession who would be a lot better outside, and in this connection I once heard a story which I will repeat to the House. A minister stated that he was called in a (dream and in the dream he saw the letters "G.F.C.," and he said that he knew he was called to preach because he interpreted the letters, "Go preach Christ". But one gentleman of common sense who listened to him said to him, "Oh you have misinterpreted those letters they meant, 'Go plant corn' There are many men in the legal profession who should be planting corn. To us members of the province of Nova Scotia it does not make any particular difference how the situation of the Intercolonial railway came about, so far as the divorcement of the management and control from ourselves is concerned1; it does not make very much difference to the Maritime provinces who put the Intercolonial into the amalgamation. The question is, who is going to bring it out, and how soon? We understand that the Act of

1919 was enabling legislation. In 1919 and

1920 the financial accounts of all those different railways, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern and I think the Transcontinental, were all kept separate, but for the purposes of administration they were combined under one president, one board of managers and one set of officials. In the broader sense that may have been the proper thing to do at that time; but in the light of years a feeling was engendred amongst the people of the eastern provinces that- it was a mistake to take the managment of the railway away from the city of Moncton where it had been practically since confederation, of course under the supervision of the Minister of Railways; and a demand has arisen that the Intercolonial be restored to the Maritime provinces. We know perfectly well that the enabling legislation of 1919 provided a way whereby the Intercolonial could be put into the amalgamation, if that were thought desir-

The Address-Mr. Foster

able; but it was not until 1923 that an order in council was passed in that regard, and I think if the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg will examine the matter more closely, he will find that that order in council is responsible for the situation as we have it to-day. If I said1 that myself and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg said the opposite, the people in the country might be disposed to accept his word as against mine. I do not know whether they would or not, and it would not make much difference, so I will call to the assistance of the point I am making a statement made by the present Minister of Railways and Canals. I confess I hardly know how to designate some of the ministers of the government at the present time, whether they axe real or acting; but I refer to the Hon. Mr. Graham, and perhaps I can mention his name as he is not in the House. What did he say? Speaking at Kingsville, Ontario, on September 11th, as reported in the Toronto Globe, he said:

Up till 1921 when Mr. Meighen retired from office not a step had been taken to bring in the Grand Trunk system, the inclusion of which he had provided for, so that this government (the King government) found a statute barren of results, and the two great railway systems still operated by two separate boards, one with headquarters in Montreal, and the other with headquarters in Toronto. . . . The Intercolonial was not yet subjected to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners in regard to rates. It was out of the combine.

Rut, the government of my right hon. friend put it in. We in the Maritime provinces are not going to quibble as to who put it into the amalgamation. The burning question with us is: How soon is if going to be restored to the Maritime provinces?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Just what have the

Maritimes to gain by separating the Intercolonial from the National railways?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mir. FOSTER:

I think we would be able to get at least a chance to put some of our products into the central markets of Canada and we would be able to get lower freight rates, which are what my hon. friends have been fighting for for years and which this parliament gave them only a year or so ago. I am sure the people of the Maritime provinces feel that they have just as much right for consideration in that regard, particularly as their right is founded upon an implied contract under the terms of confederation.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

Would the hon. gentleman advocate that the fixing of freight rates be removed from the jurisdiction of the railway commission?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

I am only too happy to answer my hon. friend that I would. I am glad that he has raised that point. I regard the railway commission as a great idea of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid1 Laurier, as I have heard it spoken of as being a monument to him. I agree with that. There is no doubt the creation of the railway commission was a great idea and we have had some very able men on it; but what that commission lacks, according to my humble judgment, is a sufficient number of men who are able to understand railway auditing and traffic conditions combined. I would be delighted if hon. gentlemen would examine into the formation of that commission and find out how large is that particular department of it and whether it is functioning in that regard. What makes me aSk that question? The fact is that in the last five to ten years, we have had increases in freight rates in this country of ten per cent, twenty-five per cent, fifteen per cent, and forty per cent. Does any hon. gentleman think that one man, however able he may be, can sit on the Board of Railway Commissioners and., by looking up into the skies, say that an increase of forty per cent in freight rates in all sections of this country is a proper thing to stimulate industry and to enable people to carry on and make a living? When you go into the realm of experts, the experts who lay the foundation of freight structures are so expert that the average man does not know what freight structures are nor how to interpret them. I hope I have not said anything that reflects upon the able men on the railway commission; but I repeat that if we are to remain in the amalgamation with ten per cent, fifteen per cent, twenty-five percent and forty per cent increases in rates on our products in the Maritime provinces under the aegis of the Board of Railway Commissioners, then I unhesitatingly say: Take the Intercolonial railway out of the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners and we shall have a chance to reduce our rates in the Maritime provinces.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

