1926-04-12

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to table, at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer, the statutory report on the fifteenth general election, this having been printed pursuant to the provisions of section 72, subsection 6, of the Dominion Elections Act.



MINISTER OF LABOUR


Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of the Hon. John Campbell Elliott for the electoral district of Middlesex West.



INTRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. John Campbell Elliott, Minister of Labour, member for the electoral district of Middlesex West, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Ernest Lapointe.

[Stage Direction]
Ri£ht Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:
That all papers laid on the table do stand referred to the joint committee on Printing for consideration for the purpose of reporting as to whether they are to be printed or not.
Hewitt Bostock: Answering a question put to me sotto voce by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who inquired what was the purpose of the motion that has just been moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister, I might explain that in the old days all the papers tabled were printed, and in consequence the volumes were very bulky and contained much useless printed matter. A committee of the House, when we were sitting in the Victoria Museum, decided that the committee on Printing should make a selection of the papers to be printed and determine what should and what should not be printed. That has been the practice now for the last six or seven years, and that is the purpose of the motion which has just been presented.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. J. HAMILTON (Stormont):: I
would ask the Acting Postmaster General why the price of the private boxes in the
Questions

Cornwall .post office has been increased one hundred per cent without any notice being given to the boxholders?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Acting Postmaster General):: I really do not know. I would advise my hon. friend to put that question on the order paper, because it is certainly not of a nature which makes it proper to be asked on the orders of the day.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Could the Minister of Finance give us the date for the announcement of the budget?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I am glad my right hon. friend has asked that question, because I was going to say that on Thursday of this week I Shall ask the unanimous consent of the House for the motion necessary to present the budget.


Arthur Meighen: It will be presented
Thursday?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.



TEST VOYAGE-LINER REGINA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): On Friday last the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price) addressed a question to me, on the orders of the day, with regard to the test voyage to Halifax of the liner Regina. I have caused inquiry to be made in regard to the matter by calling the attention of the management of the Canadian National Railways to the remarks of my hon. friend and the statement of the management is:
That instructions had previously been given to all concerned with the solicitation of export traffic to pay special attention to the test voyage of the Regina in order to secure all possible traffic for the return trip.

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

Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):: 1.	What towns in the province of Ontario with a population of 5,000 or less have post office buildings owned by the government of Canada?
2.	What towns in the province of Ontario with a population of 5,000 or less have customs house buildings owned by the government of Canada?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.
Acton, Post Office and Customs.
Alexandria, Post Office and Customs.

Almonte, Post Office and Customs. Amherstburg, Post Office and Customs. Amprior, Post Office and Customs. Athens, Post Office.
Aurora, Post Office and Customs. Aylmer, Post Office and Customs. Bowmanvil'le, Post Office and Customs. Bracebridge, Post Office and Customs. Brampton, Post Office and Customs. Bridgeburg, Post Office and Customs. Cardinal, Post Office.
Carleton Place, Post Office and Customs. Cayuga, Post Office.
Chesley, Post Office.
Clinton, Post Office and Customs. Deseronto, Post Office and Customs. Dresden, Post Office.
Dundas, Post Office and Customs. Eganville, Post Office.
Elmira, Post Office and Customs.
Elora, Post Office.
Essex, Post Office and Customs.
Exeter, Post Office.
Fergus, Post Office.
Gananoque, Post Office.
Glencoe, Post Office and Customs. Goderich, Post Office and Customs. Gravenburst, Post Office.
Grimsby, Post Office and Customs. Hanover, Post Office and Customs. Harriston, Post Office.
Kemptville, Post Office.
Kincardine, Post Office and Customs. Lakefield, Post Office.
Leamington, Post Office and Customs. Listowell, Post Office and Customs. Markham, Post Office.
Mildmay, Post Office.
Milverton, Post Office.
Milton, Post Office.
Mitchell, Post Office and Customs. Napanee, Post Office and Customs. Newmarket, Post Office and Customs. Norwich, Post Office and Customs. Orangeville, Post Office and Customs. Palmerston, Post Office.
Paris, Post Office and Customs.
Parkhil'l, Post Office and Customs. Petrolia, Post Office and Customs.
Picton, Post Office and Customs.
Port Coliborne, Post Office.
Port Hope, Post Office and Customs. Prescott, Post Office.
Renfrew, Post Office and Customs.
St. Marys, Post Office and Customs. Sandwich, Post Office and Customs. Seaforth, Post Office and Customs. Shelburne, Post Office.
Simcoe, Post Office and Customs. Strathroy, Post Office and Customs

Questions
Stouffville, Post Office.
Tilbury, Post Office and Customs.
Tilsonburg, Post Office and Customs.
Uxbridge, Post Office.
Walkerton, Post Office and Customs.
Whitby, Post Office and Customs.
Wingham, Post Office and Customs.
2.
Prescott, Ont., Customs House.
Gananoque, Ont., Customs House.
Pigeon River, Customs.
Port Lambton, Customs.
Walpole Island, Customs.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-DRUG TRAFFIC
Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Was a commission issued to J. P. Smith, K.C., of Vancouver, to inquire into alleged improper and illegal handling of dirugs by members of the R.C.M.P.?
2.	Has the Minister of Justice received a report from J. P. Smith, and has such report been made public?
3.	What names were submitted to the minister for appointment for commissioner?
4.	Upon whose recommendation, or who was responsible for selecting J. P. Smith as commissioner?
5.	Why was J. P. Smith selected in preference to the others?
6.	Was not, in fact, J. P. Smith's appointment re-[DOT]commended by Mr. M. A. Macdonald, in Vancouver, and Mr. W. W. B. Mclnries?
7.	What official or other connection had J. P. Smith with the mounted police in the Yukon?
8.	When did such official or other connection cease?
9.	Was the minister aware of such official or other connection with the mounted police at the time of such appointment as commissioner?
10.	What remuneration has been paid to J. P. Smith for his services as commissioner; also what amount for expenses ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, the findings of the report have been made public.
3.	Messrs. Craig, K.C., H. S. Wood, and
J.	P. Smith, K.C.
4.	Mr. Smith was one of the three above named who were recommended by the Attorney General of British Columbia.
5.	No particular reason.
6.	No information.
7.	None known.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	Answered by No. 7.
10.	As commissioner, $1,700, expenses $46.50, total, $1,746.50.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	In what capacity was M. A. MacDonald acting in connection with Victoria proceedings against Eccles, Smith and Fernandez of the mounted police.
2.	Was M. A. MacDonald instructed by the minister to demand a case stated from the presiding magistrate for appeal from the conviction against Eccles, Smith and Fernandez ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	To watch the proceedings and take such action as might be necessary or advisable in the interests of justice.
2.	Not specially; but he acted within the scope of his general instructions.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	What fees have been paid to M. A. MacDonald for * services in connection with the Victoria proceedings
against the mounted police, or for services! in any other connection, either as agent for the Minister of Justice, or acting for the Attorney General of Canada, in connection with proceedings against members of the mounted police, and what amount for expenses?
2.	What are the names of counsel employed by the Department of Justice to defend the mounted police against charges, both in connection with Victoria proceedings and commission proceedings?
3.	What fees have been paid to each of these counsel; also what amounts for expenses?
4.	Has any counsel fee been paid to F. A. McDairmid, counsel for Sergeant Munday, and if so, what amount; and what amount for expenses?
5.	Has any counsel fee been paid to J. B. Pattullo, of Vancouver, and if so, what amount, and what amount for expenses?
6.	In what capacity was J. B. Pattullo acting, and by whom retained?
7.	Will the minister state in just what capacity Mr. E. P. Davis was acting?
8.	Have counsel fees been paid to J. A. Russell, of Vancouver, counsel for Eccles and other members of the Mounted Police, and if so, what amount, and what amount (if any) for expenses?
9.	Has a pardon been granted by the Governor General, from a conviction of Eccles, Fernandez and W. L. Smith, of the Mounted Police, in Victoria, and if so, when was it applied for, by whom, and upon whose recommendation was it granted?
10.	When such pardon, as aforesaid, was granted, was there an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of British Columbia by way of stated case, at the request of the Attorney General of Canada?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Victoria proceedings, fees $630.00; Expenses $76.45, total $706.45. Victoria proceedings Appeal Case, fees $617.00; expenses $45.00, total $662.00.
2.	E. P. Davis, K.C., J. B. Pattullo, K.C. and M. A. Macdonald, K.C.,-the latter brought in temporarily owing to Mr. Pattullo'* illness-were instructed to represent the Department of Justice generally to see that all relevant evidence was produced and to advocate the *[DOT]justice of the case, but they were not otherwise instructed to defend the mounted police.
3.	Victoria proceedings:-
J. B. Pattullo-Fees $2,500; expenses and incidentals $265.14, total $2,765.14.
J. B. Pattullo (Victoria Agents) Fees $583.80, expenses $64.35, total $648.15.
M. A. Macdonald, fees $630.00; expenses $76.45, total $706.45.
M. A.	Macdonald-Appeal	Case-fees
$617.00; expenses $45.00, total $662.00.

Questions
Commission proceedings:-
E. P. Davis, fees $2,748.62; expenses $61.00, total $2,809.62.
J. B. Pattullo-fees $1,500.00; expenses $39.67, total $1,539.67.
Note: In addition to the above, the following were employed by the defendants to protect their personal interest, namely: J. A. Russell, Vancouver, by Constable Smith; J. A. Russell and J. W. de B. Farris by Agent Eccles and Informant Fernandez; F. A. Mc-Diarmid, Vancouver, by Staff Sergeant Mundy; John A. W. O'Neill, Vancouver, by Constable L. J. Black, and in view of the fact that the defendants were exonerated by the Commission of Inquiry, the accounts for such counsel were paid from public funds. (See answers to questions Nos. 4 below and 8).
4.	Yes, fees $875.00; expenses $30.00, total $905.00.
5.	Yes, see answer to No. 3 above.
6.	At the Victoria proceedings, counsel for Department of Justice retained by Department of Health in the first instance, approved by Department of Justice. At the commission proceedings, for Department of Justice.
7.	Leading Counsel for Department of Justice at the commission proceedings.
8.	Yes, Victoria preceedings and stated case -fees $482.20; expenses $117.50; commission proceedings, fees $2,025.00; expenses $2.00; Eccles perjury case, fees, $952.03; expenses $37.20; Fernandez perjury case, fees, $904.69; expenses $57.05, total $4,577.67.
9.	A free pardon was granted to each, Eccles, Fernandez and Smith. No application for pardon was made in any case. The pardons were granted upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.
JO. Yes.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: Was bail provided for Eccles, Smith and Fernandez in connection with any prosecutions at Victoria by the Department of Justice, or was any person directed to provide bail, and if so, who, and under what circumstances or assurances?


Ernest Lapointe: Bail was not provided by the Department of Justice, neither was any person directed to provide bail when the defendants were arrested in the first instance. The men concerned arranged the bonds required between themselves and members of the force. During the hearing of the commission proceedings, however, Agent Eccles was arrested on a charge of perjury during the Victoria proceedings and bail set at $3,000. Eccles had difficulty in procuring bonds on that occasion, and the officer commanding in Vancouver

considered Eccles should be protected and the Department of Justice instructed that so long as Eccles enjoyed the confidence of his superiors, the government should protect him to the extent of furnishing the necessary bail. The officer commanding the mounted police in Vancouver, therefore, instructed Inspector Shoebotham to arrange bail for Eccles in this particular case only. Sureties of $1,500 each were accepted from Inspector Shoebotham and Mr. M. C. Hill, of Vancouver.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Did (the Minis-ter of Justice and Prime Minister receive resolutions of protest from Vancouver and Victoria, as to the manner of conducting a commission of inquiry by J. P. Smith?
2.	After the conviction of Eccles and W. L. Smith in Victoria, and during the time the Commission of Inquiry was sitting, were Eccles and Smith retained on the Force of the R. C. M. Police and receiving full pay?
3. If not, when did such salaries to 'Eccles and Smith cease?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eccles and Smith's services were retained, but they did not receive full pay during the period mentioned.
3.	Their pay was suspended on 3rd November, 1923, in both cases, and was not released until granted a free pardon. In the case of Smith, however, who was a married man with one child and had no other means of support except his pay, it was necessary to grant him a month's pay in arrears, at different times, on the recommendation of the officer commanding.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Are Eccdes, J. P. (Doc.) Smith, W. L. Smith, Sergeant Brown and Sergeant Munday still in the .pay of the mounted police?
2.	In view of the serious charges against the aJbove named .persons, and which it is complained have not been properly investigated, does the Department of Justice intend to retain these individuals on the strength of the R.C.M.P.?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No, with the exception of Sergeant Brown.
2.	There were no charges preferred against Sergeant Brown. Sergeant Brown's services are being retained.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 
Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Has the minister received a petition on behalf of C. W. Monk convicted in Vancouver, 1923, for passing a sample of cocaine of 25 grains to one J. J. Schmit, a stool pigeon of Doc. Smith's of the /mounted police, and if so, what action has been taken?
2.	Is the minister aware th^t the said J. J. Smith has been twice convicted in British Columbia, for having in his possession a large quantity of liquor, illegally; also convicted ifbr another offence in December 1923; also that the said Schimiit was arrested by the mounted police with 30 ounces cocaine in his possession, and has not yet been prosecuted.


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No to the first two parts of the question. \es to the last part. (He was not prosecuted for the reason that he assisted the police in endeavouring to locate the source of supply.)


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Has the Department of Justice ever extended a free pardon to any person convicted under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act whilst an appeal was pending; if so, give particulars?


Ernest Lapointe: A pardon was granted by the Governor General in the case of Wallace Layne Smith, Francis William Eccles and Frank Williams alias Fernandez. Following conviction by a police magistrate for a breach of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, an appeal was lodged on their behalf. The pardon was granted as subsequently an inquiry under due authority had disclosed that these three persons had not committed the offence of which they had been convicted.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	One, Chei Sang, charged on the 17th July, 1923, in Vancouver city police court, with unlawfully having drugs in possession; witnesses for the prosecution being Constable Black and Sergeant Fripps of the Mounted Police. Case has been remanded from week to week up until February 1, 1924, and has not yet been proceeded with. Will the minister ascertain why this case was not prosecuted, and if it is a fact that the accused charged he had been supplied with drugs by Doc Smith and Black of the mounted police, in order to secure a conviction against Joe Qun?
2.	Was J. A. Russell acting for the accused, Chei Sang, and did not J. A. Russell spirit this accused away, because the accused charged illegal handling of drugs by the mounted police?
3.	Is it a fact that at some of these adjournments Sergeant Fripps asked for adjournments on behalf of Mr. J. A. Russell?
4.	Is it a fact that Chei Sang left for China that middle of February, and has not been prosecuted, after his case having been adjourned for eight mnoths?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. This question is believed to refer to one Chui Sang, alias Ohong Wong, Vancouver.
The case against this man was not proceeded with after a conference with the Department of Health, when it was decided to withdraw the charges. The accused was a boy of 19 years of age, and was returned to China on the S.S. "Philoctetes" on the 21st February, 1924. He was not a regular drug runner, but because the drugs found in his possession had been obtained from one Joe Qun, an effort was made by the Police to use this boy to return some of them to Joe Qun, in order to locate Qun, who was wanted for a former offence against the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and who could not be found.
2.	J. A. Russell was acting for the accused, but the accused was not spirited away.
3.	Mr. Russell was in attendance at the commission of inquiry during some of the hearing of this case, and adjournments were necessary on that account. (There is no information that Sergeant Fripps asked for these adjournments.)


