1922-04-05

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28, an Act respecting The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 29, an Act respecting The Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Stevens.

Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: I move that the second and third reports of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must remind the hon. member that no notice has been given of this motion, so that if any discussion takes place upon it, it must be by the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: If the motion is put it must be by unanimous consent, not that no discussion can take place upon it.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion stands.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MARCILE (Bagot) :: 1.	Is the Government aware that many Boards of Trade and merchants in the province of Quebec are said to have protested against the present Bankruptcy Law?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to repeal the said law during the present session?


Hon. Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	The Government has received some complaints concerning the Bankruptcy Act.
2.	It is the intention of the Government to submit amendments to that Act during the present session.
Questions



FREE FREIGHT OUTLAY

Mr. IRVINE:: What is the free freight outlay out of Calgary under the car load lot?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This question has already been answered.



McLACHLAN CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	When the Minister of Labour purported to give to the press the written communications received by him from Mr. I. B. McLach-lan, of the United Mine Workers, did he give such communications in full?
2.	If not, why, and what is the text of the part omitted ?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	and 2. If the communication here in question is that addressed by the Minister of Labour to Mr. J. B. McLachlan under date of March 18, then the reply is that the full text of the message was handed to the representative of the Canadian Press, * as was also the text of further telegrams exchanged between the Minister of Labour and Mr. McLachlan. A further communication was mailed to Mr. McLachlan on March 23. A copy of this communication was not handed to the press, but there is no objection whatever to the publication of the same.



MATERIALS FOR OLEOMARGARINE

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What quantity of the following commodities
was imported into Canada and used in the adulteration of butter, to produce what is called oleomargarine, during each of the years ending March 31st,	1920,	1921 and 1922?-Lard
compound ; oleo oil; cotton oil; cocoanut oil; peanut oil; butter oil, and salt?
2.	What amount of duty was collected on the above mentioned imports?
3.	What amount, if any, of drawback on duty paid has been refunded to the manufacturers of oleomargarine during each of! the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 on the said commodities?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: I do not see the hon. member in his seat but the last time this question was called I asked him to amend it so that we would be in a position to give the desired information. In the form in which the question appears on the Order Paper we cannot answer it.



RIGHT HON. C. J. DOHERTY

Mr. HALBERT:: 1.	Is the Right Honourable C. J. Doherty in the employ of the Government in any capacity at the present time?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	On what date was he appointed to such position?

4.	What salary or remuneration is being paid to him?
5.	What sum has been paid to him on account of such salary or remuneration up to the present time?


Hon.   S@: By Order in Council dated 25th November, 1921, the Right Honourable C. J. Doherty was named as counsel in the Reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the question as to the location of the Labrador boundary between Canada and Newfoundland. A fee of $10,000 was authorized to compensate for his retainer and his services in the drafting and preparation of the case, and in addition a per diem allowance of $200 per day while engaged upon the hearing. The sum of $5,000 has been paid him up to date.



BROCKVILLE AND WESTPORT RAILWAY

Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :: Is it the intention of the management of the Canadian National railways to re-establish a gasoline car service on the branch line known as the Brockville and Westport railway in the County of Leeds?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: The matter is at present under consideration by the management.



BROCKVILLE LOCOMOTIVE SHOPS

Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it the intention of the management of Canadian National railways to extend or improve existing locomotive shops or to construct new shops at Brockville and provide much needed accommodation for locomotives at the said town?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.



DOMINION IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION

Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	Did the Government enter into a contract with the Dominion Iron and Steel Corporation for a supply of steel plates?
2.	If so was this contract carried out in its entirety?
3.	If not what other arrangements were made?
4.	What was the amount of the company's total claim?
5.	How much has been paid thereon and on what dates?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Contract was cancelled on February 18, 1921. Matter of damages referred to Exchequer Court.
4.	$10,969,482.15.
5.	On December 14, 1921, $3,000,000.

Questions



TRAFFIC THROUGH CANALS

Mr. BROWN:: 1. How many vessels and what tonnage passed through the Rideau canal during each year since 1915?
2. How many vessels and what tonnage passed through the Tay canal during each year since 1915?
3.	How many vessels and what tonnage has passed through the St. Andrew's locks since the canal was opened?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.
Rideau Canal
Vessels
Registered
Vea.r	X o.	Tonnage1915	
2,076	145,3731916	
1,684	118,5551917	
1,520	107,6301918	
1,164	78,8031919	
1,835	122,7681920	
1,718	119,8751921	
1,443	100,0362.	Tay Canal-is a part of the Rideau canal and statistics are not compiled separately for it.
3.
St. Andrew's Canal
Vessels
Registered
Year	No.	Tonnage1910	
202	44,8871911	
423	111,4371912	
1,260	210,9731913	
988	199,2781914	
334	106,0441915	
1,087	97,7101916	
552	58,9341917	
113	26,0931918	
130	28,0621919	
123	25,4991920	
154	26,3671921	
560*	27,514
*457 small gasoline boats etc. included.



NOTES-GOLD RESERVE

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: 1.	What was the amount of Dominion notes issued and outstanding on November 30, 1921?
Z. What was the amount of gold reserve on the said date?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1 and 2. $118,089,394 against gold reserve of $81,607,303; and $169,223,332 issued under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1914, and Chapter 4, Acts of 1915, against securities approved by the Treasury Board.



GRAIN INQUIRY

Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission?
2.	Has provision been made in the Estimates for an appropriation to defray the expense of said commission, or is there any existing appropriation?
3.	If the commission is not to be continued, has the Government instructed the Board of Grain Commissioners to investigate certain violations of the Canada Grain Act alleged to have been committed by certain Terminal Elevator Companies and sworn to before the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission?
4.	Is the Government aware that the Board of Grain Commissioners can only conduct an investigation when specific charges have been made, and is it the intention of the Government to file such charges against said Terminal Elevators, or their officers, based upon information and evidence revealed before said Royal Grain Inquiry Commission?
5.	Will the Government instruct the Justice Department, or the Board of Grain Commissioners, to prosecute persons or corporations, against whom charges have been made before the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission, and if so, will steps be taken to iprosecute those charged with violation of the law?
6.	Is the Government aware that serious charges were made before the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission, involving illegal practices resulting in serious losses to those entrusting their grain* to the custody of said Terminal Elevators?
7.	If no formal or official report has been submitted to the Government, is the Government not aware that wide publicity has been given to said charges, and will the Government (in the possible absence of an official report) immediately institute such inquiries as will secure the necessary information?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Not as at present constituted.
2.	There is an appropriation recommended in the Estimates for 1922-23, now before the House.
3.	If specific charges of irregularity are made the Government will investigate them.
4.	The late Royal Grain Inquiry Commission has made no report to the Government.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
7.	Answered by No. 3.



INCOME TAXES

Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What was the amount collected as income taxes from each province in the years 1919, 1920, 1921?
2.	What were the total amounts paid by taxpayers on incomes to the Federal Government, in the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver, in the years 1919, 1920 and 1921?

Questions


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.
	Fiscal Years		
1919	1920	1921$ 249,093 24 193,028 91 2,543,896 82 4,459,939 60 740,610 77 171,836 81 457,960 59 520,617 52 6,434 77	$ 506,993 06 333,370 98 7,246,246 21 8,182,736 93 1,871,387 86 478,244 38 636,248 72 995,433 92 13,757,37	$ 1,194,345 11 701,463 53 15,657,974 07 20,013,796 86 3,962,734 88 1,193,536 63 1,398,998 32 2,237,711 21 21,246 03
$ 9,343,419 03 32,970,061 81	$20,264,419 43 44,145,184 48	$46,3S1,806 64 40,841,401 25
			
Total Income and Business Profits Tax				
	$42,313,480 84	$64,409,603 91	$87,223,207 89
* Includes amounts received from taxpayers resident in the Province of Prince Edward Island.
** Includes amounts received from taxpayers resident in the Province of Quebec west of the County of Argenteuil as the collection in that territory can be more economically and advantageously handled by the District Office at Ottawa.	.
*** During 1919 and 1920 included amounts received from taxpayers resident in the Province of Ontario west of Algoma.
Statistics showing collections by provinces under The Business Profits War Tax Act have not been compiled.
2.	No information available, as statistics are compiled for districts and not municipalities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	How many persons were made permanent
in the Civil Service from the 1st of April, 1920, to the 1st of January, 1922?	.
2.	How many persons were made permanent in the said service from December 7, 1921, to January 6, 1922, inclusive?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What dry docks are there located and operated at Vancouver?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?
3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaving the Port of Vancouver during the year 1921?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What dry docks are there located and operated at Victoria?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?
3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaVing the Port of Victoria during the year 1921?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What dry docks are there located and operated at Prince Rupert?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?