If the hon. gentleman would suggest that the fixing of rates be taken from the railway commission, what plan would he adopt? To whom would he entrust the fixing or making of rates?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mir. FOSTER:

If my hon. friend will induce those sitting alongside of him to resign their portfolios and to hand the reins of government over to this side of the House, I shall be glad to sit on the fringes of this party to which I give my allegiance and to contribute whatever I may be able to do, and I will not ask anybody to give me a portfolio.

The Address-Mr. Foster

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

It is a difficult thing to make a speech and, at the same time, to provide a programme for the government, badly as they may need it. I thought I had made it clear that there was a weakness in the Board of Railway Commis-9 p.m. sioners. I am sure I made it clear that I was finding no fault with the personnel of the heads of that commission, or with the chief operating officer, Mr. Spencer. I think he knows his business, but the men who come before that commission are the men who make the rates and they represent the rate departments of the two great railways of this country. I know some of these men. They are experts in their business, and the ordinary or extraordinary lawyer, no matter how great a reputation he may have before the bar, or the bench, or the Privy Council, is in a new field which he must learn from the bottom up in order that he may become proficient in handling that particular question. When those men from those railways come before the Botard of Railway Commissioners, they come with a set programme asking for an increase of rates- they do not have to ask for decreases; they can decrease the rates themselvesi-and the railway commission says: You shall go this high and no higher. We have had rates going as high as 138 per cent, if the statements are correct that are made by some of the attorneys who have represented clients from the province of Nova Scotia before the railway commission. I have cited four increases of ten per cent, twenty-five per cent, fifteen per cent and fbrty per cent. I do not for a minute believe all the freight rate experts in this country are tied up to the two railways. If they are, and we want to go abroad for a precedent, let us get a few experts from the United States and examine the situation there as well. I think I have answered the question asked by the hon. member except as regards the policy that should be adopted. Possibly in the next twenty-five or thirty years you might be able to arrive at a policy.

The second point of interest to the Maritime provinces is "Canadian trade through Canadian ports and a complete recognition of the statutes and commitments of the parliament of Canada guaranteeing this Canadian policy." This country was asked to vote hundreds of millions of dollars for the building of a transcontinental railway to move the products of the east and the west, and we have had some discussion in this House as to the amount of grain that goes through the United States

and the quantity that passes through Canadian ports. Now I am glad that some grain finds its way through Montreal and Quebec and I should like to see a still larger proportion go through these ports. At the same time however I am anxious to see a good proportion pass through the ports of St. John and Halifax in winter. And that is more than a pious wish; it is only fair that it should] be done.

Another thing I want to see in the interests of the province of Quebec and of the Maritime provinces is the establishment of branches of the milling industry at tidewater. One of the most important things in this country to-day is the development of the milling business in relation to the live stock industry, and there is no reason why .mills should not be built for the milling of flour at tidewater. Some may suggest that this cannot be done. Why? Simply because the milling industry have made up their minds to erect their mills elsewhere. Well, the milling interests have come to this House in the past for legislation in one direction or another and I suspect that they will come here again. I do not suppose that I shall have any influence on this side of the House so long as hon. gentlemen maintain the position they take at present, but if the milling people of Canada ever come to this House for legislation, and I am here, where my vote is a factor, the one thing that I shall demand will be that they come to the ports and establish branches of their industry there.

We have in the Maritime provinces and in Quebec acres upon acres of land which will raise cattle and other live stock, but we cannot obtain the necessary feed from the by-products of flour. We subsidize the carrying of grain overseas and we have our milling done in the central part of the continent, but our freight rate on the railways is so prohibitive that the farmers of eastern Canada cannot afford to get the necessary amount of flour by-products, bran and middlings, to feed their stock. In the province I come from and particularly in the two counties I represent, we could do a splendid business in live stock with the Old Country now that the embargo has been removed, and instead of the Dominion shipping 110,00 head of cattle a year to Great Britain the province of Nova Scotia alone could export that number under proper conditions. Transportation is one of our difficulties, and the fact that branches of the milling industry are not operating at tidewater is another; and these two things must be looked into by more than a royal commis-sion^ Parliament itself must make up its

The Address-Mr. Foster

mind to act in the matter and to provide effective remedies in the interests of the people of Canada.