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Has the Minister of Justice received original Statutory Declarations (annexed to the petition of C. W. Monk), sworn to before Stipendiary Magistrate Alexander in Vancouver wherein it is charged that Frank Fernandez (alias Frank Williams), smuggled $20,000 of opium and narcotics into Vancouver (under the nose of C.R.P. Police) in the summer of 1920?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Has the minister seen a report from Colonel Wroughton, Officer Commanding the R.C.M.P., in Vancouver, addressed to Ottawa, under date of January 4, 1922, wherein it is alleged that Frank Williams (Fernandez) and Frank Femandazy (Frank Fernandez) are "the two biggest smugglers of drugs on the coast" and that Norman DeGraves of the Vancouver customs, and other customs officers are protecting Frank Williams (Fernandez) and if so, what action was taken by the department in regard to the charges against the customs officers?
2.	Will the minister explain how it comes about that two months after it is reported by Colonel Wroughton that Frank Williams (Fernandez) was one of the biggest smugglers on the coast, that Williams (Fernandez) is already in the employ of the mounted police?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	There is no report of the date mentioned written by ex-Assistant Commissioner Wroughton, in which the words mentioned occur, but a report containing such information was received from a secret source at Vancouver and was forwarded by Col. Wroughton to headquarters, which information was transmitted to the preventive service of the Department of Customs.
2.	Fernandez was never in the actual employ of the R.C.M. Police. He was an informer only.
Questions


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Will the minister place on the table all reports received from the officer commanding the R.C.M.P. in Vancouver, addressed to Ottawa, re Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, from 1920 to 1924.


Ernest Lapointe: No, It would not be in the public interest to do so.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	If Sergeant Jones has not been discharged, has Colonel Wroughton notified Jones that he will not be re-engaged, and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How long has Sergeant Jones served in the R.C.M.P. force?
3.	What is Sergeant Jones' record with the R.C.M.P.?
4.	What other members of the R.C.M.P. (Victoria Detachment) have left the service, or been removed, or discharged. Give names, and reasons for discontinuance ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Sergeant Jones was not discharged, but was refused re-engagement on account of (a) Disloyalty in the Rex vs Eccles et al case and Commission of Inquiry proceedings at Victoria and Vancouver, (b) For breaches of discipline.
2.	Sixteen years, eighty-five days.
3.	Although up to the arrest of Constable Smith, Agent Eccles and Informer Fernandez, the conduct of Staff Sergeant Jones was good, his conduct in connection with the proceedings against these men was such as to demonstrate his unsuitability for further employment in the force.
4.	(a) Corporal H. F. Small.-This noncommissioned officer was transferred to Vancouver for [DOT] duty, owing to the necessity of reducing the strength at Victoria and the need of economy. At the expiration of his period of service he took his discharge "time expired" at Vancouver.
(b) Corporal R. Harvey.-This non-commissioned officer was transferred to Vancouver for the same reason as Small. He was invalided from the force on 5th August 19-24.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	On what date and for what offence was J, J. Schmit arrested by the mounted police in Vancouver?
2.	Was such arrest made by J. P. (Doc) Smith?
3.	Was J. J. Schmit prosecuted, and if not, why not?
4.	Was thirty ounces of cocaine, or any other amount, found in the possession of Schmit?
5.	What disposition was made of this thirty ounces of cocaine?
6.	Was J. J. Schmit afterwards used as an informer by the mounted police?
7.	What remuneration did Schmit receive, and m what cases, and for how long a period was he employed by the mounted police?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. 10th September, 1922. For possession of drugs, and taken to the R.C.M.P. barracks there at Vancouver.
I Mr. Lapointe.]
2.	Yes.
3.	No, because the police decided to use him in locating a large cache of drugs which was believed to be in existence in Vancouver, and also to locate the men "higher up" who were supplying Schmit.
4.	Yes, 30 ounces.
5.	They were handed in to the court at-Vancouver in connection with the prosecution of one W. C. Monk, who supplied the drugs to Schmit. The clerk of the court eventually adlvised Staff Sergeant Mundy that they had been forwarded to the Department of Health, Ottawa, direct.
6.	Yes.	i
7.	None to the first part of the question. It is not in the public interest to answer the-second part.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1. Is the government aware that in his evidence before a commission, Doc Smith swore that he made a purchase of cocaine in the premises of J. J. Wing, on Broadway East, Vancouver, what disposition, or return was made of this cocaine?


Ernest Lapointe: "Doc" Smith did not state he purchased said drugs. The words used by Smith were:- "We purchased one ounce of cocaine." The purchase was actually made by ex-Corporal McDowell and properly disposed of, and receipt obtained.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: According to press report in Vancouver and Victoria, J. P. (Doc) Smith is to be removed to some other point, where "this excellent" officer's methods of enforcing the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act are not known? Is the minister aware that one of the methods used by Doc Smith, as a law enforcement officer, is ta supply drugs to young people, with instructions to plant these drugs some place, so that Doc Smith can effect arrest?


Ernest Lapointe: Answer to first part of the question:- J. P. (Doc) Smith is no longer in the employ of the R.C.M. Police.
Answer to second part of the question:- No.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Is the Minister of Justice aware that F. W. Ecclea used to operate a high powered canoe in Vancouver harbour, and was suspended from the service for operating such canoe, because of a charge that he was using said canoe for illegal smuggling of drugs?
2.	Is the minister aware that in connection with, said canoe, Eccles is now facing a charge of perjury at the Victoria spring assizes?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. No. Such a charge against Eccles was-made and investigated both by ex-Assistant Commissioner Wroughton and the commission.

Questions
of inquiry, when Eccles was found to have acted in good faith. He was suspended because he had committed a fault in discipline in not having disclosed his plans, in advance, to his superiors to approach a ship in a small boat to obtain drugs to catch and arrest a Chinese dealer in drugs, and as a disciplinary measure Eccles was released from employment for a time.
2. No. Eccles was tried for perjury in connection with the said canoe at Nanaimo on 20th of May, 1924, before Mr. Justice W. A. MacDonald and Jury, and found "not guilty."


STRENGTH AND DUTIES OF MOUNTED POLICE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	How many members of the R. C. M. P. are there in British Columbia, what are their names?
2.	At what places are they stationed, and how many at each station?
3.	What are their duties?
I. Are they supplied with horses?
5.	What members of the force have motor care?
6.	Is any allowance provided in respect of motor care, and what are particulars?
7.	Are any membere of the force provided with both horses and motor cars, or is any allowance made for the use of horses and motor cars? If so, what members and what are the particulars?


Ernest Lapointe: 1,	2 and 3. There are 94 members of the force in British Columbia, their names, dis-liibution and duties being set forth below:
Name	Duty
Superintendent A. W. Duffus-In command of B.C. District.
Inspector T. M. Shoefootham-Paymaster and Quartermaster, Vancouver.
*Inspector R. Field-In command Fernie Sub-District.
Inspector A. E. Acland-In command Prince Rupert Sub-District.
Inspector J. M. Tupper-In command Victoria Island Sub-District.
Inspector R. L. Cadiz-In command Penticton Sub-District.
Inspector T. H. Irvine-Instructor at Vancouver.
Inspector T. V. S. Wunsch-Under orders for Northern BjC. Patrol.
Inspector A. E. G. O. Raames

In charge of C.I.B., Vancouver.
Inspector H. A. R. Gagnon-Assistant in C.IJB., Vancouver.
S.-fM'ajor Binning, G.-Sergeant Major "E" Division, Vancouver.
S.-Sergeant Walshaw, W.-In charge Esqui-malt Detachment.
S.-Sergeant Watson, F. P.-Veterinary Staff-Sergeant, Vancouver.
Sergeant Cather, J. S.-Detective, Vancouver.
Sergeant Watts, A. F. C.-Orderly Room Clerk, Vancouver.
Sergeant Taylor, H. E.-In charge Prince George Detachment.
Sergeant Fripps, J.-Detective, Vancouver.
Sergeant Sampson, L. J.-Detective, Vancouver.
Sergeant Jebson, H. H.-Prince Rupert Detachment.
Sergeant Birch, A. G.-Penticton Detachment.
Sergeant* Smith, W. D.-Farrier at Vancouver.
Sergeant Paton, J. R.-In charge Victoria Detachment.
Sergeant Butler, H. A.-Quartermaster Sergeant, Vancouver.
Sergeant Hanna, J. G.-Fernie Detachment.
Corporal Brice, T. C.-Telkwa Detachment
Corporal Jasper, W- T.-Duty, Vancouver.
Corporal Williams, H. J. E.-Detective, Vancouver.
Corporal Healy, J.-Detective, Vancouver
Corporal Kilmer, R.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Corporal Harvey, H.-Plumber, etc., Vancouver.
Corporal Brooksbank, P.-Duty, Vancouver.
Corporal O'Reilly, J. R.-Su'b-District clerk, Penticton.
Corporal Withers, W.-Division Storeman, Vancouver.
Corporal Emmerson, S. H.-'Duty, Vancouver.
Corporal Culverhouse, F.-Detective, Fernie.
Corporal Stiven, B. S.-In charge Newgate Detachment.
Corporal Wilson, D.-In charge Cranbrook Detachment..
Corporal Crump, E.-In charge Kingsgate Detachment.
Constable Anderson, F. S.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable O'Brien, A. H. Detective, Vancouver.
Constable Bolous, W.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Berger, M. T.-Telkwa Detachment.
Constable Black, L. J.-Detective, Vancouver.
Constable Barriball, J. E.-Victoria Detachment.
Constable Bryson, F. G.-Penticton Detachment.
Questions

Constable Badham, B. F.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Clarke, E H.-Victoria Detachment.
Trumpeter Carcoux, J. H.-Trumpeter, Vancouver.
Constable Currie, A.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Collins, D. M.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Dolley, J. L.-^Assistant engineer, Vancouver.
Constable Dery, P. E.-Motor truck driver,
Vancouver.
Constable Eaton-IRichards, D. J. A.-On leave.
Constable Foster, M. F.-Chauffeur, Vancouver. .
Constable Floyd, S.-Detective, Vancouver.
Constable Fenton, F. H.-Prince George Detachment.	.
Constable Gervin, R. K.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Gunn, A. E.-Fernie Detachment.
Constable Hinton, W. W.-Sanitary Orderly, Vancouver.
Constable Horsfield, R. E.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Parson, G. R.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Carstairs, W.-In charge Field Detachment.
Constable Labelle, H. 0.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Lonsdale, F. C.-Victoria Detachment.
Constable Lawton, S. C.-Fernie Detachment.
Constable Lloyd, E. W.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable McAskilil, D. A.-Victoria Detachment.
Constable Murray, B. U.-Head teamster, Vancouver.
Constable McGibbon, D. L-Detective. Vancouver.
Constable Nevill, H. W.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Prior, B. G.-Motor truck driver, Vancouver.
Constable Rhead, H.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Smith, G.-Quartermaster Storeman.
Constable Scrogg, T. G.-Telkwa Detachment.
Constable Savoie, J. P. A.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Smith, P. B.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Stafford, R.-Esquimalt Detachment.
Constable Stanyar, R. A.-Duty, Vancouver.
fMr. Lapointe.]
Constable Tarr, F. E.-Sub-District clerk, Prince Rupert.
Constable Thornton, C. A.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Urquhart, W.-In charge Radium Hot Springs Detachment.
Constable Vidito, D. G.-Painter, Vancouver.
Constable Wall, G. M.-Duty, Vancouver.
Constable Winget, T. T.-Fernie Detachment.
Constable Woodcock, F.-Esquimalt Detachment..
S.-Constable Clarke, E. C.-Assistant Cook Division Mess, Vancouver.
S.-Constable Ferris, F. C.-General Duty, Vancouver.
S.-Constable Heald, W. B.-Stenographer, Vancouver.
S.-Constable Hovey, D. N.-Chief Cook, Division Mess, Vancouver.
S.Cons table Hughes, D.-Engineer, Vancouver.
S.-Constable MeMeekin, J.-Cook, Officers' Mess, Vancouver.
S.-Constable Rawlings, F. S.-Cook, Esquimalt Detachment.
S.-Constable Uglow, E.-General Duty, Esquimalt.
S.-Constable Young, J.-Tailor, Vancouver.
Notes.-(1) The duties at Esquimalt largely consist in guarding H.M.C. naval dockyard.
(2)	The duties at Victotria largely consist in giving police protection to Receiver General's office.
(3)	Men at Vancouver' and on detachment elsewhere enforce all federal laws, patrol Indian reserves and such other duties as may be required.
The numbers at each point are as follows:
Place	Number
Detectives in city of Vancouver....	11
Stationed at Shaughnessy Heights,
Fairmont Barracks, Vancouver. ..	42
Victoria	 5
Esquimalt	 13
Penticton	 4
Prince Rupert	 3
Prince George	 2
Telkwa	 3
Field	 1
Radium Hot Springs	 1
Fernie	 6
Newgate	 1
Cranbrook	   1
Kingsgate	 1
Total	 94

Questions
4.	Yes. The whole strength in British Columbia is supplied with a total of 60 horses for general duty.
5.	No individual member of the force is supplied with a motor car. There are three motor cars, two motorcycles, and two motor trucks distributed throughout the (province for general duty.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by Nos. 4 and 5.
COLONEL	WROUGHTON-APPLICATION	FOR


PENSION
Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1. Has an application been received by the Department of Justice from Colonel Wroughton, Officer Commanding the R.C.M.P. in Vancouver, for a pension; or has an application been received by the department or does the department contemplate giving a pension to Colonel Wroughton, and if so, upon whose recommendation, and what is the date of application?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Ex-Assistant Commissioner Wroughton applied by letter of March 17, 1924, to be retired to pension, which was granted (granted six months' leave from May 1, 1924, and retired to pension 1st November, 1924, by order in council 5th of May, 1924).