3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaving ithe Port of Prince Rupert during the year 1921?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. What dry docks are there located and operated at Halifax?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?
3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaving the Port of Halifax during the year 1921?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. What dry docks are tnere located and operated at St. John?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?
3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaving the Port of St. John, during the year 19211?
Mr. STEVENS?
1. What dry docks are there located and operated at Quebec?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?
3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaving the Pont of Quebec during the year 1921?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. What dry docks are there located and operated at Montrael?
2.	When were they built and put into commission?
3.	What are the dimensions?
4.	What was the total gross tonnage entering and leaving the Port of Montreal during tho year 1921?

Preference-Seaports



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. MARTELL:: For a return showing in detail the amount of money paid by the Government of Canada or any department thereof, to barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, between the 1st day of October, 1911, and the 30th day of January, 1922, both inclusive, for professional or other services. Also a copy of all bills of costs, expenses and charges of every kind rendered by said barristers and solicitors to the Government, showing the amount or amounts paid in each instance. Also showing the names of barristers and solicitors employed during the aforesaid period, the work performed and the amount paid for every item of said work to each of said barristers and solicitors.



BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the British tariff preference should be confined to goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the tariff preference granted by this country on goods of the mother country and most of the dominions was distinctly a family matter. It created a very favorable impression throughout the Empire, and inspired the greatest of all living imperial poets to write those wonderful lines-
A Nation spoke to a Nation,
A Queen sent word to a Throne, "Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
The gates are mine to open,
As the gates are mine to close."
I desire, to-day, Mr. Speaker, to advocate that the gates of a foreign country shall be closed to this preference, freely given by the daughter to the mother.
I submit you cannot build a nation upon pure materialism. In order to make a great country, you must create a national spirit. We need, I submit, in Canada, more intense Canadianism. What we lack-and I know not the reason-is that patriotic fervour that is so great an element in the building of national character. I desire to proclaim to the world that Canada is self-reliant and independent of other nations, and I desire, as far as I can, to impress upon certain dealers in goods on the other side of the Atlantic that this country is not bound in fields of ice during four or five months of the year.
A few years ago the British Medical Association met in Toronto. They were sending out some specimens or some articles, required for demonstration. The association meeting was held in August, and on the box containing these articles
45Z
for demonstration was written in plain English "Please protect from Frost". A merchant in Ottawa ordered certain Christmas goods in London to be delivered via the Canadian Pacific Railway Steamships. He received a letter in the early part of December stating that they regretted very much that they could not get these goods away before the Canadian ports had frozen up, and, therefore, they were sending them via New York. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to declare, to the people of England at any rate, that we have ports in this country, both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, which are open the year around.
This policy which I advocate has been proclaimed ever since Confederation, and even before. One of the leading policies of Canada has been that Canadian trade shall be carried through Canadian channels. Why did we build the Canadian Pacific Railway except to create trade east and west and west and east? The Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the National Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern were constructed largely to build up an interprovincial trade in Canada east and west and west and east. Even before Confederation this was a vision of our forefathers. It was eloquently expressed by the fathers of Confederation. The Hon. D'Arcy McGee, the great Irish-Canadian orator and statesman, speaking in the Confederation debate said:
One reason why I, in season, and perhaps out of season, have continued an advocate for an Intercolonial railway has been that first, closest and most lasting connection of these Lower Provinces with the continental trade system, might be established by and through and in union with Canada.
The same policy applied to the building extension and enlargement of the canals of Ontario and Quebec. The advantages of the policy which I advocate would not, by any means, be confined to the Maritime Provinces or to the ports of St. John and Halifax. It would be to the advantage of all ports in Canada. The English fall importation would largely come in through the ports of Quebec and Montreal, and importations from different British possessions, particularly New Zealand, to which the British preference applies, would be brought in via Vancouver and Prince Rupert.
The cost of every carload of freight sent from the maritime provinces or British Columbia is increased because of the car having to be hauled back empty or nearly so. The cost of every shipload of freight from Montreal, Quebec, Halifax or St.
[Stage Direction]
Preference

Seaports
John to the Mother Country, or from New Zealand to British Columbia, is increased on account of the lack of return cargo. I would like to impress upon my colleagues that the lack of a westbound cargo is the weakness of our transportation system with Great Britain. We can send over wheat and lumber, and fill the ships, but they often come back empty, only carrying ballast.
It would create more competition among ocean freight carriers. Vessels sailing to certain ports would charge lower rates if they were assured of a return cargo. If more ships were provided with return cargoes it would mean lessening of freight rates; in other words, if we had competition rates would be lowered in both directions. I have before me a letter from one of the steamship companies in Canada in which I find the following statement:
From my experience of 25 years I may say that steamers on the westbound trip from Great Britain or Europe are rarely full of cargo the vessels depending almost entirely on the freight from Canada to Great Britain and the continent for their earnings. That sufficient tonnage could not be obtained to carry the traffic is, from my experience, incorrect. The fact of the matter is that all the large lines coming to Canada, if the traffic was obtainable could place a larger number of steamers on the several routes. The lack of business, especially on the westbound voyage makes it unprofitable. In the winter months, when the boats run to both Halifax and St. John if full cargoes were obtainable to Canada we could give lower freight rates on goods carried from Canada than when earning practically nothing westbound, which is pretty much the case at present.
Mr. BAXTER:: I should like to suggest
to my hon. friend that if he cannot get real sympathy, he might, at least, appeal for the apparent sympathy afforded by silence in this House, so that members who are interested in what he says may have an opportunity of hearing him. It is an impossibility to hear him at present.


Mr. LOGAN:: Thank you. Referring to sugar, he said:
A large amount of the traffic that comes to Canada finds its way via New York and Boston. Nearly all the sugar for the Montreal refineries comes via New York, whereas if the preference was only given to sugar coming direct to Canadian ports it would benefit Halifax and St. John, give employment to an extra number of steamers, give a large extra revenue to our railroads and leave a large amount of money in Halifax and St. John and also Montreal.
The Canadian Pacific, having their steamships on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, would be able to give as cheap a rate of freight from ports in Great Britain as any American steamship line with connecting

lines of railway, because of their desire not only to give westbound freight to their ships, but to give westbound freight to their railway system.


Mr. CRERAR:: What steamship company is represented in what my hon. friend is quoting from?


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, I trust I
shall make my voice heard in this chamber. I want to ask my hon. friend what steamship company is represented in the quotation which he has just given to the House.


Hance James Logan: I would rather not at the present time, disclose the name. I would be very g-lad to give it privately to my hon. friend.	|


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Hance James Logan: The acoustic properties
of this chamber are a tragedy in this $12,000,000 structure, because I can assure you, Sir, that we sit here hour in and hour out and cannot follow speeches made by hon. members sitting only a very short distance away.
But let me continue. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which to-day is not particularly busy, would have more demands made upon it for freight service, and when that freight is delivered to the railways, no doubt the Canadian Government railways, at Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Vancouver, or Prince Rupert, would be very glad to secure the added freight to increase their revenues. If, for instance, an importer of goods in Vancouver to-day makes a purchase in London, the goods are very apt to be sent on an American ship via New York. Then, naturally, they will be forwarded on American railways as far west as possible, so that the only part of the freight receipts on that bundle of goods that would go to a Canadian transportation company would be the freight from a junction on the Pacific coast as near as possible to the city of Vancouver.
An objection has been raised to this policy that it might be resented by the people of the United States of America. We heard this same statement made when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) brought down the preferential tariff in 1897. But I submit that we need not fear this bugaboo, that the bonding privilege is just as important, if not more so, to the United States of America than it is to the Dominion of Canada.
Even if the policy I advocate were an interference with the bonding privilege, we