I have some figures relating to the question of the carriage of grain, and I find that the figures which were given to the House by my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) were substantially correct. I had no doubt ht the time of their accuracy although they were questioned by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, and having looked into the matter I can now verify them. The figures show that whereas in 1920-21 we carried through Canadian ports 61,000,000 bushels as against 42,000,000 bushels shipped through American ports, in 1923, 1924 and 1925 the average was 71,000,000 bushels shipped via Canadian ports and 148,000,000 through American ports. But the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says, "Let us take no action in this regard because, if you do,

40,000,000 or 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain will cease to pass through our Canadian ports." Having been faMy close to the transportation business in the United States for a number of years, I tell you that you can make up your minds that not one bushel of that American grain would travel over Canadian roads or through Canadian exits to the ocean if the United States could handle it themselves. There is a movement on foot on the other side of the line at the present time to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to create a great canal system to take their grain to Atlantic ports and thus relieve the congestion in the bottle neck of the New England railways from Buffalo on to New York and Boston. Now, we (provide them with a convenience by allowing the freight to come through over our rails, and while it is true that they pay for it we can depend upon it that not one solitary bushel would pass through our gateway if they could handle it themselves in the United States at that season of the year. I am interested not only in the grain coming through from the west and the east; I am also interested in some of it going through the ports of Halifax and St. John. There is no reason why we could not mill flour in Halifax and ship it across the ocean. The rate on grain coming to Halifax is sufficiently low to allow the grain to move overseas, and if you can mill grain in Upper Canada at the head of the lakes or on the western portion of the lakes, taking it out as flour and letting it proceed at the same freight rate, why could you not mill some of that flour in Nova Scotia and ship the finished product from there?

This question of by-products naturally brings me to the subject matter of the amendment. I apologize to the House if I have pursued the course of the best afterdinner speakers, who drop their subject soon after beginning and never come back to it until they conclude. But the fact is that dairy products are of vital interest to the province of Nova Scotia. Importations of eggs and butter into the local markets of that province are of very serious consequence to the farmers of the constituency I represent. A certain dairy company failed, and the farmers were importuned to put their money into the business to revive it under a farmers' co-operative organization. They went to the banks, to the old stockings and the old iron chest and brought out their money which they invested in the resuscitated concern, and now it is in the hands of the receiver and they cannot sell their products. Hon. gentlemen have spoken about eggs coming into Canada from Australia. Well, they do not all come from Australia, for whole carloads have come in from the western part of the United States, over a three-cent fence, a surplus production from the storehouses of the middle and the central west of the United States and have undersold the eggs produced in our own province. Yet hon. gentlemen talk about the prosperity of the Dominion at large.

In the very county I represent, not only are our farmers threatened, not only is the poultry business menaced, but in the face of this situation we are maintaining expensive experimental farms to teach the people to do this, that and the other thing in farming, at the same time cutting off the very thing they need most, namely, their local market. The thing they need primarily is that market, and you cannot get away from that. Why, Sir, we have in the counties that I represent a magnificent fruit area, the finest in the world, not even excepting any in the central provinces. But what do I find? A supporter of my opponent in the late election stating privately that the fruit growers and farmers were in such a difficult position financially that the local loan companies had exhausted their resources and were sending to England for funds to make further loans to them. And yet hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the prosperity wave that struck those people I We need in those counties a canning industry, we need the by-products of the mill, we need opportunity in our local markets-both there and here-to sell certain of our products, and we can only get them under protection and

The Address-Mr. Foster

low rates. I wish I had the time to discuss what can be sold even here in the central provinces. I am aware that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, being in the fish business, will tell me that we cannot sell anything up here. But I would remind him that in his own line trade with the central provinces has grown not by the hundreds of thousands but by the millions of dollars because of the business ability placed behind the distribution of that particular product. Our Nova Scotia apples, for instance, can be sold in Montreal in competition with apples from any other part of the world. Ontario apples come in there of course, and also Oregon apples. The only requisites are quality and attractive packing; given those, the people will buy any product. We ask to be given a freight rate to enable us to get our products in there. No argument can stand against our success under anything like reasonable conditions. All of these things are vital in the interests of my native province in general and particularly of the part from which I come.