LIGHTKEEPER AT TORBAY POINT, N.S.
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Was George Schrader, lightkeeper at Torbay Point, Ouysborough County, N.S., dismissed from his position? If so, when, and for what cause?
2.	Was any investigation made as to George Shrader's conduct or capacity as lightkeeper prior to his dismissal, and by whom?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


IMPORTATIONS OF COAL-REBATE
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	What amount of rebate was paid by the federal government during 1925, on coal imported by proprietors of by-products coke ovens: (a) in Montreal, (b) in Hamilton?
2.	What amount was rebated by the federal government during 1925, on coal imported for use in connection with iron and steel industry in Canada: (a) in Hamilton, (b) in Sudbury, (c) in Montreal?
3.	What amount of coal was imported during the year 1925 for use in the iron and steel industry of Canada?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	(a) Nil; (b) 866,595.44.
2.	(a) $149,697; (b) Sault Ste. Marie-$183,566.95. (Sudbury-Nil); (c) Nil.
3.	Information not available.


REPARATION CLAIMS
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1. On what date was Germany notified by or on behalf of Canada that the provisions of article 296 and 14011-147
the annex thereto should apply as between Germany on the one hand and Canada on the other providing that there should be settled through the intervention of clearing offices, to be established within three months of such notification, the various classes of pecuniary obligations?
2.	How much money has been paid out to residents of Canada by the Department of the Secretary of State as the result of claims made under those categories ?
3.	How much of said total amount was paid out as the result of: (a) Admissions by the Debtor Clearing office; (b) Judgments of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, sitting in London, England?
4.	How much money has been paid out to residents of Canada by the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada as the result of claims made under Article 297 (e), and as the result of claims made under paragraph 4 of said annex?
5.	How much of said total amount was paid out as the result of: (a) Admissions by the Debtor Clearing Office; (b) Judgments and Awards of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal and Arbitrator?
6.	Out of what fund has the first description of claims been paid, namely, those under Part X of the Treaty, Economic Clauses, Section III, Debts, Article 296 ?
7.	Out of what fund has the second description of claims been paid, namely, those under Part X of the Treaty, Economic Clauses, Section IV, Property, Rights and Interests, Article 297?
8.	Who is the Custodian of the fund?
9.	Who is the Deputy-Custodian of the fund?
10.	How much money has been paid out to residents of Canada by the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada as the result of claims made under Part VIII of the Treaty, Reparation, Section I, Article 232, and Annex I?
11.	Is it the duty of the Canadian Reparation Commissioner to investigate and report upon all claims which may be submitted to him for the purpose of determining whether they are within the ten categories above mentioned, and the fair amount of such claims?
12.	To whom is the said report required to be made?
13.	On what date will it be completed?
14.	Has Canada been paying only the two first classes of claims?
15.	How much remains of the fund out of which these two classes of claims have been paid?
16.	What is the total of claims outstanding in these first two classes?
17.	After all these claims in the first two classes, namely, those under Part X, Economic Clauses, Section III. Debts, and Section IV, Property, Rights and Interests, have been settled, is Canada entitled to hold and credit to Germany on account of the third class of claims, Part VIII, Reparation, Section I, and Annex I, the balance of the fund out of which she has been paying the first two classes of claims?
18.	How much money has Canada received directly on account of Reparation, under the "Dawes Plan"?
19.	How much is Canada entitled to receive under the "Dawes Plan"?
20.	Over what period and in how many instalments will Canada's share of the "Dawes money" be received ?
21.	Will Canada waive any national claim she has, as the United States has done, and pay the money received on account of reparation, to all of her citizens who have presented their claims under Part VIII, Reparation, Section I, Article 232, and Annex I thereto, and had them assessed by the Canadian Reparation Commissioner?
22.	Will the balance of the "Enemy Property Fund," as well as the "Dawes money," be used to compensate the civilian population of Canada whose claims are



Questions
held by the Canadian Reparation Commissioner to be within the ten categories of Annex I, to Section I. of Part VIII, Reparation?
23.	Or will the balance of the "Enemy Property Fund" be held, as the United States ''Enemy Property Fund" is being held, as security for the receipt of payment of reparation under the ''Dawes Plan"?


Ernest Lapointe: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What number of motor cars were purchased by the government from January 1, 1912, to January 1, 1922, and subsequently used by members of the government?
2.	How many cars were in the Mechanical Transport branch on January 1, 1922, and being used by members of the government?
3.	What was the date of purchase of each car. and its purchase price?
4.	What was the cost of maintenance of the said cars during the year 1921 in (a) wages of employees; (b) cost of repairs and (c) quantity of gasoline used by each ?
5.	How many of these cars were of American manufacture?


APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONS
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	How many commissions have been appointed by the government since January, 1922?
2.	What subjects were investigated by such commissions ?
3.	What was the respective cost of each commission: (a) in salaries or emolument, (b) in expenses?
4.	Who composed each commission?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all Orders in Council, letters, telegrams or other documents between the government of Canada or any department official or appointee thereof, and parties presenting claims of any character whatsoever incurred or presumed to have been incurred during and as a result of the Great war, 1914 to 1918, 14011-147^
or the clearing offices in Germany and Austria, and falling under any of the articles of the treaty of Peace and more particularly under Articles, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303 and the annexes or general provisions relating thereto.


George Brecken Nicholson: Dropped.



CHANGE OF POSTMISTRESS AT KEY JUNCTION ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDERSON, Halton (for Mr. Arthurs):
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports or communications regarding a recent change of postmistress at Key Junction, Ontario.

Mr. GRIMMER:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries or any official thereof and any person or persons, respecting the refusal to grant a weir license to Hartford Boynton of Castalia, Grand Manan, New Brunswick, and of any and all reports relating thereto.



MARITIME RIGHTS


Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: That, in the opinion of this House, good faith should be kept with the Maritime provinces and other interested parts of the Dominion in regard to the recorded assurances and undertakings of governments and parliament and the agreements set out in the statutes of the Dominion respecting the routing of Canadian trade over Canadian territory and through Canadian ports, and, that freight rates over the Intercolonial railway be adjusted in accordance with the understanding of confederation.
He said:	In moving this resolution I do
not desire to weary the House by repeating what I have said in former sessions. At the same time there are a large number of new members in this parliament who are not familiar, perhaps, with the history of confederation as established in 1867, with the statements of leading public men before and since confederation, or with the agreements and enactments of parliament dealing with the Maritime provinces. This resolution takes us back to the representations of the Fathers of Confederation made to the Maritime provinces, also to the assurances and pledges of representative men, and to parliamentary enactments and agreements extending back for the past fifty years or more. In confirmation of that statement let me quote first from the speeches of Fathers of Confederation. The following are the words of the Hon. Geo. Brown, spoken at Halifax on September 12, 1864:
But far in advance of all other advantages would be this: That union of all the provinces would break down all trade barriers between us and throw open at once to all a combined market of four millions of people. You in the east would send us your fish
2308	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. Black (Halifax)
and your coals and your West India produce, while we would send you in return the flour and the grain and the meats you now buy in Boston and New York.
Sir George Etienne Cartier said at a banquet at Halifax on the same date, September 12, 1864:
Canada has population and territory sufficient to make a great nation in course of time. But she wants what the lower provinces possess, an outlet to the sea. As the lower provinces now stand they are comparatively weak and powerless, and the wealth, labour and industry which Canada possesses go in a great measure to enrich such cities as New York, Boston and Portland. This must continue to be the case until the Intercolonial railway, of which we have ever been an advocate, shall be built, and as soon as the colonies are confederated the .construction of that work will undoubtedly commence.
Again at a later date in Montreal, October 23, he is reported as saying:
I must repeat to you what I stated while in the lower provinces, that while we possessed the personal and the territorial elements which go to constitute a nation, we were wanting in the maritime element. During six months of the year we had to knock at the door of our neighbour in order to carry on our trade. This cannot be tolerated. This confederation must be carried out. With our prosperity we are enriching the American states, whereas we ought to be enriching our own states. We ought to be enriching such harbours as St. John and Halifax.
Sir Jo'hn A. Macdonald was not silent. On the same occasion he said:
I don't hesitate to say that with respect to the Intercolonial railway it is understood by the people of Canada-
That is Ontario and Quebec; they were oalled Canada at that time, I believe.
-that it can only be built as a means of political union for the colonies. It cannot be denied that the railway, as a commercial enterprise, would be of comparatively little commercial advantage to the people of Canada. Whilst we have the St. Lawrence in summer and the America ports in time of peace, we have all that is requisite for our purposes. We recognize, however, the fact that peace may not always exist and that we must have some other means of outlet if we do not wish to be cut off from the ocean for some months in the year. We wish to feel greater security-to know that we can have assistance readily in the hour of danger. In the case of a union this railway must be a national work, and Canada will cheerfully contribute.
These leaders of thought in the political arena must have realized that the trade of the Maritimes, then closely identified with the markets of New York, other large American cities and the New England states, would be transferred almost wholly to the markets of western Canada, and with this in view they provided the means of transportation, namely the Intercolonial railway.
My first visit to the west was by steamer from Halifax to Portland; thence by the Grand Trunk railway to Montreal. The building of the Intercolonial was intended to change

this. It may be said that the Intercolonial was built and the intended terms of confederation fulfilled. My answer to that is: The line was built and its rightful terminus should be the city of Montreal. It has been chopped off at Riviere du Loup. It is maimed and a profitable section is thrown into the region known as the central. The Intercolonial railway has lost its identity in the National Railway system, and is subjected to prohibitive freight rates, and has therefore ceased to be a developer of trade from the Maritimes to the central provinces. The Intercolonial railway was to be a national highway westwardly for the Maritime provinces. It is prevented from performing its national mission. The way is blocked by prohibitive freight rates. The building of the Intercolonial is in vain, if its primary and vital purposes be defeated. They are defeated as I have stated. Would there be anything unreasonable in asking that the Intercolonial be operated on the same basis as the canals of Ontario and Quebec.
Now, Mr. Speaker, passing over the utterances of many other public men, I come to the time when the building by the government of the day of a transcontinental railway was before parliament. The Maritimes were even then not forgotten. They were promised direct benefit from this proposal. What was that advantage to be? Listen to what the Hon. W. S. Fielding said in this House in 1903, That gentleman was a representative of the province of Nova Scotia in the government of that day. He said:
With this road built, instead of being dependent on the Canadian Pacific railway only, St. John will have two strings to its bow. Not a pound of traffic that goes to St. John now will be taken away, and St. John will stand its chance of getting a fair share of the new traffic to be created by this road. Halifax with its peerless harbour will have advantages which it has not hitherto enjoyed. Surely, Sir, the time has come after years of deception, humbugging and trickery about the lines to the Maritime provinces, that faith should be kept with these people, and they should have a through line running on Canadian territory from ocean to ocean.
On the same occasion, July 30, 1903, what did Sir Wilfrid Laurier say? The then leader of the government used these words:
Now, Sir, we lay it down as a principle, on which we are to be judged by friend and foe, that we are to have a transcontinental railway, and that its terminus must be in Canadian waters, and that the whole line, every inch of it, must be in Canadian territory. We say further, that such a line i3 a necessity to our commercial independence.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said further:
Now, there is another feature of this contract to which I shall call the attention of the House. If we have gone into this contract, our intention has been, as stated in the preamble to force traffic in Cana-

Maritime Rights-Mr. Black (Halifax)
dian channels and through Canadian waters. We have made it a special condition of the contract and this condition is expressed in section 42, as follows:
"It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railways, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada be carried entirely on Canadian territory or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ports."
This principle is further emphasized by the paragraph following, No. 43, which says:
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those provided above, but shall in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely the development of trade through Canadian ocean ports and Canadian channels.
What has been done by governments during the past twenty-two years to carry out these enactments of parliament, or to keep faith in regard to the contracts entered into by government and ratified by parliament? The situation in the Maritimes gives the answer.
The foregoing contracts were made in 1903. We come to the year 1911. What happened then? The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway, which was part of the Mackenzie and Mann project, sought assistance from the government, and this aid was given under the following condition-I quote from a clause in the agreement:
It is hereby declared that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government for the express purpose of encouraging the transportation of goods through Canadian channels.
In the year 1914 further aid to the extent of 145,000.000 was granted and the principle laid down in the contracts of 1903 and 1911 was reaffirmed in most unmistakable and emphatic language.
There can be no question about the meaning of the clauses in the contracts which I have quoted, nor does any other clause throw doubt on their meaning. What has been done to carry out its terms? The late Senator Fowler, in 1904, while he was a member of the House of Commons, moved an amendment to strengthen the contract of 1903 in the interest of the Maritimes. This amendment Mr. Fielding on behalf of the government refused to accept and in refusing, he used these words:
The government said that they would put in words that would serve the purpose better, and they would
put them, not in the charter, but in the contract, and that would bind the company to these terms. So we put in the contract the section which has been printed in the press, declaring in explicit terms that the company accepts the aid given them by the government on the condition that it is the object and purpose to promote trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports.
What further did the Hon. Mr. Fielding say? His words were that the government of the day intended to build the Transcontinental railway so that the products of western Canada would without fail flow uninterruptedly over an all-Canadian line to the ports of Halifax and St. John. Has this materialized? Has anything been done to carry out these pledges? The Hon. R. W. Scott, leader of the government in the Senate, when speaking on the question on October 12, 1903, used these words:
Therefore, it is to our interest if we are going to develop our Maritime ports, if we are going to have that grain go east through Halifax and ports along the St. Lawrence, to do something In order to induce it to go there.
This is a clipping from, I think, the Montreal Gazette, or at least one of the Montreal papers of the other day. Premier Tasehereau said:
I believe every Canadian, whether he be in British Columbia, or Quebec, or Ontario, should join with the Maritime provinces to give them what is necessary for them to live and thrive. They need cheap transportation. That perhaps was not the letter of the confederation pact, but it certainly was the spirit when the Intercolonial railway was built. Speaking as a Canadian, as a citizen of the province of Quebec, I have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty of those who govern Canada to-day to see that this important part of Canada (the Maritimes) is looked after and is satisfied.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House discussing the figures showing Nova Scotia's contribution to national railways and canals, nor do I touch upon the burden borne by Nova Scotia in providing railways and canals, none of which touches Nova Scotia. These are the pledges of the government confirmed and enacted by parliament, providing a national policy which was to have been carried out, but which, unfortunately for the Maritimes, has not been put into force. The national railway policy is defined, the government has its instructions from parliament, and not only should know what to do, but should do it. It should put the policy, so unmistakably defined, into operation and not attempt to side-track the issue by reference of the Maritime situation to a royal commission, as is suggested in the Speech from the Throne. We of the Maritimes protest most strongly and emphatically against any action by this government, such
2310	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. Black (Halifax)
as reference to a royal commission or otherwise, that will have a tendency to delay the full consideration and equitable readjustment of the Martimes' just claims beyond the present session of parliament. We shall be ready at all times to co-operate in any investigation that may be held with the bona fide intention of discovering or elaborating these injustices, 'but we insist that prompt and definite action must be taken at the present session and that a declaration of policy in regard to these matters be made by the government indicating that the government is prepared to give belated justice to the Maritime provinces. It is the duty of the government to assume the responsibility and to deal with the problem themselves at this session of parliament. Only a few days ago a minister of the crown said:
I have always considered that the people's wishes could best be expressed by the voice of their representatives in parliament.
Those are the words of the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) in March last as reported on page 1600 of Hansard. The representatives of the Maritime provinces are expressing the wishes of our people and we unanimously demand that they be carried out.
I have some interesting statements to reveal to the House in connection with the Martime situation as it relates to the Intercolonial railway. In 1021 the Halifax Herald, one of the most enterprising papers in the Dominion of Canada, asked this question of all candidates nominated for election in December of that year:
Realizing importance of campaign which our newspaper has consistently supported for restoration of Maritime rights with C.N.R. by establishment of eastern unit, with headquarters at Moncton in charge of Maritime trained men, we would apprecite if you would favour us with a brief, definite statement of your attitude on the question.
This is the answer of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald):	I
quote only his answer and that of the representative of Prince county, P.E.I. (Mr. MacLean), they being members of this House representing Maritime province constituencies. The Minister of National Defence replied:
For the past year and a half I have consistently urged that the only method to enable the industries of the Maritime provinces to be carried on with any degree of success would be by detaching the Intercolonial altogether from the C.N.R. and G.T.R. connections, and running and operating it as it was operated for forty years under the terms of confederation. We would thus be freed from the taxation which is now imposed upon the patrons of the road for the purpose of paying the interest upon the enormous debts contracted by the C.N.R. in its construction in western Canada. The control of the