would only be carrying out the historic policy of the United States of America which, ever since it has become a nation, has put upon its statute books, the very class of legislation for which I am asking to-day. In 1817, 105 years ago, Congress and the Senate passed the following:
Commerce between the territories shall be regarded as coastwise and shall be confined to vessels built in the United States, officered by the United States citizens, flying the United States flag.
That has been their policy during all these long 105 years since this legislation was placed upon their statute books.
Without, I hope, wearying the House and without quoting too many statutes, let us follow their policy through the years. In 1868, their navigation laws as to transportation of merchandise were extended around Alaska. When they had taken possession of the Hawaiian islands, let us find what legislation they passed in this regard. It will be found in an act which was passed in April, 1900, and which reads:
The coasting trades between the islands aforesaid and any other portion of the United States shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions applicable to such trade between two great coasting districts.
Let us take Porto Rico. You will find, in an act pertaining to that island, the following:
The coasting trade between Porto Rico and the United States shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts of the United States.
Not only did they throw their coasting laws around Alaska on this continent; not only did they reach out to Porto Rico; not only did they go to the middle of the Pacific with their coasting laws, to cover the Hawaiian islands; but even to the Antipodes this law follows, and we find, in reference to the Philippine islands, the following statute:
No merchandise except supplies for the army or navy shall be transported by sea, under penalty of forfeiture thereof, between ports of the United States and ports or places in the Philippine archipelago, directly or via a foreign port or for any part of the voyage, in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.
Section 2. That on and after April 11, 1909, no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports of the United States of America and ports or places in the Philippine archipelago, whether directly or by way of foreign ports under a penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported and landed.
That is a law of the United States of America to-day. Yet, we are to be told that we must not confine the British pre-
Preference-Seaports
ference, this family arrangement, as I have stated, to Canadian ports because, forsooth, we might offend the United States of America. If we take that stand, we must admit that we are not independent; that we are not a self-reliant nation; that we cannot depend upon the facilities that are provided in our own country. We cannot maintain the dignity of national citizenship if we adopt such a position and do not declare, by this legislation, our independence of the United States of America.
I shall briefly outline the history of this policy in this House which I am advocating to-day. In 1904 I had the honour to move a similar resolution and in 1907 it was my pleasure to see that resolution incorporated in the Budget of that year; incorporated, however, with a proviso moved by the then Prime Minister that it should come into operation by Order in Council. I propose now to read for the benefit of the House one or two extracts from speeches made by the leading men of this country at that time. An hon. gentleman, whom I am glad to see with us to-day, although we do not agree politically, the Nestor of the Houses-I refer to the member for South York (Mr. Maclean)-in 1907, speaking on my resolution, used the following language :
I intend to give this proposal not only my sympathy, which is sometimes of the cold potato nature, but my vote as well. I have no great belief in a measure of trade based on a preference, where the Government offering it asks for nothing in return, and where the Government receiving it does not see the propriety of giving anything in return. On that ground alone I would vote for the proposal.
He goes on:
The best and only way to improve our Canadian ports is to direct to them all the trade we can control. In the case of the preference, we can more or less control that trade, and if we have confidence in our own ports, and if we are spending millions and millions to develop a national transcontinental system, it is our duty to endeavour to develop these ports on the lines laid down in the resolution.
I am glad to quote another hon. member who is also with us to-day. Let me read from the remarks of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Speaking in 1904 in reference to a similar resolution, he said:
It is a subject on which there is need of education, not only outside of this House, but possibly inside the House. I am aware that possibly, from some points of view, objections may be raised to the motion of my hon. friend ; but, for my own part, I am heartily in favour of it, and if he decides to divide the House upon it I shall have pleasure in giving my vote in sup-

Preference-Seaports
port of the motion. For the purpose of the present budget and the present condition of affairs we cannot deal with it. But I hope there will be such an educational movement on the question that, at no distant day, we may adopt it as part of our practical legislation. If that can be done at no distant day, no one will rejoice more than I shall. I think that the reasons that my hon. friend has given in support of his motion are strong, and I believe that the more the subject is discussed, the more likely we are to reach the conclusion that he has reached after so much consideration.
Let me now quote from one who, in the councils of the nation at that time, was even a higher authority than the present Minister of Finance. Our late lamented chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in 1907, is reported in Hansard (page 4323) as follows:
In view of the different opinions expressed to-day upon this very important question, it ought not to be difficult for the House to come to a unanimous conclusion. Every member who has addressed himself to this question has, with one exception-the exception of my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp)-pronounced himself in favour of the principle of this motion. My hon. friend from East Toronto is the only one who has taken exception to the principle itself. But doubt has arisen as to whether, admitting the principle, the time is opportune for declaring such a policy as that embodied in the motion of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). My hon. friend's resolution is quite in keeping with the policy followed by this country for the last fifty years, namely, the developing of Canadian trade within Canadian channels. Everybody in this country for the last fifty years, especially since the inauguration of Confederation, has followed such a policy. Fifty years ago, when we began to build railways, we began to build them north and south, and the objective point of all of them was some American port. The ports of Boston, New York and Portland were the three through which we got our imports in the winter. But after Confederation we began to build up another policy. We began to dispense with American harbours and to bring the trade to our own ports. This policy we have followed to the present day and with a reasonable measure of success. Take our Importations from Great Britain; from seventy to seventy-five per cent come through Canadian harbours and only twenty-five to thirty per cent through American ports. The question now is whether or not, following out that policy, we are in a position to adopt the policy proposed by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). He proposes that the benefit of British preference should be given only to such goods as come through Canadian ports.
At page 4326, Sir Wilfrid continues:
But I look upon this motion as a completion of the policy which we inaugurated four years ago when we resolved to construct another transcontinental railway from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean. When this railway is in operation, as by the terms of the contract it must be in operation in the month of December, 1911, then will be a fitting time to adopt this policy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would not be disposed to agree altogether with the motion of my hon.

friend if it is intended to apply it in the month of May, 1908 ; it will, however, fittingly apply in 1911 when the transcontinental railway will be completed. Then we shall have two competing lines from the maritime harbours to the great new centre that is developing west of the great lakes, and then when the people of the Northwest will have two lines in operation to carry their imports and exports, we will be in a position safely to apply the policy indicated in the motion of my hon. friend from Cumberland.
Referring to any possibility of the abrogation of the bonding privilege, Sir Wilfrid said:
Now, would the adoption of this policy at the present time have any effect upon the bonding privilege? I do not think so. The bonding privilege merely gives us the privilege of carrying our own goods through their territory, and gives them the privilege of carrying their goods through our territory. But if we choose by domestic arrangement to bring trade into our channels, we do not merely abolish the bonding privilege, we simply become independent of it. Well, Sir, was not one of the objects we had in view when we introduced the policy of building a new transcontinental railway to get rid of our dependence upon the bonding privilege? Our policy is to be free of the need of using Amer'ioan harbours and of the need of a bonding privilege; we desire to be in such a position that at all times we can bring our imports and send our exports through our own channels independently of American harbours and the bonding privilege. Moreover, we are to remember that the benefits of the bonding privilege are reciprocal. The Americans use our territory and we use their territory. But if it should come to this, that the bonding privilege were taken away from us by the United States, we can take away from them the bonding privilege which they enjoy of carrying their goods through our territory, and in that case I think the United States would have more to lose than we would have. However, I would be sorry if it ever came to that; we do not want to have with our American neighbours any but the most friendly relations. I would be sorry if the bonding privilege was interefered with, but if it is ever interfered with at all, I am ready to say that in my humble judgment we have less to lose than our American neighbours, and they would hesitate before interfering with the bonding privilege. They may do so, however. Twice already they have threatened us with the destruction of the bonding privilege, and at that time it would have been a serious blow to us, because we were not equipped then, as we shall be by and by, to be able to do without it. When we have another transcontinental railway in operation I think we shall be absolutely independent of the bonding privilege.
Sir Wilfrid concluded his statement by saying:
The motion of my hon. friend is all right; it is a little premature.
He then moved the following amendment, which was carried unanimously.
That on and after a date to be named by the Governor in Council the British preference shall apply only to goods brought into Canada if shipped through a Canadian seaport.