There are three or four other points which I shall not now take the time of the House to deal with, but on some future occasion I propose to place before parliament and the country further important items in the bill of Maritime rights. But while I am on this particular point of transportation-and all these things that I have mentioned are inextricably bound up with it and with the tariff as well-I want to say to my friends to my left that I have something in my hand which I think will interest them. On June 2, of last year the right hon. leader of the opposition moved in the House a resolution. I am not going to read it, but I may direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left to clause 4, which I would ask them to give very close study and consideration. It has to do with the preference system. I should like the House not to be carried away by any suggestions that may come from hon. gentlemen opposite that we are against imperial trade. I am interested in the development of the British Empire as a whole. There is no question about that. I am interested in the development of the people in every constituent part of the emtpire. But I am more interested in the development of the people of this Dominion; I am still more interested in how the people of Nova Scotia are going to stay in confederation and make a living. I am mere interested in that than I am in the welfare of constituent portions of the British Empire. They have to take their position

in turn, so far as I am concerned. This is the paragraph I desire to read:

While every effort should be directed toward the establishment of a system of preference for preference within the Empire, no preference should be given at the expense of the Canadian worker, and all preference should be conditional on the use of Canadian ports.

Without attempting to examine that fully to-night, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in iGreat Britain today there is a very marked change of opinion with regard to preference. This applies not only to apples, which is an export of my own constituency, but also to grain. Hon. gentlemen to my left, of course, have maintained their position on the basis of the argument that you cannot ask the consumer in the United Kingdom to tax himself in order that he may eat our wheat. I submit to you, Mr. iSpeaker that he taxes hinjself to-day, and in support of this I desire to read for the information of the House the following;

There has been much in your columns lately on the development of Empire trade. The Self-Supporting Empire League, Polebrook House, Golden-square, London, W. 1, has just been formed for this purpose. Well-known people are on the committee, including Admiral of the Fleet Lord Jellicoe, Field-Marshal Sir William Bird wood, Lord Willingdon, the Right Hon. J. B. Seely, Sir Archibald Weigall, and Sir George McLaren Brown. The league asks its members to inquire invariably for Empire goods, and if they are as good and as cheap as the foreign product to give our own people preference; if they cannot get them, to report to their local office or, failing one, to the head office.

During the last four years-

And this is the point to which I would direct the attention of my hon. friends:

During the last four years 60 per cent of the wheat imported here came from foreign countries at the rate of 3s. per cwt. more than we pay for the same produce of our own Empire.

>

In other words, 35 cents a bushel more has been paid by the British consumer for foreign wheat than for wheat grown within the empire.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Will my hon. friend

tell me where he gets those figures. They are rather astonishing.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

What I am reading is

taken from the London Times. I thought it bore a date, but apparently it has been clipped off. I will be glad to get this information and give it to my hon. friend. The article continues that the loss in these four years was thirty million pounds-close to $150,000,000. I ask hon. gentlemen if it is not a proper time, if we are going to have a royal commission at all, to have it sit with

The Address-Mr. Foster

some of those people in. Great Britain and see if we cannot find in the resolution which I have just read common ground upon which We can get together along preference lines, and so have 400,000,000 bushels of our wheat go into the British market at 35 cents more per bushel, or at the same price that the British public are now paying for foreign wheat. You do not have to ask the Britisher to tax himself in your interest; he is doing that already.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
PRO

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Could the hon. gentleman

inform me why 35 cents a bushel more was paid for foreign wheat than for wheat imported from the dominions?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

I am very sorry, Sir, but

on account of the defective acoustic properties of this chamber, of which I complained at the outset of my address, I was not able to Bear what my hon. friend said. Will he kindly repeat his question?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
PRO

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Can the hon. member explain why 35 cents per bushel more is paid for foreign wheat than for wheat grown within the empire?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

I frankly tell my hon.

friend that the thing is so startling to me that any explanation I would attempt to give would be simply along general lines, but I submit, and I think the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will agree with me, that it is worthy of every possible investigation. We can communicate with the men whose names I have read to you, and who may be responsible for this statement.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

In my opinion those

figures are not correct. If you will examine the figures day by day and the wheat prices in the old country, you will see no such disparity as that.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER:

There is the whole difficulty; the wheat prices do not show the situation at all. We do not say it; it is the Englishmen who say that sixty per cent of the wheat brought into the United Kingdom is brought from foreign sources on which they pay three shillings a hundredweight more than on wheat produced within the empire. They can do that if they want to. You may say it is not good business, but the Englishman has been doing business much longer than we have, and when we think he is through he bobs up, arranges for his debts, and carries on all over the world.