Intercolonial must be taken from Toronto and vested in Moncton, where it always was, and the railway should be officered by men in sympathy with Maritime interests and Maritime rights.
The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) said:
I have advocated on every platform during the campaign that the Maritime provinces should, under the terms of confederation, have special consideration and special treatment; that the railroad was given, not as a dividend earning road but that our products should be transported to the markets of the world at a reasonable rate, and any deficits on the road should be cheerfully born by the federal government. I have made strong plea for the establishment of an eastern unit with office at Moncton, with a practical man in charge who understands conditions, and that freights should not favour western Canada as at present, as we pay the same rate to St. John and Sydney as Montreal pays. They call it the people's railroad but over here we are taxed for it.
What, may I ask, has the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald) done to carry out his ideas as expressed in his message to the Halifax Herald? Surely he did not hesitate for lack of support, backed as he was by every member from Nova Scotia, sixteen in number. He has not had to wait for demands from that province that good faith be kept. Has he made representation to the government of the requirements of his province, and been over-ruled by his colleagues? What has he, the representative in the government of Nova Scotia, done?
His utterances and his promises have fallen to the winds. He could not go back to his own native constituency, but sought another where he was not so well known.
Our Maritime members are not here to sit silent and inactive as regards our provinces, as was the case during the last parliament; we are making our demands and will press them to the utmost.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to set forth some of the matters to which we call the earnest attention of this government. I ask them to drop commissions and, so to speak, get down to business. Parliament has given them instructions; we ask the government to obey the instructions. I might summarize some of the matters which I feel sure are in the minds of the people of the Maritime provinces, in respect to which they believe they have grievances and for the redress of which grievances they feel that there should be practical action on the part of the government and parliament. Before doing so I may say that underlying the slumbering dissatisfaction which has existed in those provinces for a long time, and which was marked by the ballot box demonstrations of the people in June and October of last year, there is the growing conviction that the Maritimes have been

Maritime Rights-Mr. MacLaren
treated by governments and parliaments as minor and unimportant partners in confederation, whom it was safe to neglect, whose interests might be sidetracked, and whose requests for fair play might be postponed.
The election results to which I referred a moment ago clearly show that the patience of the Maritime people is exhausted; that they are now standing for their rights within the Dominion as full partners of the confederation, and that they will not be turned aside nor satisfied by empty promises, even of a royal commission. They ask government and parliament to deal, as they are in duty bound to deal, with Maritime interests, and to give those provinces a like measure of consideration as it meted out to the other provinces without the intervention of royal commissions.
The summary I have in mind, and which I do not say wholly covers the ground, might be briefly stated as follows:
(a)	That the integrity of the Intercolonial railway be restored with its western terminus at Montreal ;
(b)	That the service of that railway be what it was built for and intended to be when confederation was consummated-the connecting business link of the Maritimes with the central and other provinces;
(c)	That freight rates on the Intercolonial and other government lines east of Montreal be adjusted to carry out these purposes iu good faith; to enable products to flow from the Maritime provinces to those other provinces, and thus contribute to the development of industry in the Maritimes;
(d)	That good faith be kept by the observance of agreements, statutes and publicly given pledges in respect to the National Transcontinental railway which was to develop Canadian business, and force it, if necessary, through Canadian channels and Canadian ports;
(e)	That Maritime ports be satisfactorily equipped for export and import business, and particularly that ample cold storage accommodation be provided at the port of Halifax, as a part of the equipment of the National Railways;
(f)	That the agricultural, manufacturing and coal mining industries of the provinces, in common with the rest of Canada, be given tariff protection sufficient to safeguard enterprises of the people against unfair competition from mass production, cheap labour and depressed currency in other parts of the world, and preserve home markets for home producers;
(g)	That the Maritimes be put on a level with other provinces in the matter of the immigration and colonization enterprises of the government. In this matter the Maritimes have been ignored for many years;
(h)	That in the readjustment of terms with other provinces in relation to public lands, and other natural resources restored or added to those other provinces as the case may be, the rights of the Maritimes be recognized, and justice be done.
I have outlined somewhat fully the basis of the claims for the Maritimes, which I hope will be taken up and discussed more extensively by other hon. members.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Will the hon.
gentleman permit a question? Has he any figures as to what reduotion would have to be made in freight rates in order to induce western grain to flow through the Maritime ports?


Mr. HANSON:: I may tell the hon. member that the rates to St. John and Halifax are exactly the same as the rates to Portland and Boston.


Edward James Young: I was just
asking what reduction the hon. member considered necessary.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the
resolution which has just been so admirably presented by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). I wish, first of all, to state a principle. An essential principle to the life of the Dominion is that trade in Canada should be across the Dominion from east to west and from west to east, over Canadian rails and through Canadian ports. That is a principle which was affirmed at the time of confederation. It has been repeatedly stated in this House every year since confederation, but I feel that notwithstanding this repetition it is more necessary than ever that I should assert that principle in this House to-day. So much has been said, so much has been done and so little accomplished that I may well emphasize this principle of our Canadian Federation. The need of carrying it out is now more apparent and much greater than it ever was in years gone by. Therefore let me ask hon. members to keep in mind that vital principle lying at the basis of our dominion life as I have endeavored to express it.
Now, what has been done towards giving effect to this great principle? Much has been done. The Intercolonial has been built in accordance with the British North America Act, and later the Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern were constructed. These
2312	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. MacLaren
two railways have cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars. Why were they built, and why did the country go to such enormous expense to assist in. their construction? The reasons are set out in the acts that my colleague from Halifax (Mr. Black) has already brought to the attention of the house. They were the acts of 1903 and 1914-one passed by a Liberal government, the other by a Conservative government. Surely, under these circumstances this government can rise to the occasion and accomplish what our predecessors undertook to do in the most solemn way. These acts would never have been passed by parliament had they not contained the principles which I am trying to advocate at the present moment, for they laid down the reasons for granting assistance and exacted from the two railways certain undertakings in return for that assistance. I need not set those undertakings out in detail, they have been brought to the attention of the House many times; briefly, these railways bound themselves to do all they could to further Canadian trade and as little as they could to assist competing trade.
I should like to supplement the statement in just two particulars. In reference to tonnage, in the act of 1903 there is embodied an agreement that the Grand Trunk Pacific will furnish, both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, all necessary tonnage to meet the demands of the country. Further, in the act of 1914 there is a very stringent provision with regard to the routing of freight by the Canadian Northern Railway. It is not a matter of choice with shippers or with the railroad but it is laid down that all freight for overseas, carried by the Canadian Northern, shall proceed over Canadian rails and through Canadian ports.
Of course, we all know that these railways have been taken over by the government and now form part of our Canadian National railway system. Consequently the board of directors has become responsible as successor for the obligations and agreements contained in the legislation of 1903 and 1914 on the part of those who then represented the Transcontinental and Canadian Northern railways Can we imagine anything otherwise? Is it to be suggested for a moment that the government or parliament would not proceed to honor the undertakings that they demanded and obtained from the railway managements of those days in return for the financial assistance then granted? We know that the legislation embodying those undertakings would never have passed parliament if it had been considered that they were worthless. Therefore I submit that as successors to the

companies that entered into those agreements, the board of directors of the Canadian National railways is legally responsible to honour them. Whether the House agrees with me on that point or not, surely it will be admitted that the good faith of parliament is at stake to see that the provisions embodied in those acts are duly observed.
Now, what has happened? Let me bring to the attention of -the House what Sir Henry Thornton, the chairman of the board of directors of the Canadian National railways, stated in public. Dealing with rates and the encouragement of Canadian trade, he said:	This high policy must be with the
government and with parliament. He and his directors regard the Canadian National railway system as separate and distinct from the rest of our national organizations, and as such they are operating it. But that system is not to be so treated, for it is an integral portion of the life of this country and indeed of its very existence. Surely neither the House nor the country would wish the Canadian National railway system to be managed without due regard to the interests of the nation as a whole. Our national railways form an essential portion of our national fabric and as such must be managed; that is, with due regard to the interests of the whole country, whether the system is apparently paying or not. Far greater questions than railway deficits or surpluses arise in this connection. I believe that greater financial success would result to the Dominion generally from operating our national railways from a truly national standpoint than in an endeavour to secure an operating surplus railroading-as is now being done-two thirds of our grain to foreign ports, and forty per cent of our total export traffic overseas over American rails and through American ports.
A few days ago, when this matter of rates was being considered by the railway commission, especially in relation to the Transcontinental, a reduction of freight rates was vigorously opposed-by whom do you think? By the Canadian National railway management. That does not look as if the board of directors of our national system was trying to carry out the principles embodied in the legislation to which I have referred. Those principles are not being observed in our transportation, and one can come to no other conclusion than that we cannot depend on the Canadian National railway board to give effect to those principles. I do not altogether blame the management for their action. I think they are trying to do their best to operate the system as they think it should be

Maritime Rights-Mr. MacLaren
operated, but while they entertain their present views of what is essential in railway operation, there seems to be no prospect whatever of the principles laid down in the acts of 1903 and 1914 being translated into practice.
Now wdiat remains? I submit that only one thing remains under these circumstances, and that is for the government of the country to step in and deal with this matter, which is essentially a governmental matter. It is a matter of high policy; it is a matter on which the welfare of this country depends, and one which is causing a great deal of unrest at the present time. I trust the government will not allow these troubles to seethe and grow', but will exercise that great responsibility which is placed in the hands of a government, and that is to formulate policies and carry them out. But the government have formulated no policy. I have heard and seen nothing they have enunciated as to this problem. What have they done? They say that they are placing these questions in the hands of a royal commission to make a finding, and in that way they hope to meet the situation. Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with that view. On no occasion, in the history of this parliament has the Maritime situation been so frequently presented to the House as during this session, and I am not aware of any member of this House having asked for such a commission. It is true that the government does not require to consult the members as such, but, on the other hand, when there is here a large number of men who are deeply interested in this question, men who have been sent here by the people to present their views, surely it would be in order to look for some other way of meeting this situation in the beginning.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that a royal commission can be of no use in such a matter. I can conceive that it could be useful if necessary in determining points at issue, once the principle and policy have been determined by the government, but I do not see how it is possible for a commission to deal with the various questions that certainly will be presented to them if they now proceed to function. I and many others have been sent to this parliament to press this subject as forcibly as we can. There is only one body that I can look to, and that is this parliament and this government, and I would urge the government, and I feel fully warranted in doing so, to announce its policy on this matter, so that if we are going to have the royal commission it will have a chance to perform a useful function. Surely it is the
function of a government to express its policy in broad terms, especially on such a question as this, which is a broad Canadian national question. That surely is the function of a government, and we look to the government to exercise that function. It will not do to pass the question along to a commission, however highly the government may regard it, when it is a question that should be determined bjr the representatives of the people in this House, namely, by the government of the country. We wish, especially those of us coming from the section of the country that is particularly concerned in this resolution, that an early announcement be made by the government-now, not in the future. Is a prompt decision not warranted by the history of this question, which has been before parliament after parliament, and has been pressed particularly before the present parliament? Is there anything new about it? Surely the government has had sufficient time to ponder deeply this matter and to be in a position to state what their views are.
Mr. Speaker, the trade that is passing from our country, going past our doors, so much to the loss of many parts of the country, some parts suffering more than others but all bearing the loss, is producing a very deep discontent in the country, and the people are not prepared to submit to any such policy as that from which we are now suffering. Surely it must be for the welfare of the country, and for the happiness and contentment of its people who are interested in the honourable carrying out of the country's commitments that we shall during this session hear from the Prime Minister as to what line he proposes to follow. May I, in conclusion, say to all the members of this House, who have heard this question stated and restated so many times, that I trust it will be possible to-day on this subject, which is no new subject at all, to be able to come to a vote endorsing the terms of the resolution as proposed bv the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black).
Mr. ROBERT K. SMITH (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House at any length in the few remarks I have to make on the resolution as proposed by the senior member for Halifax (Mi. Black). I do wish to say, however, at the outset, that the hon. member for Halifax is to be heartily congratulated on having brought this matter to the attention of this House on various occasions. It is regrettable that in the past the House has not seen fit to deal with this very important question as

Maritime Rights-Mr. Smith
it should have been dealt with, and I do feel that had any measure of consideration been given in the past to the subject matter of this very important resolution, we would not be struggling as hard as we are to-day in the Maritime provinces under the burdens which are pressing so heavily on our shoulders.
The resolution I think can be very briefly considered under a few headings, and the first heading that I would like to suggest for the consideration of the House is the nonpolitical aspect of this question. We lay no blame at the door of any political party in particular for the non-fulfilment of the pledges of confederation, of pre-confederation, and of parliamentary commitments after confederation, but we do lay blame on all political parties in Canada for the nonfulfilment of these pledges. Bearing in mind that both political parties in this country are committed to the subject embodied in this important resolution, I think we can very happily approach the question in the spirit of a non-political atmosphere. In that way I feel I am perfectly within bounds in appealing to every hon. member and to every party represented in this House to consider this resolution purely from the non-political aspect and not from the attitude of political partisanship.
The second heading to which I would like to allude is the national character of the features embodied in the resolution. It is quite true that the Maritime provinces are specifically mentioned, but a broader aspect is also embodied in the resolution, and that has reference to the east and west trade in this Dominion. We cannot hope to develop trade in Canada by adhering strictly, as we have done in the past, to a policy of trade routing north and south. That has been to the detriment of certain portions of this Dominion. If that policy continues in force the billions of dollars that have been expended by the people of Canada to develop our railway system, to develop terminal ports and, in a transportation sense, to feed every portion of the Dominion will have gone for naught, will have been virtually lost. Unless we go back to the policy for which these railroads were constructed, go back to the pre-confederation promises, go back to the promises of the Fathers of Confederation and the parliamentary commitments of the past, then these colossal expenditures will not accomplish the object for which they were intended. So that we can very properly appeal for support for this movement on the ground of the large national question which is involved, divorced from any sectional feature.