Preference-Seaports
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the time has long gone by when the policy then made a principle of our tariff should have been put into force. At that time, as you know, Sir, we had only one transcontinental railway, and that circumstance constituted an argument against the adoption of this policy, because the people in the West said: You will put us at the mercy of one single line of railway north of lake Superior. That, too, was the objection of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But in 1907 he stated that we would have a second transcontinental line, and could in 1911 adopt this policy. Well, today we have three transcontinental railways instead of two; and if we could adopt this policy in 1911, we are in a still better position to adopt it now. Before the time arrived when Sir Wilfrid Laurier promised that this policy would be brought into force a change of government took place, and the matter has been lying dormant ever since.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is a policy which should now be incorporated in our tariff when the Budget is brought down this session.
There has been, however, some progress along the lines which I advocated. For instance, I turn to chapter 13 of the statutes of 1921 and I find that the West Indies Trade Agreement, enacted May 3 of that year, contains the following passage:
The Government of Canada on giving six months' notice may provide that, to be entitled to the concessions granted in Articles II and III. the products of any of the colonies aforesaid shall be conveyed by ship direct without transhipment from the said colony or from one of the other colonies entitled to the advantages of this agreement into a Canadian port.
I find that on the 4th of the following month legislation was passed to further amend the customs tariff, 1907, the act being cited as The Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1921, and section 2 thereof reads:
2. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, goods, other than tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, spirituous or alcoholic liquors and articles specified in Schedule A of The West Indies Trade Agreement Act, the product or manufacture of British Honduras, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Leeward Islands (Antigua, St. Christopher-Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat, and the Virgin Islands) , the Windward Islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia), Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and British Guiana; when Imported direct therefrom shall not be subject at any time to more than fifty per centum of the duties imposed on similar goods as set forth in the general tariff under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
So some progress has been made along the lines which I and other members of this
House have advocated during a good many years. If "Canada for Canadians'' is a good policy, then "Canadian ports for Canadian ships'' ought to be equally as good a policy.
But, Mr. Speaker, I may state frankly that I do not intend to press this motion to a final vote, for I do not expect the Government to commit itself and enunciate its tariff policy until the Budget is brought down by the Minister of Finance. But I do expect the Government to enact what Sir Wilfred Laurier promised in 1907 would be put upon our statute books in 1911. I expect the Government to adopt a policy which will be thoroughly Canadian, and to declare to the world that we have well-equipped summer and winter ports. We have spent millions of dollars upon these ports in the last few years. Recently sixteen million dollars have been spent on the great port of Halifax, while millions more have been spent upon the ports of Quebec and Montreal and upon our Pacific ports; and hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended in the building of railroads to carry goods east and west. We have talked about building up a "United Canada". Surely there is no one in this House who would object even if in the beginning the adoption of this policy resulted in an increase of one or two cents a ton on the transportation of our freight, which increase I do not admit. I presume that this matter of freights may be gone into by my hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), who is to follow me in this debate. But I do desire to point out that even if the putting of this policy into effect did cost us a few cents a ton more on freight, surely it is worth that to be independent of ports of the United States. That country has shown its independence all along the line: its people glory in their ports-and they use them. Let us do the same, so that at this time after the awful cataclysm of war "out from the mists of humanity's sorrows" Canadians may take their stand, certain of their destiny, and with heads erect proudly declare that they will patronize their own seaports on the Atlantic and Pacific-seaports which are open the year round for commerce with the whole world.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) has wandered far afield for argument on this question. I purpose to confine my arguments strictly to the resolution before the House. The British preference was embodied in the Tariff Revision Act of 1897, becoming
Preference-Seaports

float through a part of the province of New Brunswick in its entrance to Canada. They demonstrated the value of their port; they begat the confidence of the Canadian Pacific Railway in that port. As the result of that great experiment the Government of Canada undertook to supplement the expenditure, and have spent millions in that port to promote the handling of Canadian trade through Canadian channels. That principle has been followed, sometimes more and sometimes less closely, without the slightest regard to the succession of governments which we have had in the last twenty-five or thirty years. It has become a national principle, a principle well expressed by that gentleman of whose great statesmanship we all show our appreciation, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. His aim, as he expresed it, wa.i never to be satisfied until every pound of Canadian freight that could possibly be brought through Canadian channels was so brought. I stand here as a Conservative, but that doctrine is good enough for me, and I believe it is good enough for the people of Canada. I have no quarrel with the source from which it came; I only want to see Sir Wilfrid Laurier's desire carried into practical effect for the good of the whole country which he undoubtedly loved.
Now I said that the Government of Canada had spent many millions of dollars in the port of St. John. We have not there a system of control by a harbour commission. I regret that we have not, but it is not a topic of discussion at the present hour. You go to Halifax, the other important port in the maritime provinces, and you find that large amounts of government money have been expended there for the very same purpose, and for a proper purpose-the equipping of a national port. You have not there, I think, a harbour commission either. But go to the port of Quebec; there you have a harbour commission, and you have the credit of this country at the back of the people who administer the affairs of that port and rightly so. You have the same thing at Montreal and you have also at Vancouver. Now you have the people of Canada, as taxpayers, directly interested in the success or failure of the flowing of trade through these ports. I ask you as business men is that worth consideration or is it not? Is it worth doing something that will bring more trade, and will render less probable an avalanche of accumulated debt falling upon this country? Is it better to

develop trade through these ports and by the tolls which are collected put beyond possibility any defaulting in the interest upon the bonds and the consequent drain upon the federal exchequer? This is a very simple 'proposition.
How is the principle embodied in this resolution to be carried out upon the Atlantic seaboard? It is no use for us to simply say that we want people to bring in British goods through Halifax or St. John, or both, and in the summer time through Quebec and Montreal. They will not do it merely because we ask them. Is it possible to lay down such a line of policy that they will find it to their interest to bring their goods into our ports and thereby support those public expenditures by the proper contribution, which contribution otherwise would go to ports in a foreign country? That is simply what it is; that is what we are asking. It does not reduce the tariff preference by one tittle. You will get just as low custom duties if the goods are coming in through Vancouver or through the ports of Montreal or Quebec, or Halifax or St. John.
It has been suggested that there might be something more in the way of railway charges. I am not sure that I am totally in accord with the hon. member who advanced that view. I believe that the principle in railway management is a sound one, that the long haul should be at lower rates than the short haul in order to overcome the natural obstacle of distance which creates so much difficulty in handling the commerce of this long drawn-out country. I believe it would be possible, especially by means of the ownership of the government system of railways in conjunction with the practical control which the Government has over the majority of the ports of this country, to so organize co-operation between the railroads and the ports that the importer in the interior would not pay any more for his freight.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: What
about the Grand Trunk and the city of Portland?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, if this Government chooses to make Portland a seaport of Canada-


Charles Marcil: It already
is.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: if this Government
chooses to make Portland a seaport of Canada, it cannot expect support from any one on this side of the House, and I do

not think it will get much support from hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr. MALCOLM How are you going to give public ownership a fair trial if you discriminate against one of the ports of the national railways?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not undertake to
discuss that question this afternoon; it is not necessary to discuss it; but I am not at all afraid of the challenge. I do not think it requires any genius or even statesmanship and I do not think it requires more than the most ordinary form of administration, to be able to discard the port of Portland, or, at all events, to put it into such a position that anyone seeking to export or import goods would use the ports within our own terri-ory by preference. Personally, if I were handling the problem, I would tell my hon. friend exactly how I would handle it I would impose a differential toll against the port of Portland, and make it more expensive to bring goods from that port, or take them out by that port, than by Halifax or St. John. In other words I would shape the railway policy so as to build up this country instead of building up another country, and if my hon. friend is interested in pursuing that branch of the question, I will refer them to the files of the St. John Globe and the St. John Telegraph during the last campaign, where they will find that they were attacking the preceding government because, they claimed, that government was building up Portland, Maine, at the expense of our country, and they were demanding that that should not be done. If my hon. friend will get in line with the St. John Globe and the St. John Telegraph, the exponents of his party, that will be perfectly satisfactory to me, and he will be pursuing a policy exactly on the line that I desire to see pursued. And, had the former government not been defeated, I would have been advocating that policy in its councils. If, however, the hon. gentleman chooses to turn his back upon the organs of his party, if he chooses to stand as an advocate of Portland, Maine, all I can hope is that he will stand alone in this House.
Something has been said with regard to the possibility of retaliation. I think, so far as I could hear, my hon. friend was dealing with that question extensively, and I do not wish to travel over the same ground again, but we might just as well talk of retaliation with regard to any item of the tariff. There is no magic about the British
Preference-Seaports
preference, it is nothing more nor less than an item of the tariff, a means of raising revenue, or of protecting the industries of this country. It simply says: We will protect our industries a little less against the manufacturers of Great Britain than we will against the manufacturers of United States or elsewhere. If that is not cause for retaliation in itself, if the United States and other countries do not choose to say: If you do not give us entry into your markets on -the same terms as the Mother Country, we will boycott you,-what possible reason can -they have for saying it if we draw the line a little further and say: We will only give you the benefit of that tariff when you bring your goods into Canadian seaports. I would like to go one step further and add "and only in British or Canadian-owned bottoms". I believe the Government and the House would do well to think of the possibility of utilizing our Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the importation of goods, with a special preference because they are Canadian bottoms owned by the Canadian Government. I do not care how much you limit it, the goods will get in, but we may just as well foster our own enterprise and look after our own country.
We are perhaps in rather a peculiar position in the ports of Halifax and St. John. Both ports have done much to attract this overseas trade. It has had beneficial results in both localities. It has increased, to some extent, our population. It has certainly increased the population of both cities, but I would like to tell my hon. friends who live inland that in both those cities there is not yet any domination of trade. We have not the wholesalers there who are handling the products of Canada and filling the ships with cargoes themselves. The financial centre, the great trading centres of Canada, are not down by the sea. We have to depend entirely upon other localities to provide our cargoes. The result is that, so far, all that we in the maritime provinces get out of this trade is that we are what I might call hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have added to the labour of our port. We have got also a certain market for supplies to the vessels. All this, manifestly, can be increased, if you will, where possible, bring the trade of Canada through our gateway. More than that, in time, when our ports develop to the proportions we are seeking and hoping, you will eventually find men at those ports who will begin to direct at least a part of the commerce of the
Pre ference-Seaports