Just one other thought in that connection. There is to-day a movement in the old country to inaugurate a policy which would have for its object new duties imposed upon

the importation from foreign countries of certain commodities which the empire itself can produce in great quantities; for example, canned fruits, apples and canned salmon. I say to my friends to my left, I will be delighted to go with you on the question of wheat, if you will come with me on the question of apples, canned fruits and canned salmon, because these are the things we handle in the eastern part of Canada. If you want to get into that market, which is your market as it is our market, if there is within the four comers of that policy something upon which we can get together, I ask you gentlemen now if you do not think it is worth while for 35 cents a bushel on 400,000,000 bushels, or $140,000,000, to scrap any political ideas Adam Smith may have had years and years ago.

I have already detained the House, Mr. Speaker, far too long. I appreciate your courtesy and the courtesy of the House on this my first serious effort to place before you important matters which touch vitally the life of that portion of Canada from which I am proud ito come. I have not been able to touch them all, but phases of them have already been ably dealt with in the speeches of other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, and other phases will be taken up by those who are to follow. I can assure the House of this, that we have in Canadh the task to develop our industrial as well as our agricultural facilities and1 resources, and upon those two things will depend the maximum progress and the maximum development of this country and the happiness of our people. What is more, it is the remedy for keeping our people at home with us, and) will be the means of bringing to our country others who will settle among us and become happy and prosperous Canadians.

*

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

Thomas Hubert Stinson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.):

Mr. Speaker, for the last five weeks I have been watching the relationship between the government benches and my Progressive friends to the left, and that observation has recalled to my mind the instructions given by a certain man for the drawing of his will. He instructed his solicitor, gave him all the details, and after the executors were named he desired that his pall-bearers should also be named in the will. He named six bankers as pallbearers. The solicitor naturally wondered why he should name six bankers as pall-bearers, and the answer came back, "They have carried me so far; let them finish their work." Mr. Speaker, could we as Conservatives afford to sit down and allow that process to go on? I say not, if we are to preserve our honour with the people of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Stinson

We have on this side of the House 116 members, and every one who has spoken so far has said that he was elected to this House on a protective platform; that the tariff, and the tariff alone, was the main and the supreme issue in hiis constituency. That being the case, and with 116 members who received a popular majority of the votes to the extent of over 200,000 on the 29th of October, if that vote can be interpreted by members on this side of the House it is a mandate to push the King government from power in the same way that that government was pushed by popular sentiment to the polls on the 29th of October last.

As time goes on, it becomes more apparent every day and in every way to every member of this House how hopelssly incompetent and helpless the present administration is. It was claimed a few days ago by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that we were obstructing the government. Is not that in itself an admission of weakness? If the government have a mandate from the people of this Dominion and from this House to carry on the government and put a certain definite policy into operation, then why not put that policy into operation? Why not bring down their legislation? Why pussyfoot about it? Why not bring it down and let us judge it on its merits? If the government is incapable, then it should do the same as the individual who is incapable, give way to someone else who is capable. Six weeks at home will not advance the business of the country or help to stabilize the dairy industry that we have heard so much about in the last few days. Business men have maintained for the last four years that business has been crippled by government instability, that there has been certain tinkering with the tariff policy from time to time so that things generally are in a state of uncertainty in which nothing is certain but the uncertainty. Stagnation has followed; business after business has gone out of existence; thousands of our population have left and gone to the United States; we cannot possibly continue along those lines. The minister who declared in this House a few years ago that the death knell had been rung of protection in Canada is still on the treasury benches, and that in itself leaves industry without the confidence that it should have. In these circumstances there is one thing left for us to do, and that is to carry out the mandate of the electors and drive to resignation a government that has lost the confidence of the people. If we sit down on oui job, we would be remiss in our duty to the people of Canada, because this country needs stability. Instability comes from preach-14011-62

ing one doctrine and practising another. If there is merit in free trade, then why not put it into operation and let us experience some of those wonderful benefits whidh our Progressive friends to the left speak so much about? I challenge the government to come cut and fight on that one issue of the tariff in Canada, and let us settle it once and for all.