The movement is national in its scope. Unless we develop east and west trade in Canada then the benefits will not accrue to the country which have been anticipated, promised and expected.
The third aspect of this question to which I wish to devote my attention is the financial one. It may be stated, no doubt it will be, that if the terms of the resolution are carried out in their entirety it will involve a burden that will weigh somewhat heavily upon the taxpayers of this country. Admitting for the sake of argument that some financial sacrifice to the rest of the Dominion will be involved if this policy is carried out, will it not in the end prove a benefit to the whole of the Dominion on the development of a larger volume of trade, in directing the railways to the project and to the development of the business for which they were inaugurated? If we create the anticipated volume of trade, if we bring shipping and tonnage to our terminal ports, and all our railway lines are fed with traffic from the east and west instead of following the north and south policy, it seems to me that will more than compensate us for any little sacrifice entailed by whatever contribution Canada makes for this undertaking. If we have to consider national questions purely from the standpoint of dollars and cents it seems to me that we cannot possibly hope to build up a united and satisfied country. Let me illustrate what I mean by this. Suppose we send our Children to the schools of "the United States to be educated because those schools happened to be cheaper than our own schools. If we did that we would not be following the policy inaugurated by our forefathers neither would we be observing British or Canadian traditions. We might get our children educated more cheaply, but they would be taught the Yankeeism of the schools across the border, they would be robbed of the privilege of being educated in British institutions-in a word such a thing would be opposed to the best British and Canadian traditions. 'It might be cheaper to do such a thing, but we do not pursue such a course and we are not going to do so for any such reason. The same can be said with respect to products and goods produced in Canada. We might buy all our goods in the United States or in some other foreign country because it might be cheaper to do so; but I do not think the Canadian people will ever support a policy of that kind because it would not tend to build up this country of which we are so proud, it would not develop Canada as a nation within the British Empire, but would have the very reverse effect. So it seems to me that if we are e'.'er to huild ud Canada

Alarilime Rights-Mr. Smith
we must not approach such questions as this purely from the standpoint of dollars and cents; we must study and follow the national aspect of a question like this with a clear vision which will enable us to look into the future.
Another heading upon which I intended to speak, but which has been dealt with ably by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) was the question of the promises of preconfederation and confederation times with . respect to the building of the Intercolonial railway. The hon. member has already quoted to you the remarks made in 1864 by some of the Fathers of Confederation. He has read to you some of the parliamentary commitments embodied in the statutes. He has cited remarks made by leaders of both political parties in this country. It seems to me that it would be fruitless to pursue that argument further because it is acknowledged by all that the real intention of the building of the Intercolonial primarily has not been carried out. The real purpose of the Intercolonial was to connect the markets of the Maritime provinces with the markets of central Canada but this purpose has never been fulfilled. In this connection I may be permitted to quote from a speech made in 1922 by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), and I may say that I am in hearty accord with the expressions to which he gave utterance on that occasion. He brought the subject up for the purpose of showing the difficulties under which we in the eastern portion of the Dominion laboured with respect !to our freight rates, and he gave utterance to certain remarks which will be found at page 3570 of revised Hansard of 1922. The hon. minister said:
Let me give you some illustrations of the increases that were put into effect in the eastern part of Canada as pointed out by the representatives of these provincial governments before the committee. The rate on lumber was increased 90 per cent. The rate on pulpwood was increased 95 per cent, and on fruit 65 per cent. The rate on potatoes was increased from 75 to 100 per cent, varying according to the distances which they were carried. Coal rates were increased from 80 to 138 per cent.
Then the minister gave the case of Spring-hill mines, 188 miles from Bathurst:
Industries in Bathurst,-
He stated.
-'find it possible to buy coal in Norfolk, West Virginia, and have it carried through the north Atlantic and gulf of St. Lawrence to Bathurst and discharged at less cost for transportation than would be the case if they obtained it from Springhill.
The minister went on to say:
Then, the increase in the rates on wire nails was from 80 to 111 per cent. The rates on sugar, which the Maritime provinces are specially qualified to handle on
account of their proximity to the West Indies, were increased nearly 300 per cent.
Turning to cotton duck products he said:
In the constituency of the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Hatfield) the cotton duck industry has been carried on for many years; the increase in the freight rates on the products of that industry has been 280 per cent. The result is that it has been practically impossible to carry on their business in other parts of Canada.
It will be seen that we have been loaded down with an increase of freight rates, and it is no 'wonder that there is commercial stagnation in the Maritime provinces to-day. The situation must be met and dealt with by this parliament. There is no other authority in the land, that I know of, that can deal with this very important matter. I say this particularly on account of what transpired at a recent hearing by the railway commission at Moncton. An application was made for a reduction in the freight rates on products of the Maritime provinces, and what do wre find? In the first instance, the counsel of the Canadian National Railways came before the railway commission contending that the Intercolonial railway was not built for the purpose of conveying the products of the Maritime provinces to the markets of central and western Canada, but contending, in opposition to the views expressed by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), who has quoted the expressions of the Fathers of Confederation and others, that the road was built for the purpose of conveying the products of central Canada and other portions of the Dominion to the Maritime provinces. The argument of counsel for the Canadian National before the railway commission was that we were to provide markets in the Maritime provinces for the central and western portions of Canada by the construction of the Intercolonal which is absolutely absurd and opposed to all statements bearing upon confederation both before and after the event. Not only that, but at this same meeting of the commission in Moncton, one of the traffic agents of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways argued that no reduction could be made in freight rates in the Atlantic region of the Canadian National because there was a deficit in that region. Now, Mr. Speaker, we expected a deficit on that portion of the road. After they cut off the old Intercolonial at Riviere du Loup, instead of extending it to Montreal, we expected there would be a deficit, for the very sane and logical reason that they cut off the paying and largest producing portion, and gave us the section that was not so productive. So that it is not at all surprising to us in the Maritime provinces that we have a deficit on the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Cahan
These were the reasons given by them why we should not be granted lower freight rates.
I desire to repeat what I said at the outset that I think this matter should be approached in a national way and from a non-political standpoint, and I think if it is considered in that manner it will be treated as an all-Canadian subject worthy of the consideration of all hon. members in this House.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: My only excuse, Mr. Speaker, for
trespassing on the time of the House for the purpose of discussing this question is that I was born and bred in the Maritime provinces, and I have always maintained a personal and intimate association with the province in which I was born. I do not intend to review the pre-confederation compact, because that is well known. I do not intend to praise or blame either of the successive administrations, because in my personal opinion they have each and all failed in originating and carrying into action an effective policy for the preservation of the industrial and commercial interests of the Maritime provinces and consolidating the political union which was framed in 1867.
I passed through one secession campaign in Nova Scotia, and I hope we will never see another. It is utterly unnecessary that there should be such a conflict of opinion and interest between any one of the Maritime provinces and the other provinces of the Dominion as to form any reasonable basis for a repeal campaign such as the one we went through in 1886 and 1887. But it does seem to me that the reference of a number of these matters to the commission recently appointed cannot result in any effective and satisfactory solution of these problems, unless the principles upon which that commission is to proceed are clearly determined and announced by the government of the day. I know that the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) must have as earnest a desire as any hon. member in this House to secure a fair and reasonable solution of these problems. Time and time again he has gone to the Maritime provinces and announced openly, and I believe sincerely, that he had a deep interest in the solution of the problems which confront these provinces. I give him credit for that, and I believe he has the same sincere and earnest desire to-day. Admitting that I would suggest to him, how can this commission recently appointed proceed without having a pre-determination of the problems which are presented to them? Are we going to have a kindergarten entertainment and 
take six or eight months in order to present the problems to the gentleman who will probably be chairman of that commission, and who is, I think, a very estimable man? But it will be a kindergarten entertainment before he can become thoroughly acquainted with the conditions, economic, transportation, commercial, industrial and otherwise, which confront these provinces, and especially Nova Scotia. Before that commission can proceed earnestly and efficiently to do its work, we must have a declaration on the part of the government in regard to the problems to be dealt with, and when I say the government I mean parliament as well, because any declaration of the government must be upheld by parliament to prove effective. Therefore we must have a clear declaration by the government and parliament upon the great industrial problem of conserving the iron and coal interests of those provinces. That is a tariff question, and it seems to me utterly useless to relegate that question to a commission, until the policy of the government and parliament is clearly enunciated in respect thereto.
Every hon. member who has lived through the history of confederation and taken partin it, as many in this House have, knows that it has been the policy of both parties to develop our commerce east and west, and on each and every occasion that the question of developing eastern and western traffic has arisen we have had pronouncements by the leaders of the Liberal party as well as by the Conservative leaders that they regarded it as the bounden duty and obligation of parliament to encourage by every means, the transfer of Canadian freight and Canadian products through Canadian ports. No clearer enunciation of that policy could possibly be given than that contained in the Grand Trunk Pacific agreement dealing with the traffic over the Transcontinental railway, laid before this House in the session of 1903. I would desire to refer to section 42 and other relevant sections which were incorporated in that agreement. They were so highly approved by the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding who then held an eminent position in the government of that day, so heartily endorsed by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of the government of that day, that a tremendous impression was made upon the people of the Maritime provinces and they felt that whatever lapses might have occurred in the past, from that time forward the government and parliament of Canada would, in the exercise of their wisdom, inaugurate such measures, industrial, commercial, traffic,

trade, transportation, as to ensure that the traffic of the west would be carried through Maritime province ports. Section 42 of that agreement, which is found as an addenda or an appendix to chapter 71 of the acts of parliament of 1903, states:
42. It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian 'trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid under these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall!, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time bo greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not sipeeificaAly routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
There are a number of other sections of that agreement which carry out exactly the same intention. Before this question of freight rates can even be examined effectively by the Board of Railway Commissioners, we must have a clear declaration binding on them by the government and parliament of this country as to the policy of parliament with respect to the freight rate which may be inaugurated. First, is there to be one freight rate structure for the whole of Canada and binding the whole of the Canadian National Railways, or is there to be, as there was prior to a few years ago, a distinctive and independent freight rate structure over the lines from Montreal east, which prior to that date were fixed and from time to time changed and modified for the express purpose of building up provincial trade between the ports of St John, Halifax, Sydney and Montreal? That issue is one that cannot be settled under present conditions by the Board of Railway Commissioners, nor is it a question that can be effectively investigated and reported upon by the new commission recently appointed, until it is predetermined what is the policy of this government and parliament with respect thereto. That is one point upon which there must be a clear understanding.
We have the further question which is very interesting to the Maritime provinces, and that is as to the conditions under which the Transcontinental line will be operated from Prince Rupert to the port of Quebec and from the port of Quebec to Moncton, its terminus in the Martime provinces. That line, built at such a great expense, upon which the hopes of ail the people of Canada rested at the time, a project that was received with enthusiasm from one end of Canada to the other, an enthusiasm due largely to the earn-
Maritime Rights-Mr. Cahan
est and, I believe, sincere advocacy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-that line, built across the continent on the lowest grade of any transcontinental line in North America, is lying practically idle because the government and parliament of the day have never determined the conditions under which it shall be operated, what will be the rate structure for freights over it, or whether it will be used to carry grain to the port of Quebec and to build up a second ocean port there.	The
traffic of this country in a few years will be quite sufficient for Quebec as well as for Montreal. Shall it be operated across the bridge and down through New Brunswick for the purpose of building up Canadian ports during the winter? Is it possible for the government to announce its policy with respect to that? That policy must be clearly determined before we can hope to secure any satisfactory results either from the Board of Railway Co'mmisisioiners or from the new commission which has been recently appointed to inquire into conditions which prevail in the Maritime provinces.
There are other questions. I do not wish to go beyond the purport of this resolution, but if I might be allowed I should like to make a criticism and an altogether friendly one because this question is one that commands the most earnest attention, the most patriotic endeavour of both sides of this House. It is not a question which should be put forward for any mere partisan purpose. It is a question as regards which, even if the government should fail to propound a solution entirely satisfactory to me, I am free to say I would approve, help and assist in every possible way to carry out their policy when clearly announced so far as it is possible to carry it out. I do not therefore, approach this question in a partisan manner, but I cannot agree that the appointment of this new commission is adequate to the needs under present conditions. I know some people suggest that this is simply to postpone consideration of these vital questions, to relieve the government at the moment of its obligations in laying down a policy. But I do not wish to approach it on that basis, and therefore I say that on a number of these problems which have been referred to this commission, it is very necessary that the government and parliament of the day should pronounce before this question is submitted to a commission for further investigation and report. For instance, the order in council deals with certain complaints:
That the interests of ithe Maritime provinces have suffered as a result of certain legislative and administrative measures adopted from itime ito time by successive parliaments and governments of Canada.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Before the hon. member sits down I should like to ask him if he is prepared to advocate a reduction of the Transcontinental rates to the city of Quebec, to which he has referred.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If any concrete problem is
placed before me I usually form an opinion about it; but I have been engaged as a lawyer sometimes in the consideration of rate structures, and I regard myself personally as incompetent to deal with any specific rate. My own feeling is, after having had some experience simply as counsel 'in the courts and before the railway commission, that our present rate structure is equally as important to the industry and commerce of this country as the protective tariff-and every one knows I regard that as very essential