world. Now, is what ,1 am going to propose fair or is it not? Gentlemen come here from the centre of this country and make their feelings manifest through many modes of expression. They say, "Consider our situation, consider the difficulties with which we have to struggle, consider the work we did as pioneers in this country, and give us some relief from customs duties and from this, that and the other thing." I say to you who put forward those propositions: "Look also down iby the sea and visualize the difficulties through which our people have gone when we helped to form Confederation and to mould this Dominion of Canada, and will you say to us that we are asking anything unfair if we seek to have the Dominion held together, not merely by the bonds of steel that have been run across it at an expenditure of millions upon millions, but by a bond of sentiment from the Pacific to the Atlantic which will strive to deal justly with all parts of Canada, and which will rejoice in the expansion and development of every part?" If we can get that spirit, my hon. friend's motion is assured of success. I suggest that, instead of withdrawing the motion, the hon. gentleman should slightly modify it. I do not put it as a matter of dictation to the Government, nor do I believe in an hon. member proposing a resolution simply for the purpose of dropping it after discussion. I want to see something real as the product of an hour's discussion, and I would suggest that the hon. member amend it and make it read:
That in the opinion of the House it is desirable the Government should consider carefully the limitation of the British tariff preference to goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.
In that form it would be a strong expression of opinion that it is desirable the Government should 'consider. On the other hand, it will not place the Government of the country in a position of having a policy dictated to it in advance of its own consideration. I trust that it may be possible for my suggestion to be accepted.
I apologize for having detained the House at such length but if 'anything I have said will have the effect of helping to solve, even to a small extent, the problems we have in the maritime provinces, I shall feel that I have not wholly lost the time I have occupied in the House this afternoon.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has been
[Mr. Baxter.! moved by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), and which, I think, I may say, without transgressing the bounds of good taste, has been seconded by the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), is one that, if it were to receive the serious consideration of this House, would, indeed, be an important resolution. I am reminded, however, that the hon. member for Cumberland stated that he had been preaching this doctrine in this House for twenty-odd years. He does not appear to have made a great deal of progress in that time, and I venture the prediction that he will still be preaching it for another twenty years, without getting very much further on; nor am I convinced that the exhibition we have had this afternoon of a very fine bit of team work between the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for St. John and Albert,-who usually do not see eye to eye on questions before this House-has advanced very much the cause for which this resolution stands. Indeed, I was almost of the opinion, when I listened to the hon. member for Cumberland, that he should be sitting over beside the hon. member for St. John and Albert.
The hon. member for Cumberland argued that this is a necessary measure to provide traffic for our Canadian railways. You, Mr. Speaker, and the House, will observe that, if this resolution were incorporated into the law of Canada, all goods coming from Great Britain to Canada, in order to secure the British preference, would have to come through Canadian ports. That is the whole purpose of the resolution. My hon. friend argues that this would furnish additional business for Canadian railways, and he states that the Canadian railways Kvere built to carry traffic east and west. That is not altogether true of the Canadian Pacific railway, nor is it true of the Intercolonial railway. The Intercolonial railway, as every hon. member, knows, was built as a part of the understanding in connection with Confederation, and the Canadian Pacific railway was built to link up the eastern provinces of that day with the new province of British Columbia that had come into Confederation in 1871. Consequently, these roads were not built primarily for the purpose of carrying traffic east and west. The hon. member for Cumberland also argued-and his contention was supported by the hon. member for St. John and Albert-that the passing of measures of this kind would really result

Preference-Seaports
in lower costs to the Canadian people. They argued that ships carrying goods to Europe had difficulty in getting return cargoes to Canadian ports, and that if this measure were passed and British goods compelled to come in through Canadian ports, that would give these vessels the return cargoes they require and, consequently, bring about a reduction in freight rates. That is the most fallacious argument that could possibly be advanced in support of the resolution, because the facts of the case are precisely the reverse. Why is it that ocean freights from Atlantic ports in the United States to Great Britain are usually more favourable than from Canadian ports? It is due to the fact alone that vessels plying between American ports, such as New York, Baltimore, Newport News, Boston and Philadelphia, and European ports, can get return cargoes from Europe for American ports when they cannot get return cargoes for Canadian ports. Anyone knows that who has had any experience in export business.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does this not provide return cargoes to some extent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will deal with that matter just in a moment. I have had some experience in this because for a good many years the company with which I have been and am still identified was a large exporter of grain from America to Europe, and it was invariably found that better conditions governing export, both in the securing of charters and the rates of freight, could be obtained from American ports than from Canadian ports. Why was this the case? Simply because the return traffic from Great Britain and Europe comes in immensely greater volume to United States Atlantic ports than it does to Canadian ports, for the reason that the United States has a population of 108,000,000 or 110,000,000 people against our 9,000,000 or
10,000,000 people, and consequently importations from Europe to supply the needs of that great United States population give the traffic for the west-bound trip. My hon. friends seek to reverse this. By an enactment of the Parliament, they seek to create a condition that will throw trade out of its normal, natural channel into an artificial channel created by this Government. I submit that is not in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole. My hon. friends may argue with considerable force that this may be of some advantage to the ports of St. John and Halifax; but if it be
of advantage to those ports, that advantage will hold for only a certain period of the year. As everyone knows, these ports are winter ports. Their harbours are open the year around. The great harbour of Montreal that is, after all, the greatest seaport in Canada by all odds-


Mr. McMASTER:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I note I have some support for that idea. The great harbour of Montreal is open only a portion of the year, and when Montreal is open, St. John and Halifax get practically no business whatever for paints west of Montreal. Consequently, this proposal, that by arbitrary legislation of this Parliament we shall create artificial trade routes in order that our Atlantic seaports-and I have no wish whatever to say anything in disparagement of them-may enjoy a more profitable business for a few months in the year, is a proposition that is totally absurd and that should not command the support of this House.
There is another feature of the matter. If the purport of this resolution were incorporated into our Canadian laws and all British goods came in through Canadian ports, what guarantee can my hon friends give that the freight rates on those goods will not increase from Canadian ports to the interior where they are consumed? At the present time, with these goods having the privilege of coming in through United States ports in bond, we have the element of competition in transportation costs. That element would be completely eliminated were the resolution of my hon. friend carried.
We have heard a good deal of talk from my hon. friends about being independent of the United States. Now, Sir, I thought the time had passed when any hon. gentleman in this House was of the opinion that this or any other country, in matters of trade, can live to itself alone. That is simply impossible. In fact, as the years go on the interdependence of nations in matters of trade is growing, and there is an increasing realization of the fact; and to argue that we must be independent of the United States in respect of any matter of that kind is but to make a sort of patriotic appeal that has no basis whatever in real patriotism.
There is another fact in connection with this question which perhaps has a more remote bearing upon it, but which, nevertheless, should not be overlooked. It is a
Preference-Seaports

well-known fact that eastern American cities, particularly the seaboard cities, were among the strongest believers in reciprocity in natural products between Canada and the United States. I think it is of some value to Canada to have that feeling existing in that country. My hon. friends to the right of me, il know, have no faith in the value of reciprocity to Canadian development. I trust that that feeling is not shared by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). If these favourable trade arrangements with the United States are to be secured, they are to be secured, not by our taking any step that would antagonize a body of opinion in that country that is now favourable to the proposal, but by our cultivating that opinion in the hope that eventually a satisfactory arrangement may be brought about.
There is something else, too, that should not be ignored. Within recent years there has been a steady growth in the amount of American business that has been carried through the port of Montreal. Why do nations have their trade carried in this way? Business concerns and individuals, who are buying goods from foreign countries and selling in return, buy and sell those goods along the lines that are most advantageous to them, and if goods are coming through the United States now, what is the explanation of that fact? The reason is simply because the Canadian people and Canadian firms can secure those goods more cheaply in that way than in any other way. And are we to set up an arbitrary provision of this Parliament that will compel the people of Canada to purchase the things they need from Great Britain through an arbitrary channel that will increase the cost to the consumers? That is a point that must not be overlooked in considering the question; and if we undertake to create a discrimination, in the matter of these importations, against the United States seaports, may we not reasonably expect that opinion in the United States-if indeed their government does not-will set up contrary discriminations against our port in Montreal? I am a great believer in the future of the port of Montreal, because the great business that lies away back in the interior can come down to Montreal by boat in the open season of navigation, and be transferred to the ocean liners that carry the goods to their ultimate markets. I trust, therefore, that the Government will not listen [ Mr. Crerar.]
to the admonitions of my hon. friends from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) and St. John (Mr. Baxter), so far as this question is concerned.
My hon. friend from St. John introduced the tariff, and said that protection was necessary in this country for the purpose of securing a revenue. I do not propose to debate that question to-day, because it is not particularly germane to the resolution under consideration; and I endeavour in this House, I am afraid not always successfully, to confine my remarks to the subject matter under discussion. But I may be permitted to say that if my hon. friend from St. John thinks that a tariff of 30 or 35 per cent, for instance, on woollen goods coming into this country-I take that as an illustration-facilitates the getting of revenue through a customs duty, I think he has something yet to learn. Let me say once more, what I have said in this House before, that a tariff based on the needs of revenue is a totally different thing from a tariff based on the principle of protection. So far, some of my hon. friends have not been able to grasp that fact. I agree with everything that my hon. friend from St. John has said, or anything that any one else can say, in regard to the need and desirability ocf binding this country together. We know that there are diverse elements in the population of Canada. We have a country that is flung across the American continent for over four thousand miles, and we have a danger of sectional differences. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the possibility of removing these differences is not advanced by any resolution such as is submitted to this House this afternoon by my hon. friend; and on the high ground of Canadian national unity I would appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his motion. Anything in this Dominion of ours that seeks to advance the interests of any single section of the community at the expense of the rest of Canada does not make for national unity. I know that the part of Canada from which I come is sometimes regarded as having a narrow, sectional outlook. I am aware that that view is held; but I have never, at any time or place in this country, discussed our national problems from that angle. We must find common ground on which to appeal to the Canadian people to build up a united Canadian nation, and I submit that the purpose of this resolution, instead of advancing that ideal, as my hon. friend from St. John suggests, would on the contrary retard it. For that reason,