A country cannot have a lopsided development. We must develop industry and agriculture side by side; one is complementary to the other. The farmers of Ontario are beginning to realize as never before that their best market is the home market, and they are anxious to see that market developed in Canada. If a man can sell his produce at his own door, without shipping it some three thousand miles away, and thus escape transportation, exchange, and all the other difficult problems that enter into a world transaction, is he not much better off? To whom does the farmer sell in the foreign market? He sells to the man living in the distant city, town or village, who is engaged in an industrial operation of some kind, earning a wage by which he can pay for the farmer's produce which is shipped to his home 3,000 or 4,000 miles distant, as the case may be, from the point of production. Now, would it not be a lot better if instead of shipping that grain and produce

3,000 miles we could transplant that man his industry to Canada and let him buy from the farmer here while we could purchase the products of his industry in our own country and not have to import manufactured articles from foreign lands to the detriment of our own artisans?

This afternoon the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) gave a quotation from President Coolidge with respect to agricultural iproducts. Let me finish that quotation by citing other remarks by the president touching the industrial end. On that point President Coolidge said:

Two very important poilicies have been adopted by this country which, while extending their benefits also in other directions, have been of the utmost importance to the wage earners. One of these is the protective tariff, whdch enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, at any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed. This saves the American market for the products of the American workmen.

That is what we want to do in Canada. As early as 1876 the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared himself a protectionist, admitting that protection was a matter of necessity for a young nation in order that it might attain to the full development of its own resources. We are protectionists on this side of the House

The Address-Mr. Stinson

for what reason? Because the only real development in Canada has been accomplished under a protective policy. Let us see what that policy has done for Canada. In 1879 the aggregate trade of the Dominion was [DOT] $149,488,188. This under a protective policy had grown in 1922 to $1,501,731,341. In 1900 the value of our field crops was $194,953,421. In 1921 this had increased to $931,862,670. The average value of occupied land in Canada increased from $38 per acre in 1910 to $48 per acre in 1920. The value of our live stock increased from $268,651,026 in 1901 to $766,720,000 in 1921. Our wheat production increased almost 3,000 per cent. Whereas in

1880 it amounted to 32,350,269 bushels, in 1922 it had increased to 399,786,400 bushels. The value of dairy products, which in 1901 amounted to $29,131,922, had grown to $104,972,046 in 1922. In 1922 the agricultural wealth of Canada was $6,773,942,000, and the agricultural revenue $1,419,937,000.

Take the growth of the lumbering industry. The value of the raw products in 1881 was $39,540,570. In 1921 this had increased to $140,381,584. The value of pulpwood increased from $7,732,055 in 1908 to $52,900,872 in 1921. Paper production increased in value from $58,750,341 in 1917 to $132,022,767 in

1920. The following statistics showing industrial growth will be found interesting:

Money invested in the lumber industry in 1923

Capital invested $189,622,000

Annual production 179,099,000

Number of employees No. 57,233Wages paid during that year.. .. 50,857,719

Take the paper industry, a new industry which has been fostered in Canada by the tariff, which compels the most of our pulp-wood to be manufactured in this country. The following figures are noteworthy:

Capital invested in 1922 $381,006,000

Production 148,123,000

Employees No. 25,830

Wages 32,918,000

This brings us to the growth of manufacturing, which is indicated by the following figures:

Year Employees Salaries Capital Production

1881 .. 254,894 $ 59,401,702 $ 164,957,423 $ 309,731,867 1921 .. 517,141 $581,402,385 $3,210,709,288 $2,747,926,675

Our exports in 1S81 were valued at $83,944,701; in 1921 they had increased to

$1,189,163,701. These figures bear silent and sure testimony to the increase of prosperity in Canada under a system of protection. No branch of our life has failed to share in increased wealth; manufactures have not excessively prospered at the expense of other phases of activity. The fact that the average number of employees in a Canadian factory

is less than twenty shows that protection cannot, as is so often charged, have fostered monopolies and trusts to any appreciable degree, if at all. Furthermore, the tariff has been far from hampering the export of our primary sources of wealth, especially in agriculture, which cannot be entirely absorbed here.