but on the

Maritime Rights-Mr. Cahan
other hand I think it has grown up somewhat haiphazard. I think the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) the other day pointed out some of the difficulties under which that great industry at New Glasgow is labouring and that these rates have grown up haphazard, because sometimes one large industry had a special pull with respect to one district, and another a special pull with regard to some other district. During one of the war years a very prominent Halifax merchant came to me to know if I couid^ do anything to secure a change in the freight rates on the Intercolonial railway. He alleged-j did not investigate his statement and therefore cannot vouch for its truth -that having brought molasses from the West Indies, and not having a suitable place for storing it at Halifax, he desired to tranship it to Truro, some 63 miles from Halifax, yet he found that it was cheaper for him to send the whole cargo to Montreal and back to Truro than direct from Halifax to Truro for distribution there. Naturally he was anxious to make Truro, which as you all know is a railway centre, his point of distribution. Such glaring discrepancies no longer exist, I believe; but when the hon. member for Pictou announced the other day, as I understood him, that fifty years ago he could carry the products of his great industry from New Glasgow to Halifax much cheaper by ox-teams than he can today by rail, I think this is a matter that deserves most careful consideration.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have enjoyed the hon. gentleman's address very much and should like to ask him a question. He made what to me was a very interesting statement, that our Maritime provinces policy should be enunciated by parliament and referred to the royal commission. May I ask: Would not parliament be in a better position to formulate a policy to relieve the situation there after studying the recommendations of a commission that had made a thorough investigation?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think so. I believe the right hon. leader of this government has a clearer mind to-day than he will have after the report of the commission as to what he believes to be the proper lines of policy to be adopted by the government and by parliament. I do not think one single fact can be brought out by this commission which is not already well known by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Macdonald) at his left, and certainly by at least ten or twelve gentlemen who sit on this side of the House.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this discussion has taken a very wide range, and I think the House is to be congratulated upon the manner in which hon. gentlemen who have spoken, have addressed themselves to the subject. As a Maritime province man, deeply interested in their advance and progress, I feel that in order to obtain the best results it is the duty of parliament to approach the consideration of this question as far as possible free from any partisan feeling.
As I'say, this discussion has taken a very wide range, and we have wandered some distance from the proposal contained in the resolution of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr Black). I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that his resolution proposes merely two things, first:
That, in the opinion of this House, good faith should be kept with the Maritime provinces and other interested parts of the Dominion in regard to the recorded assurances and undertakings of governments and parliament and the agreements set out in the statutes of the Dominion respecting the routing of Canadian trade over Canadian territory and through Canadian ports,-
That is a definite declaration to which the House is asked to give adhesion-that good faith should be kept with the Maritime provinces and other interested parts in regard to these assurances which have been embodied in our statutes and in various agreements with railways in the past. To that proposal it seems to me no one can take any very great exception, but I would like to call the attention of the House for a moment to exactly what is contained in the statutes in regard to these assurances. I turn to chapter 71 of the acts of 1903, where the act incorporating the National Transcontinental Railway is to be found, and in section 42 I find the following:
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
A similar provision was made in 1914 with regard to the Canadian Northern railway, when an agreement was made attaching certain conditions to its operation.


Murray MacLaren: There was a stronger
provision in 1914.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Macdonald (Antig.)


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: There is another provision here which I might read:
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
May I say that that is the policy of this government to-day; that is the policy we would like to see carried out in this country. The question is whether or not it is being carried out. Let me call to your attention the problem, for instance, of the carriage of grain. With all deference to a great many of my friends in the Maritime provinces, let me say that there is a mistaken impression that the carriage of grain and the trade in grain is something that is wholly under the control of the railways. Now the facts are that the wheat pool in the west or the Winnipeg Grain Exchange sell their wheat in China or elsewhere in the east, or in Great Britain, at Liverpool, and they sell it delivered to the purchasers across the ocean. When they come to ship that grain they not only go to the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway and find out the rate at which these roads will carry the grain down to the seaboard, but they ascertain what is the lowest possible rate at which that grain can be carried across the Atlantic. For that purpose the	shipping interests of
New York, Boston and other ports in the United States maintain their agents and brokers in Winnipeg, to whom these shippers can go; in fact they do not need to go to the brokers, because the rates are supplied to them by the active agents of these shipping interests in American ports. When a man wishes to get space for 50,000 bushels of grain he has to take into consideration what is the cheapest rate he can get for carrying that grain across the Atlantic, and I want to say to my hon. friends from Halifax and St. John; and I say it with no unkindness, that I think the people who are interested in shipping at those two Maritime ports might well in the past have displayed some of the alacrity in getting business that the shipping interests operating from American ports have shown. If they did so, they would be in a position to go to the shipper in Winnipeg and quote him a rate lower than he could get from American ports, because the distance across the ocean from Halifax or St. John is much less than the distance from American ports.
Hon. gentlemen will notice that the only obligation imposed on that railway of which we are the inheritors is that products which 14011-148
are not specially routed by the shipper must be carried to Canadian ports.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would my hon. friend look
at section 45?


Finlay MacDonald: That
involves the establishment of shipping facilities by the National Transcontinental; that is another phase' of the subject with which I may deal. At the moment I am dealing entirely with this question of rates, the subject of this resolution and the question that has been largely discussed this afternoon. I am pointing out that the obligation which rests upon the National Transcontinental Railway to-day in regard to rates is that where traffic is not specially routed, it must be carried to Canadian ports. Now what has occurred in regard to that? The Canadian Northern Railway was taken over by the government of the day in 1918. I opposed the taking over of the Canadian Northern railway when I was in parliament, both in 1914 and in 1917. I think this country should not have been saddled with that enormous railway obligation, but if possible the railway should have gone into the hands of a receiver. However, all that is past history; we did take over the road and it became incorporated with the National Transcontinental, and later, in 1919, with the Grand Trunk. That was the situation in 1919 when the Intercolonial Railway first came under the control of the same governing forces as controlled the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk.
In order that the record may be clear, I may point out that when the government of the day in 1919 came to take over the Grand Trunk Railway there was no provision made there by which these pledges, these statutory arrangements, would be confirmed and carried out. My hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Parent) at that time, on the third reading of the bill to take over the Grand Trunk railway, moved:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that the House do come to the following resolution:
That the Grand Trunk Railway System which the government proposes to acquire, comprises many miles of railway lines on American soil;
That the Grand Trunk Railway Company has diverted most of its traffic from Canadian ports to its United States terminals;
That a continuance of such policy by the Canadian government would be injurious to Canadian trade and detrimental to our national welfare;
That the ownership by the Canadian government of the American section of the Grand Trunk railway would involve this country in international troubles respecting labour administration and public policy;
That for the above-nfentioned reasons, the acquisition of these lines means a serious danger of the annexation of Canada by the United States;

2322	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. Macdonald (Antig.)
That the House is of opinion that before taking action towards the acquisition of the railway referred to the government should give an immediate assurance to this House that it does not intend to divert Canadian trade from Canadian ports by taking over that portion of the Grand Trunk railway situated and operated in the United States.
Well, the Grand Trunk was taken over, and the great complaint in the Maritime provinces has been that the trade from the west has gone to Portland, the American terminus of the line. Now that is a question of fact. There is no doubt about the obligations contained in the statute. This government freely and unreservedly assumes the obligations and regards them as binding on the Canadian National Railway Company. It is a question of fact as to how far these obligations are not being carried out. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say that the freight is not going as it should. This House naturally wants to have some definite and clear finding on the question whether or not this obligation is being discharged.


Murray MacLaren: May I ask whether the
Canadian National Railway Board have been informed of the policy which the minister states is now held by the government?


Finlay MacDonald: The
Canadian National Railway Board must know what is in the statutes. Personally I do not propose to be x-esponsible for newspaper reports as to what Sir Henry Thornton is alleged to have said here or there. I know how unreliable those reports are upon such questions. I am going by the record. The position of affairs is as I have stated, and if the obligations which appear to exist have not been carried out, this government wants to ascertain that fact.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You do not need to have a commission to find that out.


Murray MacLaren: I do not wish to interrupt the minister to a greater extent than is necessary, but may I ask whether he will state that the government will draw the attention of the Canadian National Railways to the existence of these enactments with a view to having them observed?


Finlay MacDonald: If anything further is needed than the statement which as a responsible minister I am now making with regard to the policy of the government, I am quite sure my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will see that it is done.


Murray MacLaren: I think it should be done.


Finlay MacDonald: Then in the second part of the resolution we are asked to say "that freight rates over the Intercolonial

railway be adjusted in accordance with the understanding of confederation." Now, there has been a great deal of indefinite discussion upon this question of what the understanding was at confederation. It will not do for hon. gentlemen to say that you must have low freight rates for our products going west from the Maritime provinces unless you are to have a correspondingly low rate on products coming east from the west.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Finlay MacDonald: I think my hon. friend would find that the House would agree that the rates from west to east must be considered. Quotations have been made from the speeches of Sir George Etienne Cartier and Hon. George Brown in which these gentlemen spoke of Upper Canada sending its farm and manufactured products to the Maritime provinces while the latter in return shipped its coal and fish westward. I assume that was the intention so far as those gentlemen were concerned. On referring to the statute, section 145 of the British North America Act, which provided for the construction of the Intercolonial railway, I find the following:
Intercolonial Railway
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial railway is essential to the consolidation of the union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the government of Canada: Therefore, in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the government and parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement, within six months after the union, of a railway connecting the river St. Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable speed.
Now let us see what the history of that project was. The railway was constructed by the government of Canada under that statute, utilizing the existing portions of railway in the Maritime provinces, to Riviere du Loup, the original terminus of the Intercolonial. I well remember attending a meeting at Halifax which was addressed by Sir Charles Tupper and the Hon. A. G. Jones, when the subject of discussion was the probability of Halifax becoming the winter port of the Dominion, although the Intercolonial at that time went only to Riviere du Loup. Later on the government extended the line to Levis, and in 1898, when the late Mr. Blair was Minister of Railways, owing to the acquisition of the Drummond county railway, a further extension took place to Montreal.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Macdonald (Anlig.)
There is nothing in the statute from which I have quoted which makes any reference one way or the other to railway rates; but from the time of the completion of the railway down to 1912, when the first increase of railway rates took place, the Intercolonial was operated in accordance with what hon. gentlemen opposite assert to have been the intent of the Fathers of Confederation: we had rates that enabled our products to find access to central Canada, and an interprovincial trade existed which was highly satisfactory. In addition to through rates that were not high, very satisfactory local rates were granted which permitted of an exchange of products between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. At that time New Brunswick had no coal and we had an abundant supply; and there were other conditions which permitted of an interchange of products and enabled our people to prosper to a fairly satisfactory degree. I think it was in 1912, when the late Mr. Cochrane was Minister of Railways, that the first increase in rates came; it was largely an increase in local rates. In 1918 or 1919 a new classification of rates was imposed on all parts of the Intercolonial, and there is no manner of doubt that since that time the rates imposed have had an injurious effect on our industries down there and have rendered it practically impossible for us to ship to central Canada those natural products which we can supply. But at no time have we ever had any record of these rights as being definitely and certainly determined. When hon. gentlemen speak about pre-confederation understandings in regard to rates they are not talking about railway rates, because those had not been determined; they are talking about interchange of trade and the maintenance of such rates as should be necessary to develop interprovincial trade. But for over forty years every consecutive government, whether Liberal or Conservative, recognized the rights of the people of the Maritime provinces to have the Intercolonial railway operated under the conditions which existed at the time referred to.
Now it is most essential that the people of Canada should know definitely, through some responsible authority, what those confederation understandings were and how they were interpreted by successive governments. There is only one way in which that could be done. My hon. friends opposite say they do not think the Maritime rights commission will result in any good. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) thought the commission would take a long time to acquaint itself with the economic 14011-14Si
situation. I do not know Sir Andrew Duncan; I never had the pleasure of meeting him, but I do know, from the manner in which he dealt with the problems that were presented to him by the government of Nova Scotia, that he won the confidence of the people in our part of Canada and the admiration of the people generally in central Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister permit me, before he leaves that phase of the question, to ask him this:	Will he tell the
House and the country whether he stands by the declaration he made over his own signature in the Halifax Herald in 1921 with respect to the integrity of the Intercolonial railway?


Finlay MacDonald: I have already made a statement to the House. If my hon. friend wishes to introduce the political phase of this subject-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to do so.


Finlay MacDonald: -let me say this: my hon. friend and those around him are the people who destroyed the Intercolonial railway. I was opposed to the acquisition of the Canadian Northern railway and of the Grand Trunk. I still think that acquisition was unwise, and I would like to see the Intercolonial back to its old status.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister in
giving his answer recall that his letter in 1921 was written after both were acquired-


Finlay MacDonald: Yes,
that is so.


Arthur Meighen: -and were Dominion property?


Finlay MacDonald: I entertain' the same views now that I did then. But I am dealing with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who contended that this commission would take too long a time to get under way. Well, let me say that Sir Andrew Duncan, as chairman of the commission, will deal with these problems with a full and complete knowledge of everything connected with the coal industry, and practically also with the steel industry in Nova Scotia. He comes surcharged, as it were, with information. We are most fortunate in having been able to obtain that gentleman's services to deal with this matter; so that I think there need be no delay. This government is referring the question to the commission not for the purpose of getting rid of responsibility, but with a sincere desire
2324	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. Macdonald (Antig.)
that we may have from some authoritative body a determination of the allegations which come from different sources as to the conditions in those provinces and as to what should be the remedy therefor. That is our view and purpose in regard to the matter; we have no other end to serve.
I shall not read the whole of the order appointing the Maritime Rights commission, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to a reference it makes to the matter specifically dealt with by the present resolution. After reciting the representations made by the provinces the order states:
Such representations relate more particularly to the alleged failure to use Canadian ports for Canadian trade to the extent to which they might be utilized-
There is a subject upon which this commission can report-whether or not the good faith of the country, pledged by these statutes in 1903, is being violated, and if so in what respect. This House can then adopt such means as are within its power to provide a remedy. The order proceeds:
-and to the handicaps said to result from the operation of the schedules of rates chargeable for the carriage of goods on the railways uniting the Maritime provinces with the other provinces of Canada and to the manner of administering that part of the Canadian National Railways system which was formerly known as the Intercolonial Railway by methods and conditions alleged to be inconsistent with the pledges given at the time of confederation in regard thereto, and with the practice followed from the time of the construction of the railway until December, 1918.
In other words, with regard to both branches of this resolution a commission has been constituted for the purpose of reporting to parliament whether, in the one case, the good faith of Canada has not been kept, and in the other, pre-confederation pledges have been disregarded in the conduct of the administration of the railway subsequent to confederation. I submit that the method we have adopted is the right and proper one, from the standpoint of those of us who live in the Maritime provinces and who want to secure the application of substantial and intelligent remedial measures in regard to our grievances. We do not want any jumping in the dark. We want our position in confederation clearly and definitely understood by parliament, so that lion, members coming from all parts of Canada may be able, when that report comes before them, to deal intelligently with the matter, and to assist in providing a suitable remedy.
I am glad to observe that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St, George refers to the personnel of the commission in complimentary terms. Nothing can be said derogatory to any of the gentlemen composing the com-