Pref erence-Seaports
if for no other, I shall oppose the resolution if it goes to a vote.


Mr. MANION:: I desire to ask the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) a question, the purpose of which is not in any way to refute any of his arguments. He says that he has declared several times in the House that a revenue tariff is not the same as a protective tariff. I absolutely agree with him, but I should like to have him explain, although perhaps it may not be altogether in order, what he means by this statement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know whether or not I am in order in answering the question, but the statement I made was that a tariff based on the needs of revenue is a different thing altogether from a tariff based on the principle of protection. No matter what the duties may be, any tariff affords protection incidentally. That is a fact that any one who knows anything about tariffs admits.


Robert James Manion: Not if it is on non-competing articles.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is true, but we are discussing all goods coming into the country. A tariff for the purpose of revenue is a different thing from a tariff designed to keep goods out of the country in order that the home manufacturer may benefit.


Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce) :: I had not intended to speak on this resolution, but I asked a question of the hon. member for St. John, and in reply he referred me to some campaign literature in connection with the election. I was not in the province from which he comes at the time of the election, nor have I seen any of the literature to which he refers. I find myself very much in accord with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), but I should like to point out that there has been a very considerable amount of criticism of the Government's attitude on public ownership of our railways from various members on the other side of the chamber. They have intimated that it is doubtful if the Government will give public ownership a fair trial. But no hon. member can doubt that the Grand Trunk Railway system is to-day a national possession, and that if public management fails in the operation of that system, we will have to seek other means of operating it. However, so long as it is a national asset, it does seem to me that the principal port 'of the Grand Trunk Railway system, the port of Portland, is being directly discriminated against by this resolution, and I do not understand why it should be discriminated against before the Minister of Railways has had an opportunity of laying his railway policy before the House. I also find myself very much in accord with the hon. member for Marquette as to competitive freight rates. The only point to which he has not referred is that we are receiving package freight in mixed cargoes through American ports; but this is because a solid cargo of mixed merchandise would not be available from Great Britain, France or any other European country, simply because the volume of our imports is limited in comparison with similar imports by the United States. Therefore the Canadian importer gets the benefit of the freight rate from Portland, but if this resolution were adopted he would be discriminated against and, in fact, penalized.
I am just as much in sympathy with the viewpoint of hon. members from the maritime provinces as anyone can possibly be, but it seems to me that it would be a fatal mistake for us to discriminate at this time against the Atlantic port of the Canadian National railways, and therefore I hope that this resolution will not be pressed at least until a time when we will not be so directly interested in Portland as one of our National railway ports.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but it seems to me that the principles of my party would be absolutely ignored if this particular resolution were permitted to pass. We have been told a great deal by some speakers about national unity; but if we are -to have national unity we must of necessity get away from sectional interests. While the port of Halifax is not far from the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and the port of St. John is not a great distance away, nevertheless any resolution which would have for its object the forcing of trade to those ports at the expense of cheaper goods to our people I think should not be tolerated.
I believe that the British preference should be increased, and I am one of those bold enough to state that I hope I shall see the day when we shall have absolute free trade with the Motherland. If we pass this resolution to-day to force goods getting the British preference to come through Canadian ports, we are in effect supporting what is practically an argument to bolster up that false principle of protection against which I shall always raise my
Preference-Seaports

voice. If my constituents wish to receive goods, they naturally desire to buy them at the cheapest possible prices. Therefore any resolution which would compel them to pay more for those goods would be inimical to their interests. I care not whence these goods come, I care not through what channels they are introduced into Canada, my object is to see that the people who bear the burden and heat of the day get their goods with the minimum amount of protection and consequently at the cheapest possible cost. Therefore I am not prepared to record my vote in favour of anything which may mean simply a slight advantage probably to one or two localities but must inevitably result in the absolute elimination of cheaper goods for the people at large. I think that the British preference should be gradually increased so that the day may not be far distant when our toilers will be able to buy cheap goods without putting money into the pockets of manufacturers who are being protected to carry on industries that are not indigenous to our soil. I say without fear of contradiction that the principles of Liberalism in which I was raised have always taught me to look forward -ultimately to free trade in this Dominion.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I do not see why hon. members from Nova Scotia should feel that they alone are concerned about our coast ports; at any rate, British Columbians always like to have their say when it comes to a discussion of such matters. One interesting feature has been disclosed in this debate. It is not so much a question in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, whether the motion before the House has any merit one way or the other, but this debate, like many others, has disclosed the fact that there are twro lines of thought permeating our public men, evidenced more strongly in our Progressive friends than in any other political body. It will be found in the debates- and I do not say it by way of disparagement-that our Progressive friends base public policy essentially upon economics. As between the two great parties it will be found that the outlook in formulating public policy for parliamentary action is not confined to the economic, but takes in the political and national aspect. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) perhaps does not agree with me in this, but I leave it to hon. members generally to confirm my statement that in this discussion, as in many other discussions, his party is mainly influenced by the considera-

tion that a policy is to be measured by its consequences in dollars and cents rather than in its consequences on our nationhood and our national outlook.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the war has taught us one thing-and we can learn much from the war-it has taught us that all these picayune economic advantages which may be gained in a temporary fashion, by legislation or otherwise, fade to nothing when the conflict of arms takes place as it did in the great war; As a result of such conflict one great principle is established, one on which the members of this House are solid-and we have the history of our country to back us-and that is the principle of the necessity of developing an outlook for our nationhood and the maintenance of our national entity, and this you cannot do if you compromise our most vital economic interest by associating with another country from which you cannot be extricated in times of economic difficulties. I see my hon. friend smiling; perhaps he wishes to put a question to me.


Mr. FORKE:: The hon. member insinuated that we in this part of the chamber were lacking in patriotism. Will he state exactly what we are seeking that we are not willing to extend to all the people of the Dominion?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I did not make the suggestion that my hon. friends were lacking in patriotism. In no part of Canada did the people exhibit a greater sense of responsibility or a more loyal sentiment during the war than the -people of the prairie provinces. But what I say is -that in connection with matters which have been discussed in this House the economic aspect has been to-o -much emphasized; the question is always asked, what is to be the result in dollars and cents? My point is that we must take a broader view of these matters; we must evidence a spirit of cooperation throughout all parts of the country. It may be necessary for one portion of Canada to give way in some degree as respects their individual interests, for the benefit of the whole country-as has been so well expressed by the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) in connection with Nova Scotia. The purpose of this resolution is a very fair one: it is national in its outlook; it has the national welfare in view. The Liberal-Conservative party has always taken the attitude that in developing our nationhood we should not stress too much the economic aspect; we should, in questions of either

