May 9, 1928

CON

George Reginald Geary

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEARY:

That has not been done.

(Mr. RALSTON: That act was passed on the recommendation of the maritime claims' commission. And the following appears on pages 20 and 21 of their report:

We think, however, that a balanced study of the events and pronouncements prior to confederation, and at its consummation, confirms the representations submitted to us on behalf of the maritime governments, in regard to the ultimate construction of the railway, viz:-

(a) That leading Canadian statesmen in urging the adherence of the maritime provinces to confederation defined the purposes of the railroad to be

(i) A means of affording to Canadian merchandise, and to Canada herself in times of

national and imperial need, an outlet and inlet on the Atlantic ocean-available all the year round-and

(ii) To afford to maritime merchants, traders and manufacturers, a market of several millions of people instead of their being restricted to the small and scattered populations of the maritimes themselves, particularly in the light of the disturbance with which their trade was threatened as the result of the discontinuance by the United States of the reciprocal arrangements that had prevailed.

(b) That stategic considerations determined the actual course of the line-making it many miles (estimated by Sir Sandford Fleming at 250 miles) longer than was necessary-if the only consideration had been "to connect the cities of the maritime provinces with those of the St. Lawrence."

(c) That to the extent that commercial considerations were subordinate to national, imperial and strategic considerations, the cost would be borne by the Dominion and not by the traffic that might pass over the line.

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
CON

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

May I ask the minister

a question? Did the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister not ridicule that principle two years ago?

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Mr. Speaker, I must

object, and I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement. On no occasion did I ridicule anything of the sort.

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
CON

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

The principle of taking

money out of the treasury to pay for the reductions.

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

I did not ridicule it.

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

I am glad to pay tribute to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. He was the one who carried this bill through the house, and who gave to the house reasons why the Dominion of Canada should adopt this principle and why the reductions in freight rates should be borne by the Dominion of Canada as a whole.

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
CON

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

Not in his election

speeches.

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

I did not follow my hon. friend in his election speeches, but, from what I have heard of him I think he is able to take care of himself.

I want to say that the deficits were incurred as a result of the operation of the road, operating, as it was, not simply as a commercial proposition but from the point of view of national and strategic considerations. Lower freight rates were charged on that road than in the rest of the Dominion of Canada. In 1912 there came a drive to increase the rates on that road, in an endeavour, apparently, to make the people of the maritime provinces pay the deficit. Those rates were increased by a considerably greater

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT
Permalink

192S


Railways and Shipping-Mr. Geary percentage than the rates in other parts of the Dominion of Canada. What the Maritime Freight Rates Act did was this: First, it reduced the freight rates to the proportion which they bore previous to 1912 to the other freight rates in the Dominion of Canada. It said: The people of the maritime provinces shall not be required to pay a greater percentage of increase than the people of the rest of Canada. It did not restore to the people of the maritime provinces the excess rates which they had paid from 1912 up to the time of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, but it said that from 1927, when the act was passed, the rate should be reduced by 20 per cent. It went one step further and it laid down as a principle of the statute, a principle recognised by parliament and by the Canadian people, that because of the national and strategic conditions under which the road was built the deficit on this road above the amounts which were properly collected as rates which the traffic would bear, should be paid by the people of the whole Dominion of Canada. That principle was assented to by parliament. I thought I heard from my hon. friend that he dissented from that. I am glad to hear I was wrong. I have heard of it in some other quarters, and so far as I am concerned I want to make it abundantly clear that that was the principle on which the act was passed and that it was a recognition of that principle by the people of the whole of Canada which led to the insertion of section 6 whereby to-day the Minister of Railways, when he is bringing down his estimates in regard to the Canadian National Railways, estimates the whole deficit on the eastern lines.


CON

George Reginald Geary

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):

I

should like to say a word with reference to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who has just sat down. I see no point to his speech. I do not see any object in what he has been at such great pains to repeat. He is only repeating what everybody in the house and the country knows. The whole of his speech seems to be an effort to indicate that on this side of the house we are renouncing the principle upon which we insisted in order to have the Maritime Freight Rates Act passed last year. My hon. friend knows that we on this side were as insistent as they on the other in passing that act. He should know further that it was the insistence of members from the maritime provinces sitting on this

side that procured the issuance of the Duncan report. The hon. member for Toronto-Scar-borough (Mr. Harris) said nothing to draw from a member of the government such remarks as the hon. member has just made. He said nothing whatever to indicate that he did not understand the principle upon which we were paying these deficits and nothing at all to justify the remark of the minister as he sat down that he was afraid that he saw on this side of the house symptoms of a failure to understand the principle upon which the Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed, and moreover that there was objection on this side to the payments required under that act. As a member of the house who does not come from the maritime provinces, but who is fully aware of the feeling on this side, I desire to say that it seems to me the minister's remarks were directed not to the question at issue, not to the- point of trying to convince anybody in the house about anything, but to people outside of the house who, he hopes, may read or hear of his statement.

Motion agreed to on division.

Topic:   192S
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Under the order of motions, in accordance with a resolution of which I gave notice on April 215, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Kennedy:

That the resolution passed by this house, on Friday, the 23rd of March, 1928, providing that on and after Monday, 16th April, 1928, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays until the end of the session, government notices ot motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers, be rescinded.

I think the last few private members' days have made it quite clear that there is not sufficient opportunity for the adequate discussion of private members' legislation. On the one hand we have had blocking tactics and on the other an attempt to railroad through certain legislation. It seems to me that the only possible way in which we can conduct the business of the house with some dignity is that we should have sufficient time for the consideration of each of these measures on its merits.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have grave doubts as to this motion being in order. Any motion relating to the business of the house must be moved by a member of the government. May, at page 250, 13th edition, states:

Questions

Motions relating to business of the house which must stand in the name of a minister of the crown, are placed first, and a motion for a vote of thanks, when moved by a minister of the crown, is placed among these motions.

This motion can be moved only by a minister of the crown, not by a private member, because it reflates to the business of the house. In my judgment the motion is out of order and I so rule.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


IMMIGRANT KIRZAK

CON

Mr. HANSON:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Did an immigrant by the name of Kirzak

land at Saint John, New Brunswick, on or about April 13, 1928? .

2. If so, from what port did he sail? _

3. Was he examined by a Canadian medical officer at port of embarkation, and was he examined by a medical officer at Saint John, New' 11 r mis wick?

4. Is it a fact that the immigrant was picked up on the main street of Yorkton, Saskatchewan on or about the 23rd of April, 1928, and subsequently adjudged insane and ordered committed to the asylum at North Battleford, and does the department intend to deport Kif zak?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRANT KIRZAK
Permalink
LIB-PRO

Mr. FORKE: (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Liberal Progressive

1. Yes.

2. Danzig.

3. Yes, at Danzig; and passed by medical officer at St. John, N.B., on production of evidence establishing his medical examination at Danzig.

4. Only information available is that alien was committed to Battleford mental hospital on April 24, 1928. Order will be issued for his examination and investigation of the facts in accordance with section 42 of the Immigration Act.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRANT KIRZAK
Permalink

PRINCE ALBERT DOMINION LANDS OFFICE- EMPLOYEES

May 9, 1928