mission; their recognized status and ability will command the confidence of the House and the country. No journal in this country has been more vigorous and aggressive in demanding a recognition of what have been called Maritime rights than the Halifax Herald, and when the announcement of the appointment of the commission was made the other day, that paper published in large headlines :
Victory for Maritime rights. Federal Probe is Ordered.
Then on the following day they published an editorial which dealt in this way with the objections which had been mooted by hon. gentlemen here:
Now there is to be a federal royal commission to investigate all phases of Maritime rights. This is indeed a great victory for the earnest, devoted men and women of the Maritimes who persisted in their fight against indifference and discrimination abroad and discouraging propaganda at home. The leaders of the movement are now able to read in the order in council appointing a commission a recitation of the claims they have been pressing for years; and they know that this action by the federal government comes as the certain result of the work that has been carried on with such splendid courage and determination by those who were not daunted by indifference and discrimination on the one hand, nor discouraged by partisan propaganda on the other.
These representations contained in the Nova Scotia resolution are made to apply, in the federal order in council, to the three Maritime provinces, an application with which the people of this province will agree.
We realize that there are many in the Maritimes who doubt the efficacy at this late date of a royal commission, such as has been appointed at Ottawa.
Be that as it may, it is the opinion of the Halifax Herald that the Duncan commission, now it is formed and instructed to proceed with its investigation, should receive every co-operation and support from the Maritime people.
And I bespeak from hon. gentlemen who are m3" colleagues from the Maritime provinces in this House that co-operation and support in order that the commission may be a proper fact-finding commission, and that the report may be such as will command the confidence of the House and the country. The editorial continues:
The salvation of the Maritimes lies in co-operation-one million people speaking with one voice-and we trust that the people of the Maritimes will do everything in their power to further the work of the commission and bring to its deliberations such a volume and character of evidence and information as will establish beyond doubt the justice of Maritime claims. We feel it to be the duty of the governments of the three Maritime provinces to provide for representation before the commission; and a similar duty devolves upon other public bodies in the Maritimes, as well as upon all private citizens who may be able to contribute to the success of the inquiry.
It is not a question of individual views, nor of party politics; it is a question of Maritime betterment. And no matter what may be the opinions of our people upon the many economic and political questions involved, it is a duty of Maritime citizenship to co-

Maritime Rights-Mr. Millar
operate in this, as in all other features of the Maritime movement. For this is one feature of the Maritime movement-a part of the whole-the direct and certain result of the campaign that has been carried on. The governments of the three Maritime provinces are moving to press Maritime claims at Ottawa; our members at Ottawa are pressing these claims; the Maritime transportation case is now being heard; boards of trade and other public bodies are active in Maritime interests; and to all this investigation and representations is being added the work of a federal royal commission.
Let the people of the Maritimes forget politics in this, as in all other phases of the Maritime rights campaign. Let them assume that there is sincerity and earnestness behind the appointment of this commission. And let them speak and act in a manner that will destroy all possibility of the criticism that they are not prepared to co-operate in any and all movements in Maritime interests. Let them feel that this is another stride forward along the road to a realization of their aims and hopes-a prosperous people, citizens of a province that should and must be an equal and contented partner in confederation.
I do not think it is necessary to argue with my learned friends opposite, in view of the positive commendation by this well known conservative organ of the action of the government appointing this commission. That we were right in so acting is self-evident.
Referring to this particular resolution, the assertion is made that the good faith of the Canadian government should be kept. We are prepared to keep faith. We want to carry out the terms of the confederation pledges, once the facts are ascertained. If the commission finds that there has been infraction of duty on the part of governments, on the one hand, or an error in railway management on the other, this government will proceed to act and will deal with the matter as soon as the report is submitted to us.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: After listening to some of the arguments that have been presented this afternoon, and particularly to the agreement which was read by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), there appeared to me to be strong argument and good reason why a thorough investigation should take place before there is any tinkering with railway rates, in order to ensure that grain shall pass through Canadian channels. I refer to the clause which says that Canadian grain shall not be carried to American ports at a rate less than that at which it is carried to Canadian ports. If I caught it aright, that is the statement. We will suppose that that applies to Montreal. How will it affect the shipper? I do not know whether this came into effect after the railways were carrying grain to Portland, Maine, and) to Sty John and Halifax lat different rates, but the effect in any case would be the same, Let us suppose a Shipper has a cargo of grain at Fort William.
Ordinarily, he would send it to Montreal, we will say, in the latter part of the season- this would not apply in the summer-and then he would get it to Portland for a cheap rate, because the distance is not great. This order is put into effect that (grain must not be carried to a United States port at a rate less than that at which it is carried to a Canadian port. If any of those gentlemen who are discussing this were railway officials, had the management of the railways affected, what would they do? I would just like to ask them. Would they not raise the rate to Portland and lower it to St. John and Halifax? The reasonable supposition is that they would cut the difference in two. That is, grain that would ordinarily be carried from Montreal to Portland for, say three cents-in order to illustrate my point-would probably cost five or six cents after this order goes into effect. I understood that it was at one time an order; I understand now it. is a part of the contract. The man who has the cargo of gram says: I cannot get it out to Portland, St. John or Halifax as cheaply as I used to or as I could if this clause was not in the agreement; what shall I do with it? I will send it out by Buffalo. That is, by putting that clause in your contract, by trying to keep grain in Canadian ,channels, you effect just the opposite; the clause defeats its purpose and drives the grain into the United States channels at Buffalo. It may be that I did not hear the statement exactly aright, but I believe I did and I have reason to fear that that will be the effect.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will the hon. gentleman not admit that the discriminatory rates over the Transcontinental have had the effect of diverting grain to United States ports?


John Millar: That is an entirely different matter. I was coming to that later on. This will have and has the effect of driving grain into the United States at Buffalo rather than of keeping it in Canada as far as Montreal. I am speaking of the latter part of the season when the St. Lawrence is frozen and ships cannot leave that port. If you try to drive the grain to Halifax or St. John, several hundred1 miles further, by saying to the railways, not that it must be carried at the Portland rate or the Halifax or St. John rate, but that it must be Carried at the same rate, you will drive the grain out of Canada at Buffalo. I believe if hon. gentlemen look into the matter they will find that is the effect of it.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) presented a strong case tinged less

Maritime Rights-Mr. Millar
with party politics than we are usually unfortunate enough to have to listen to in connection with this matter. He made the remark that it might be well for parts of Canada to make sacrifices in order that traffic might be sent to Halifax and St. John in order to build up the eastern provinces. I quite agree with him in that, provided that the sacrifice is not too great. If our railways are carrying Canadian traffic even at cost we should not forget that while the railway itself is not making money it is employing many men who are drawing full pay and if, as is suggested, some sacrifice is made even by those who grow the grain, if they pay a little more to have the grain kept in Canadian channels, the benefits they would get in an indirect way would! offset the heavier overhead in freight. But when you ask the grain grower to pay perhaps four or five cents or three cents more per bushel, you are asking something that he will not grant. He cannot concede that much.
Why does Canadian grain go through United States channels? Hecently I had pointed out to me some evidence taken by the Great Lakes commission and I noted questions asked of a representative of the shipping board. His answers showed that the rate on grain from Duluth to Buffalo was at that time about 34 cents a bushel while the rate over a much shorter route, from Fort William to Buffalo or Port Colborne, was 5 cents. There you have a difference of 14 cents a bushel. How are you going to say to the shipper: You must pay the higher rate? The government will have to take a high hand, become quite arbitrary, to force the shipper to send his grain by a certain route. He is going to take the cheaper route; the question is an economic one.
It has been contended in this House, I believe, that rates from New York to Liverpool and from Montreal to Liverpool are the same. I must take issue with that statement; the rate is usually less from New York than from Montreal. The rate on Canadian grain from Fort William to Liverpool b}? the United States route is practically always less than by the Canadian route. It is not an easy matter to overcome that. I would like to see Canadian grain go through Canadian channels, but I cannot think that is all the question in connection with the Maritime provinces. I listened to the case presented by three hundred representatives from there a year ago and I would get the impression from what they stated that there was nothing there except St. John and Halifax. I expect to hear something about the country, about the industries, about agriculture, but I heard

nothing about that; all I heard was about freight through Halifax and St. John. I cannot think the fact of grain travelling down past their doors, going through their province, being shipped from their harbours of Halifax and St. John, even if it all went there, is going to remedy their troubles, is going to put them on a sound economic basis. There must be other difficulties. I do not wish to say this as a matter of criticism, but I have listened too frequently to statements made as though contractual obligations were entered into at the time confederation was being negotiated, when to me they were simply pious hopes of what would or might take place if the Intercolonial railway were built. I think about ninety per cent of what have been spoken of as contractual obligations were simply pious hopes. I know two men who traded horses, and one of them slapped the other on the shoulder-he knew him very well-and said: "Jack,, if you get that horse he will surprise you." They were both horse traders. Jack got the horse and he certainly did surprise him because when he got out into the field he would kick himself clear of the harness. I think the Maritime righters are in the same predicament; they heard a great deal at that time of what should, and what they believed and hoped would, take place, and apparently they swallowed it all. But that is quite different from a contractual obligation.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) asked a question about the National Transcontinental Railway. I would have liked the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George i(!Mr. Cahan) to tell us that he was so anxious for a solution of this question that he would even favour cutting the rate on the Canaidan National from Armstrong, which is north of Fort William, so that it would be on a parity with the rate on grain in western Canada. That would bring it to about 11 cents or a trifle more; it is now 20.7 cents. However, the hon. member rather sidestepped that question I thought. If that rate were reduced it would be a great help, and I do not see any reason why that should not be done. That was the intention when the Transcontinental was built, with very good grades, heavy rails and well-built bridges fitted to carry heavy loads, yet with the exception of a very short period-I think some six months -the rate always has been prohibitive, so that no grain goes there and the grass i3 growing around the rails. If the rate were reduced to eleven cents I think the port of Quebec ,would be used very much more, and the two million bushel capacity there would be made some use of.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Cantley
This is a very difficult question, and it is well that it should be discussed in this House I for one am willing to listen to any arguments presented. The Maritime provinces art a part of Canada and we want to see their, prosper. Any assistance we can give in the solving of the problem will, I believe, receive the support of all members of the House; it will receive my support, at any rate. But we must approach the matter in a businesslike way, and we must face the facts. The amount of traffic over which the railway has control is small, I believe, in comparison to that over which the shipping interests have control, and so long as grain can be carried for a few cents less by the United States railways I am afraid they will get the business.
I would like to see the traffic kept in Canada, however, if that can be done.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Maritime Rights-Mr. Cantley
unduly at the expense of another. The union was designed also to link up and strengthen these outlying portions of the empire. The one thing then recognized as essential to the success of this union was railway transportation; hence the stipulation for the construction of the Intercolonial railway. Now, whether we were hoodwinked or not-and perhaps we were-I assert, Mr. Speaker, and I think you will agree with me, that we in the Maritime provinces were made very definite promises by the Fathers of Confederation, and it ill becomes any member of this House now to taunt us with having been taken in. I hold that what this parliament ought to do is to rectify wrong. It is not creditable to any hon. member to cast up to us that we were fooled and taken advantage of at that time, even if we wrere.	[DOT]
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I had been referring to the necessity for an intercolonial railway if the several eastern provinces were to be brought into the confederation. All of us who are informed as to what was done at that time are thoroughly aware of what was promised in connection with the building and the subsequent operation and management of that Intercolonial railway. I shall not refer to that matter further.
I shall now deal with what the Maritime provinces have contributed towards the Canadian Pacific Railway and what benefit we in the east have derived from that great enterprise. The eastern provinces paid their share of the cost of the road, and, unfortunately for us in Nova Scotia, it ended at St. John. So far as Nova Soctia is concerned, this great transcontinental railway, so far as transportation and the advantages accruing from competition are concerned, might as well have been non-existent. Over a considerable period of years we in Nova Scotia, particularly the iron and steel plants of that country, and more particularly the Scotia Steel Company of New Glasgow were able to sell to the Canadian Pacific Railway very large quantities of railway material. As a matter of fact the Canadian Pacific Railway was by far our largest and most important customer. In the early days that railway took delivery of all material sold by the Scotia company to them at St. John, on equal terms with material delivered to them by other parties at Montreal or at Hamilton, as the case might be.
	i
But some time ago, due to a change of policy, the St. John Canadian Pacific Railway gateway was closed, and we were then unable to make delivery to the Canadian Pacific Railway at that point, the Canadian Government Railway insisting on getting the long haul. We therefore had to pay the freight, not to St. John, a distance of 255 miles, but to Montreal, some 800 miles. The Canadian Pacific Railway then naturally said to us: Inasmuch as you cannot now give us any traffic, we see no good reason why vre should now give business to you, more particularly in view of the fact that the other manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec who can give us freight, and who do give us freight, are clamouring for the business which you are asking us to give you. The result of this was that we were practically pushed out of the Canadian Pacific Railway business, due to unfair discrimination on the part of a railwty which was built to give us facilities for doing business in the central and western provinces.
Now the only effective cure for that condition that I know of would be to give, as at one time was contemplated, running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway from St. John to Halifax and through New Glasgow eastward to the Sydneys. This is necessary if we in Nova Scotia are to get our fair share of the business given out by that railway-and it must be remembered that the two railways of Canada are by far the largest and most important consumers of iron and steel products in this country-and it is essential that we be put in a position to make deliveries on the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway as I have indicated.
Now I refer to another matter. Owing to territorial concessions t>o other provinces and certain changes in the distribution of population, largely due to the exodus of the population of the Maritime provinces to the west, it is imperative that the Maritime representation in the Dominion parliament be now readjusted so that our voice and prestige in the Dominion parliament be adequately maintained. What is necessary to-day is to restore representation in the federal parliament in the proportion set forth in section 37 of the British North America Act. The Maritime provinces contend that they have a proprietary interest in the natural resources of the former Northwest Territories. They maintain that they should and must be recompensed for that portion of the territory in question which has been ceded to other provinces, and from which it is now proposed to make further transfers, although no compensation has been or is proposed to be given to the Maritime provinces for such transfers.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Cantley
There has grown up a deep feeling of discontent in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick during the past few years with regard to the relations existing between these provinces and the Dominion as a whole. This feeling has been increased by the apparent indifference with which appeals for fair treatment have been received, coupled with the other grievances to which I have referred- the reduced representation in parliament accorded those provinces, particularly Nova Scotia. What we are now asking is a fair and honest recognition of our rights and interests in view of the fact that but for Nova Scotia, the oldest province in the Dominion, confederation and the creation of the Dominion of Canada would have been impossible.
I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on the fact that but for the entry of Nova Scotia into confederation the federation compact would have been impossible. For five months in the year this Dominion is dependent entirely on these two provinces for access to the sea. That was demonstrated, as I have already pointed out, during the war. Surely we have not forgotten the lesson then impressed upon us. Surely we are prepared to pay those Maritime provinces a fair consideration for the position that they occupy and the difficulties which they have encountered as members of confederation. Prior to confederation we Nova Scotians were a prosperous people. Nova Scotia then stood fourth amongst the shipowning nations of the world, possessing more shipping property per capita than any nation on the globe. Our flag-and Nova Scotia alone of all the dominions then had a flag-our white ensign with the blue cross of St. Andrew, was shown on every sea. We had freighters on the Atlantic. Far up the Rio Grande, and all the ports and rivers of South America were equally familiar to our captains, our seamen, and! our ships, Nova Scotia shipping was to be found on all the trade routes of the world. Now, I do not say that confederation is responsible for the ruining of that trade and the disappearance of our shipping. The transition from wooden to iron bottoms, and later on the victory of the steel tramp steamer over the steel sailing vessel wiped out our wooden fleet. Then came confederation with its inducements as to our being able to transport our products and manufactures over the Intercolonial to the central and western provinces. Those suggestions turned our thoughts to other employment, and instead of taking up the building of a fleet of steel steamers as we should have done and could have done readily-and
as was done by Norway first and later by Holland-and thus maintaining our supremacy in the transport of traffic and navigation throughout the world for which we were admirably adapted by nature, we sold our fleets largely to the Norwegians and spent the proceeds, supplemented by our savings in the building of sugar refineries, cotton mills, iron and steel furnaces and mills, the products of which we were assured were to be carried by the Intercolonial to Upper Canada, a thing to be rendered possible by special freight rates.
Now, Mr. Speaker, isolated on the extreme east of Canada, and separated from Quebec by 500 miles practically of wilderness in which no trade for the Maritime provinces exists, we were promised a differential which is now nonexistent. To-day we are charged full mileage rates which are from 100 to 150 per cent greater than those in effect twelve years ago, and in not a few cases the westbound rates are higher than the eastbound rates. This is in absolute contradiction indeed a complete reversal of the promises made to us. All protests so far made as to this unfair treatment have been ignored or denied. Our whole freight traffic structure is controlled and administered to-day by a few old Grand Trunk officials established in Montreal who view the Maritimes from the background of Chicago, Portland and New London instead of in the light of the industrial interests of Amherst, New Glasgow the Sydneys and the other manufacturing towns of the east. Due to competition with the mass production of the industries of Quebec and Ontario, and unequal and oppressive freight rates, it is now impossible to carry on many of the enterprises to which I have referred. Enterprises which were entered into a few years ago with a good deal of enthusiasm have now come to grief, with loss of much of the capital invested therein. Another difficulty with which we have to contend is that the steel duties have been so dealt with as to make them practically of little or no value to the industries of the Maritime provinces. MoTe than three score of items have been taken from the dutiable schedule and put in the free list, and to-day there is practically nothing on which we have protection worth mentioning outside of the one item of railway materials. We have been sacrificed to the manufacturers elsewhere, to the implement people of Canada, to the interests of anybody who had some pull or made pretensions to do something at the expense of somebody else.
Prior to confederation our coal went largely to the New England states. Fifty years ago
Maritime Rights-Mr. Cantley