Preference-Seaports
national or international import, consider the political as well as the economic point of view. We must maintain ourselves as a national entity, as other countries are doing, and as was found necessary on the part of the most highly developed form of nationhood during the war. Without that, we might have been submerged; without that, other countries might have been submerged. With that other countries have lived; with that, Canada will live-if we do not think too much of the economic aspect of these questions.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my thought in the first place to take part in this debate, but the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Ladner) has given me a text. We have heard something from him, as we have from the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), about national unity; and it was very noticeable that while according to the Rules of the House they addressed Mr. Speaker, both of them directed their remarks toward hon. members in this corner of the Chamber.
The hon. member for St. John and Albert rebuked us for what seemed to him to be our failure to grasp the situation as it related to the Dominion as a whole. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one more than I would decry any attempt to set race against race or section against section. But when the hon. member who has just taken his seat tells us that the Conservative party above all other parties is animated by sentimental considerations and that dollars and cents do not enter into its discussion of these matters-well, that is something which up to the present we have not understood.
Let me say this in regard to national unity. As I have said already, certain remarks were directed to our corner of the House, especially, perhaps, to those representing the West. If there is any feeling of resentment-I say, if there is-in the prairie provinces to-day against other portions of the Dominion, it has been brought about by the attitude of ownership that has been assumed by other parts of the Dominion in regard to the West. Has anybody ever heard it stated that the Canadian Pacific railway was built by the prairie provinces and for them alone? Yet I am sure that that attitude of ownership, which, I say, has been taken in the past, will be taken again when the question of the natural resources comes to be discussed. When the plea is made for national unity it must not be forgotten that during the past fifty years the West has had good reason to believe that it has been considered a fair subject for exploitation on the part of those who live in the East and extreme West. So that sometimes when we are asked in the interests of unity to forego certain things or to refrain from seeking certain advantages, we are asked to do what the lamb did-lie down with the hon. but inside.
The economic aspect of the question has been very fairly set forth by our hon. leader (Mr. Crerar). When the people of the West are asked to agree to a proposal of this kind they will need to be shown a good deal. Much has been said in the past about a certain Wood from Missouri. Well, there are a great many people from Missouri in the West, in the sense that they will need to be shown and shown very clearly that a proposal of this kind will not mean the imposition of an additional burden upon them. My experience in the West goes back over forty years. I recall very clearly the difficulties and the hardships of the pioneers who sought to develop our part of the country and make it what it is to-day. The prairie provinces have furnished a great market for the East as well as the West. Without that section of the Dominion, I venture to say, the interests of the East would long ere this have ceased to enjoy the prosperity they are enjoying to-day, and would, perhaps, show a greater tendency than they do now to establish trade lines north and south.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert) :: Mr. Speaker, the terms of this resolution are based on broad national grounds. In matters relating to Canada as a whole, the various sections of the country must proceed as a unit so that we may have a uniform and satisfactory system throughout. One might suppose, upon hearing the remarks of the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), that this is a local question; that it relates simply to the welfare of St. John and Halifax. I assure hon. members that that is anything but the case. It is true that benefit would result to St. John and Halifax, but there are other ports in the maritime provinces besides those two Further, I believe that if this proposal were carried out there would be ports in the maritime provinces in the furture that we do not know of to-day. In other words, it would lead to the development of our maritime ports.

Royal Assent-Supply Bill



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
Sitting suspended for Royal Assent to bill.
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bill.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the Financial year ending on 31st, March, 1923.
Murray MacLaren: I was urging, when interrupted by the summons to the Senate that this resolution and the principle it embodies should be regarded from a high and broad national standpoint, as a question affecting the interests of Canada as a whole; that the suggestion that it was being brought forward to benefit a few individual points was an incorrect and restricted view; and that if you entertained it, it would weaken the outlook regarding the development of this country, because, Mr. Speaker, this question affects not only the seacoasts and seaports of our Dominion, both on the Atlantic and Pacific, but also the whole maritime position of our country. I wish, therefore, to support this resolution which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) with very much satisfaction.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current) :: I wish to say a few word's in regard to this resolution, and I do so with diffidence, ibesause the hon. gentleman opposite quoted extracts from speeches of such men as Mr. Fielding, Mr. Maclean, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and it would seem presumptuous on my part to differ with these great men. At the same time I feel that every one has a right to his own convictions. I do not believe that you can build up a nation, or develop Canadian sentiment, Canadian spirit, on an artificial restriction. I believe that we must build on some surer foundation than the benefit that will be enjoyed by certain individual people. It seems strange to us to hear people speaking as though we of the Progressive party did not believe in the unity of Canada. I can readily understand that

people from various provinces will have different conceptions with respect to this question but it seems to me that the great benefit from the adoption of this resolution would be enjoyed only by a certain class of people. While the mover of the resolution was speaking I was endeavouring to find out whether his object was, to increase the revenue, or increase Canadian trade in Canadian ports, or on the other hand, to make conditions more difficult for the Canadian consumer. He said that this latter was not the view at all. He camouflaged it by saying that the real object of this resolution was to create a national spirit, and if anything to intensify Canadianism. But if it is possible to intensify Canadianism by bringing all British goods through British ports, and the hon. gentlemen opposite, and hon. gentlemen to my right, are sincere in that desire, then, in order to give further effect to their wishes, I will propose an amendment to the resolution, so as to make it read as follows:
That in the opinion of this House the British tariff preference should he increased 25 per cent on all goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.
That to me, will show whether there is sincerity in the motion, and whether it will mean greater trade for Canadian ports.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved in amendment by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Brown;
That in the opinion of this House the British tariff preference should be increased 25 per cent on all goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.


Arthur John Lewis: If this matter is coming to a vote, and if it is going to be considered when the tariff is under discussion, I will withdraw the amendment at this time.


William Stevens Fielding: That is better.


John Livingstone Brown: Did Mr. Speaker read my name as seconding the motion? I do not want to second it.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment imposes a tax and cannot be moved by a private member of the House. However, I understand the hon. gentleman wishes to withdraw his amendment.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) :: I agree with the statement made by the hon. gentleman from St. John and Albert (Mr. MacLaren) that this question should be regarded from a broad national standpoint. And it seems to me if you regard it from that standpoint, the resolution stands condemned. So far as I can see,.

Preference-Seaports
national unity can only be established on one basis, and that is the belief and conviction on the part of every section that each is getting a square deal from every other, and I regard this particular resolution as an indication, an evidence, an example, of the desire to exploit some sections for the benefit of others. I wish to oppose the resolution for that reason, and for the reason that I regard Canadian unity as something highly to be desired and sought after.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I shall take up only a short time in discussing this resolution. I dissent somewhat from the statement made this afternoon that an issue must be broad and appeal to many people if it is to be an issue for the purpose of binding the country together and promoting the idea of nationality. I have been in this House for a long time now, and my experience in studying developments that have taken place in the House and in Canada, is best expressed by this little rhyme:
Little drops of water,
Little grains of sand,
Make the mighty ocean,
And the pleasant land.
Nations sometimes come into being on account of great events, such as the late Great War; but the bulk of our national progress, as I have read history and seen its development in this House, is made little by little, chip by chip. The hon. member (Mr. Logan) who introduced the resolution to-day, did me the honour of quoting something which I said in this House some years ago, and my opinion remains the same. He also quoted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who was then and is now in the House, in the same direction. He also quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the same direction. Go where you will, you will find, in this country, many people who believe in our nationality, in the future of Canada, and who believe that our success as a nation is to be achieved by one thing at a time, by moving in a certain direction, our progress involving, as all progressive measures do, not so much agreement as concession by one portion of the country to another. If I read history aright, the manner in which we have made headway in this country is by one section being broad enough to recognize the claims of another, and by mutual concessions. .
Let us come back to one or two other points that have been brought up this afternoon. Mention has been made of the port of Portland. I am an absolute be-
46J
liever in the future success of our national railways. The appeal made by an hon. gentleman opposite that we might, in some way, hurt our investment, or the future of our Canadian National railways, if we passed an act discriminating against imports coming in by Portland and thence by our railways, and that thus we would be injuring ourselves, has some force in it. But that question came up in regard to our possession of railways in the United States, and it was argued not so long ago that we should not own railways in the United States; that they would resent our owning railways in their country and we would resent their owning railways in Canada. During a certain period in our history, the American government controlled railways in this country, and we are now controlling railways in their country. If the matter comes to the broad issue of national railways, I may say that I am prepared to-morrow to see our Government allow the United States government, if it sees fit, as a national proposition, to take over the Grand Trunk and also the Canadian Pacific in so far as they lie in the state of Maine, that section of the Grand Trunk between Detroit and Chicago, and Canadian Pacific sections that run to Minneapolis and St. Paul. Indeed, I hope they will take over those sections of railway that Canadian railway companies or this Government own in the United States, provided they take them over and consolidate them into a national system owned by the people of the United States. Then, having that control, they will co-operate with us in regard to these two national roads for the development of the commerce of this continent. That is my answer to that proposition.
As to this special proposal to make a discrimination on goods that are routed to this country by Canadian ports, I still believe we can afford to make these concessions. No progress is made simply by benefits secured for everybody; progress is made by concessions that one makes to one's neighbour, by co-operation. Co-operation is the word. We must co-operate in order to build up our ports. Every one knows that the future is not clear to us at present. Let me tell my hon. friends from the West that, if they hope that a people that is wholly pastoral or agricultural, is going to maintain its nationality, they are mistaken because nationality can be maintained only by organizing a country industrially. Some day we shall see the necessity of making these concessions for the benefit
Preference-Seaports