At the present time some 41,000 factories employ nearly 600,000 workers, upon whom directly depend nearly 2,000,000 people. In 1921 the manufactures of Canada had a capital investment of $3,210,707,288 and paid out in wages $581,402,385. These factories produced goods valued at $2,747,926,675 and contributed nearly 40 per cent of the nation's exports. Can Canada afford to jeopardize the fate of these people and reduce her capital investments and' national trade? It is a condition, not a theory, which confronts us, and the ardent free trader would do well to ponder over these figures.

I want to deal for a moment with the cost of farm machinery. I picked up a little item a few days ago which was rather an eye-opener to me on this question. It reads: Cost of Farm Machinery.

The division of Illustration Stations, Dominion Experimental Farms, recently concluded a survey covering the efficient use of farm machinery and its cost per acre. Allowing for interest on average investment, replacement and repairs, it was found that the cost of machinery on farms ranging from 20 to 50 acres was $3.37 per acre, 50 to 100 acres, $2.59, 100 to 150 acres $1.65, 150 to 200 acres $1.25, and on those from 200 to 500 acres $1.17 per acre. The average cost at the stations in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and British Columbia amounted to $2.16 per acre, while for Alberta and Saskatchewan it was $1.25 per acre.

If you take that cost and compare it with that applicable to any other business in the Dominion of Canada, you will find it is very much less. Our agricultural wealth in 1922 was $6,773,942,000; our total agricultural revenue was $1,419,937,000. In 1922 there were under cultivation 57,189,681 acres and, multiplying that by the average as between $2.16 and $1.25 per acre, for cost of agricultural implements used in the cultivation of that acreage, we have $1.70 per acre, or a total of $97,222,457. Deducting that total cost incurred in connection with agricultural implements from the total revenue of $1,419,937,000 we have a net total revenue of $1,322,714,543, and I do not think there is any other business which will show so low a cost as that.

I want to touch for a moment on the Hudson Bay railway, simply for the purpose of bringing out the necessary information in that connection in order that we may all be seized with the necessary facts when the time

The Address-Mr. Stinson

arrives. I am deeply interested in the development of western Canada, and I want to assist that part of Canada in every way I can. But 'before we go on with this project the people of Canada must be given some definite information by the government as to what is intended in the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Mr. McLachlan, the resident engineer of the Hudson Bay railway since 1913, reported to the Department of Railways and Canals under date of February 6, 1923, to the effect that the dredging, the docks, the elevators and the completion of the road would cost $27,071,000; that the ties had to be relaid on some 322 miles of the road at a cost of $1,112,000; that 50 locomotives and 1,200 cars would be required, and that it would cost in the neighbourhood of $16,000,000 to handle not more than 400,000 bushels per da\' uip to a total of 24,500,000 bushels for the season. To the above must be added the cost of ships and aids to navigation, to the extent of $20,250,000, making a total outlay of $48,443,000. He places the open navigation season as from 20th August to 20th October and fixes the number of bushels that can be handled in any one year at 24,-500,000 bushels. The gross receipts for eaStbound traffic on 24,500,000 bushels at the rate now paid from, Saskatoon to Fort William would equal $1,661,041. Westbound traffic is estimated at $67,200, making a total of $1,728,241. On page 48 of the return Mr. McLachlan says that from the above figures it appears that grain can be delivered to a ship in Montreal more cheaply than to a ship at Port Nelson after the Welland canal is finished. The cost of operation, if you take the interest on $48,000,000 at four per cent, means $1,917,212; the maintenance $825,952 per year and the operating expenses in the neighbourhood of $8,000,000. The loss on the road without reducing freight rates would be $8,000,000 including fixed charges. The handling of 24,500,000 bushels out of a crop of

400,385,000 bushels such as they had in 1925 is too small a matter to be of any benefit to the western farmer. A further report made by the resident engineer to W. A. Bowden, dated 17th September, 1917, concludes as follows:

I have no longer any hesitation in saying the Hudson Bay railway is doomed to certain failure. There may be fish in Hudson bay, but there is no fishing season. There may be minerals on the east coast but they are as accessible from Halifax as from Port Nelson. There is nothing for the Hudson bay north of the Huronian rock outcrops south of Split lake so long as the St. Lawrence river route i3 available, and as for agricultural possibilities north of the same point there are none.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
PRO

February 12, 1926