of our ports. It is claimed there is a menace to our country from Asiatic inroads through our ports on the Pacific; but these people may come from a purely national and patriotic point of view to develop those ports, and it is concessions like these and a policy of the character contained in the resolution that, while they may interfere with the interests of the individual or of sections of the country, may benefit the country as a whole.
How are we g'oing to get lower freight rates in this country? I spoke of this matter the other day, and hon. gentlemen must know what is going on in the United States. There is a prospect of securing lower freight rates in this country by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, and this development will bring seaports into our upper lakes and even up to the waters of the Saskatchewan and the Assini-boine. We want all the sea ports we can get; but we often cannot develop them by a broad policy, and we must do this by making headway a little here and a little there. I read in the press this morning some news which may interest my hon. friends from the West, namely, that the leader of the Imperial Government announced in the British House of Commons that they are prepared to have the question of the British embargo on Canadian cattle come up again in that House, and the announcement goes even further, that the vote will be open and that members of the House will have an opportunity of voting whether or not they are in favour of the removal of the restriction that that Government, in the interest of protecting the British cattle breeder, have insisted on in the past. That may be a small matter to some people; but it is by constant agitation on our part, partly by farmers in the different provinces, that some headway has been made in this regard, and it is by small concessions that these successes are eventually achieved.
It is not by advocating any broad principle of British preference or free trade. We cannot have absolute free trade, but we need protection, because that is the only policy that will develop our industries, make us strong, and provide the sinews that go to make a sturdy nationhood. I have every sympathy with the West and their aspirations, but the national policy of protection-the policy of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier-is the one we need in Canada; and possibly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when tariff proposals

are disclosed, will be persuaded to base his policy on the necessities of the whole country.
I have not heard a single argument today that would induce me to abandon the view I stated on the floor of the House in support of a similar resolution some years ago. During my time in this House I have observed that the national progress of the country has been due to legislation of this kind. The reasons for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway were largely embodied in the remarks of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to-day. The Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental have broadened to meet the requirements of the whole country; and anything that is done to meet the claims of the West must also have regard to Canada at large. For the protection of our own interests, I agree with the member for St. John (Mr. Baxter), we should increase the use of our own ports by our own ships. We have a large fleet of ships now that were built for an emergency. They are not doing much and they ought to be put to use so that we might have lower rates, both in taking our own goods to foreign markets and in bringing cargoes to our own people. I trust that hon. members will not forget the views of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as quoted to-day, in regard to the development of our ports. We cannot depend on American ports; we must have our own. It is absolutely essential for a nation, if it wishes to maintain its integrity, promote its future prosperity, and realize its visions, to be broadly organized in the matter of transportation. It is as much in the interests of the people to develop the country's trade by means of its ports, as it is to have a tariff that will promote industry.
Moved by all these considerations, I still hold that no great mistake would be made by enacting legislation of this kind which proposes to build up our ports and, through them, our railways, and to do so in the light of the experience of the United States. The most highly organized nation in the world to-day is that republic, and its success is founded on a national policy. The greatest producers of food in the world at the present time are those people of the United States who have had the good fortune to control the Mississippi valley, which is rich in corn, coal, cotton, wheat, live stock, and meats of all kinds. The United States has been the most protective nation, and it has had the broadest

Preference-Seaports
national policy of any country in respect of its ports, and all the utilities established for the purpose of developing the trade and commerce of the people. They are so pronounced in this policy that they discriminate against us. The farmers of the United States have a national policy in agriculture, and a bill is now in progress through Congress establishing a high tariff which is backed by the farmers' bloc, with its chief mouthpiece in the farmers' organization.
My hon. friend, the second leader of the House (Mr. Crerar), does not realize how far his arguments are taking him. In Japan they used to have a Mikado and a Tycoon, and perhaps we have them in this House to-day. The hon. member does not realize that the farmers in the United States have a policy which discriminates against us, but which nevertheless is designed to make them the greatest country in the world. There is a diversity of employment in the United States and they have large industries that give employment to many simply because they have pursued a broad national policy and have built up the country at every point. They have highly developed their railways, their industries, and their agriculture, and have made concessions here and there, in all cases from the national rather than the sectional point of view.
Some hon. member has challenged us to give any instance where the Progressive party has advocated any sectional policy in this House. Well, I should not like to see my hon. friends from the West taking any narrow stand, and that is why I say that we should consider this question in a broad spirit. I am very much in sympathy with my hon. friends, and I think I can say that I am more of a democrat in many respects than they are; and I believe I am as progressive as they themselves. But I differ from them in some ways, and if there is one difference in particular between us it is the fact that I like to take the broadest national view of any question that comes up, mainly because Canada is still in the period of its formation. And while there has always been a difference between the public men of the country as to what policy will conduce most to its development, I do not think there is any doubt that the national policy, not only in regard to the tariff, but also in the matter of building up our own ports and railways, is the best.
I will take, the view that the Minister of Finance will make no mistake if when he
introduces his Budget he recognizes that in some way the development of our ports should be encouraged. I hope hon. members on the other side of the House will not think that I disagree so much with their views as with the relative merits of those views. I believe more and more in the policy of this country being based on the development of our nationhood along the line of having diversity of employment as a result of encouraging all kinds of industry, and of making our ports the complement of our railway system.


Hance James Logan: Mr. Speaker, as I stated when I introduced this motion this afternoon, I do not intend to press it to a vote because I do not believe it would be constitutionally right that the Government should be asked to commit itself on a tariff matter in anticipation of the Budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance. But in withdrawing this motion I am constrained to say, that some of the speeches delivered in the course of this debate have been very disheartening to those of us who desire to build up a great and united Canada. If it has come to this pass, that there is nothing in the cry of "Canada for Canadians", then God help Canada! When we reflect that every day freight given the advantage of the British preference is passing the port of Halifax-probably one of the four best ports in the wide world-to be landed in the port of New York, seven hundred miles further by sea than our port, upon which we have expended sixteen or seventeen million dollars-and for which my hon. friend from Marquette cannot deny responsibility because he was a member of the government that voted millions of dollars for the terminal port facilities in that harbor and the building of grain elevators in St. John and Halifax-we must ask ourselves: What has it all been for if not to create Canadian trade through Canadian channels?
It is unfortunate that in this debate we have heard so many inconsistent statements. Surely my hon. friend from Marquette does not say that if you have a full cargo both east and west you do not secure better rates on your eastbound cargo? He needs no knowledge of ocean freights to appreciate that; his own common sense must force him to that conclusion.
It is unfortunate that whenever we move a resolution in this House it should give rise in the minds of many of my hon. friends to the suspicion that there must be some ulterior motive influencing us and inimical to the interests of agriculture. I
Preference-S eaports

want to assure you, Sir, and this House that behind this motion there is only the desire, to build up a more united and independent Canada to give more business to our ports and railways, and to show the world that we can do business on the northern part of this continent without having to depend on the ports of the United States. If the contrary is true, what did we build the Grand Trunk Pacific for? Why did we spend two or three hundred million dollars in building this transcontinental railway if there is nothing in this proposition of east and west traffic? The attitude of some hon. members seem to be: Let the grass grow on the wharves of Halifax and St. John. What do we care so long as we can get our grain sent across the Atlantic one or two cents a bushel cheaper via Portland, Boston or New York? That attitude is discouraging to a Canadian. And then as if to accentuate the inconsistency, my hon. friend, after making a long speech denouncing this resolution, proposes that we should increase the British preference on British goods coming through Canadian ports! " Consistency, thou art a jewel."
I urge upon the Government that they consider this matter very seriously, and I can only hope that when the Budget is brought down the Finance Minister will declare that this preference-which, as I have said, is an arrangement between mother and daughter-shall be confined to goods landed at Canadian ports. We have not had time to discuss this matter at length, but had I the opportunity now I would demonstrate conclusively that the argument advanced by hon. members in opposition to this resolution has been based upon wrong knowledge. I would prove that the freight rate to-day between Liverpool and Winnipeg, via Canadian ports, is not any higher than it is via New York and Boston; in fact, in some cases it is lower.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that is the case, might I ask my hon. friend why do these goods not come in through Canadian ports at the present time?


Hance James Logan: On account of our not patronizing Canadian liners as we should, we have not the same frequency of service as they have through New York and Boston because we do not give our freighters sufficient eastbound traffic.
The hour for adjournment has almost arrived and the time is too short for me to go into this argument at any greater length; therefore, in accordance with my

previously announced intention, I now withdraw the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the unanimous
consent of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Granted.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 6, 1922