over a thousand vessels loaded every summer in the port of Pietou for the New England ports and almost as many in the port of Sydney for the same market. Had it not been for confederation we would have been able to establish satisfactory and permanent arrangements and connections with American capital, with American railways, with American manufacturers, principally in the New England states, and would have done so. Thus we would have secured an all-the-year-round market for our coal. After the monopoly of the General Mining Association of London was broken up in 1856 it was American capital that developed our collieries, not Canadian, or European, or British capital. The only exception to that statement was in the case of one colliery in Cumberland county, one in Pietou county and possibly one in Cape Breton.
It is said that we in Nova Scotia are trading unnaturally and there may be some truth in that statement. But whether or not it be the case, the fact is that we are trading to-day as we are forced to do, and have been for fifty years been forced to do through our being included in the Dominion of Canada. This virtually means that Nova Scotia has been sacrificed to the consolidation of the empire. Unfortunately the Dominion as a whole treats Nova Scotia in the main as the empire has always treated its soldiers, relying on them in time of war and forgetting and neglecting them in time of peace. That has been our fortune-just the same treatment a3 the empire from time immemorial has accorded the men who fought for and defended the empire in time of stress. We were told within the last day or two by an eminent advocate speaking in this city, who dealing with the present political situation, said that the cleft as between the east and the rest of Canada is not permanent and can be cured when the Maritimes take again to the toil of their forefathers. I wonder if he knew the meaning of his own statement? In effect, he suggests that after contributing to confederation, having contributed-millions of dollars to the various railway enterprises in the central and western provinces and in manufacturing industries in our own provinces, dependent entirely upon equal trading advantages as compared with the. central provinces, first as to transportation and second to tariff protection, we are now to scrap all our manufactures, lose the millions which we have invested, the savings of a century of toil, go back to wooden ships, make a futile effort to regain our lost position as world carriers and be content to be further exploited by the manufacturers, 
the millers and the food producers west of the St. Lawrence river.
This matter of justice to the Maritimes is not a local dispute, such as that between a industrial. corporation and its workers or between a railway system and its operatives. It is rather a case of long standing dissatisfaction, due to years of disregard of understandings, pledges and promises incidental to and arising out of confederation-unequal contribution and commitments as to railway construction, and the relatively small proportion of benefits and advantages accruing to the eastern provinces; our contributions to and our obligations resulting from the Maritime proportionate contribution to and share of the construction and share of the operative loss on the great canal system of Canada. This system, which cost $225,000,000, has been operated entirely for the benefit of the central and western provinces, with only this exception, that to some considerable extent the United States coal and steel producers, who are our great competitors, are accorded free transport on these same canals, the operating loss of which is equally borne by us -with the other provinces; fancy Americans given free transport facilities, at our expense, to compete with ourselves in the central provinces of Canada. If any more ludicrous trade conditions can exist it is impossible for me to conceive of them. We are subject to all these conditions, and no attention whatever, over a long period of years, has been given to any objection we have made in regard to them. We have called the attention of government after government and parliament after parliament, one set of ministers after another, to the unequal and unfair treatment which we have been accorded in that connection. The unequal advantage accruing to the central provinces from the present unfair operation of the tariff and the greatly preponderating advantages which the central sections of the Dominion derive from it is another matter of which we complain. In that regard we expect and have a right to expect that justice shall be accorded us. Then there is the failure to recognize the undoubted rights of the Maritime provinces in the lands already alienated and now proposed to be further alienated from the federal domain. These and some other federal questions, and the situation arising out of them, are so far reaching and so vitally important to the wellbeing of the provinces and confederacy a3 to put the whole matter quite beyond the range of questions that can or should be dealt with by a commission.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Brown
I have no present intention to here or now attack the personnel of the proposed commission, but for the weighty reasons I have referred to and others equally important we decline to submit our case to or to be in any way guided or obligated by any findings arising out of an investigation by such a commission. On the contrary we ask for, indeed we demand, a parliamentary committee to which we can appeal, as in the case of the Crowsnest pass rate question, which was considered and dealt with by such a committee in the year 1922; and that is not so far back but that most of the members of this House are quite familiar with the question and the settlement arrived at as to the matters then in dispute. Failure to meet the demands of Nova Scotia will tend to make of that province another Ireland, with an accompaniment of ill feeling, trouble and loss as between the eastern provinces and the Dominion greater and more far reaching than any disturbance which has arisen in the past out of the Irish question. Some hon. members opposite may laugh, but I can assure them it is no laughing matter. It is a matter which should receive the serious consideration of this House and unless it does receive such consideration there is trouble in store for this country; as to that there is no possibility of doubt.
I again tell the government we do not want a commission. We ask and demand that the matter of our grievances be examined by a committee of this House. The responsibility is on the government and to them the provinces by the sea look for relief, failing which this government must and will be held responsible for consequences that will affect not Nova Scotia alone but the whole of this Dominion.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: It was not my intention to take any part in this debate; 1 prefer to put myself in the position of a listener and a learner. I think I have much to learn, and I think also that I will have much to learn after the debate is concluded. I should not have spoken had not the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cant-ley), made certain references to a speech of my own delivered on a former occasion in answer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Pictou himself. In the course of his speech on February 10 the hon. member used these words:
Within a few years-
Some hon. MEMBERS; Order, order.


John Livingstone Brown: Are hon. members going
to stand on such strict technicalities that they will not allow a sentence to be quoted from a
speech in this House? I think the hon. member for Pictou quoted from mine.


Thomas Cantley: I did not quote from
Hansard, I quoted from memory.


John Livingstone Brown: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. gentleman
allow me?	*

Maritime Rights-Mr. Brown


John Livingstone Brown: Certainly.
Mr. CtAHAN:	Has he heard any hon.
member state that there are additional burdens which should be laid on the west?


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for St.
Lawrence-St. George himself made a reference to this matter which called forth a rebuke from the hon. member for West Calgary. I believe the hon. member was not in his place at the time, but I am referring to Hansard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Laying aside the question of a rebuke, I again ask if the hon. member has ever heard anyone in this House say or urge that additional burdens should be placed on the west?


John Livingstone Brown: I have heard the statement made repeatedly that the east is bearing an undue share of the burdens of the country. That statement was repeated by the hon.
member for Pictou in regard to this specific matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not heard it, and I
have listened carefully to the debates.


Mr. FOSTER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Livingstone Brown: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: Does the government not
admit that that contention is sound, by the appointment of the commission?


John Livingstone Brown: That what contention is
sound?


George Eulas Foster: The contention that certain portions of eastern Canada are bearing an undue share of our burdens?


John Livingstone Brown: I refer the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) for an answer to the question which he just put to me.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that it is not an
answer.


John Livingstone Brown: In regard to the matter
immediately before the House, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to enter into the debate; I only wished to listen and to learn. I wanted to ascertain, if I could, just what claims the prairie provinces are making; what their rights are and how they should be granted; what their wrongs are and how they should be given redress. I think it is unfortunate that some things should be introduced into this question which do not specifically refer to the Maritime provinces, and in which the Maritime provinces are not alone interested. Such a question is that of the tariff. I do not think the
hon. members from the Maritime provinces are quite agreed on that question; indeed, it is certain that they are not. They tell us that parties do not count in this question of Maritime rights. If that is the case perhaps it would be wise for them to confine themselves to those things on which the parties in the Maritime provinces are apparently agreed. They are certainly not agreed on the'tariff. It is true that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George announced what we all knew-that he is a protectionist-but he cannot claim that the Maritime provinces unanimously endorse that doctrine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member
name one member on this side of the House, representing a Maritime constituency, who is not a supporter of the principle of protection?


John Livingstone Brown: If the hon. member had
waited just a moment I would have dealt with that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or on the other side?


John Livingstone Brown: It is true that the members here representing the Maritime provinces claim adherence to the principle of protection, but it is just as true that the Maritime members in the last House were as violently opposed to that doctrine as are the members from the prairie provinces. For my part, since they tell us that Maritime rights is something on which the people are absolutely agreed, I am prepared to believe that the members from the Maritime provinces who were in the last House represented the people of those provinces on that particular question just as accurately and perhaps a little more accurately, in my judgment, than have the present members. That is my opinion; if it be not correct perhaps this commission which has been appointed may be able to bring us some very useful information on the subject.
I think it very unfortunate that these differences should arise, or that anything savouring of ill feeling or ill will should exist. So far as the first part of this resolution is concerned, I am in hearty agreement that there should be good faith kept with the people of the Maritime provinces, but we would like to know whether good faith is being kept, or to what degree that good faith has been broken. In regard to the second part of the resolution I am not quite sure of all that is there implied. If I were allowed to put my own interpretation on it, this section would not seem very dangerous, although of course there might be more read into it at a later stage than appears on the surface. It suggests that

Maritime Rights-Mr. Brown
freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway should be adjusted in accordance with the understanding at the time of confederation. That is of course a very indefinite and general term, upon which any person might put his own interpretation; to me it is simply a matter of adjusting the freight rates in accordance with the understanding at the time of confederation, and I could support that very heartily. However, I se'e that it is something into which others might read far more than that, and thus it might lead to confusion at a later time.
Speaking generally, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to give very careful consideration to any claims coming from any part of Canada. If there is a part of this Dominion which is handicapped; if there are wrongs that must be redressed, for my part I am willing to give the utmost consideration to such claims. I would like to hear these claims stated a little more definitely and specifically, however, than they have been stated up to the present. Do the hon. members, for instance, demand that the Intercolonial railway be distinct from the Canadian National railways, and handled henceforth as a separate unit? Is that their demand? If it is, let us have it stated plainly in order that there may be no misunderstanding. Then I would like to hear what the right hon. leader of the opposition would have to say about that proposition.
I am quite prepared to believe, from the former speech of the hon. member for Pictou, that there are many inequalities in freight rates which should be corrected. But while that is true I still feel that it is necessary for us to have a great deal more information; certainly it is necessary for me to secure much more information before I could feel in a position to pronounce positively as to what might be done or what could be done to remedy the wrongs which are complained of.


Mr. J. A. MACDONALD (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I would scarcely have taken part in this debate were it not for the fact that I represent a constituency in the province which, of all the provinces, has perhaps suffered the most through the failure of Canada to carry out the terms of confederation and, as the resolution puts it, "to keep faith with the assurances and undertakings of the government and parliament of Canada." I do not intend to cover the ground of the resolution generally, but to refer briefly to some parts that apply particularly to the province of Prince Edward Island.

Prince Edward Island held out for better terms than those originally proposed in 1867, and having secured them entered Confederation in 1873. At that time the island had been a self-governing colony for over one hundred years, and in the interval had made great progress. People from the Old Country settled there and hewed farms out of the wilderness and eventually became prosperous. They developed a thriving trade and established industries suitable to their needs, such as cloth mills, knitting mills, boot and shoe factories and agricultural implement factories. In the thirty years before confederation the population doubled itself, the revenues were ouoyant and sufficient in every way to meet the colony's expenditure.
Now, the last speaker (Mr. Brown) asked in what way the terms of confederation were not carried out. One of the terms under which Prince Edward Island entered the Dominion was:
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the Island and the mainland, winter and Summer, thus placing the Island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member: Does he know how faith was kept with Prince Edward Island with respect to that term of the union? We suffered for many years under the failure of Canada to carry out that part of the bargain. In 1900, under the Laurier government, the claims of Prince Edward Island for damages in that regard were recognized, and the government of that day granted an additional subsidy of $30,000 a year in settlement of all claims on that account up to 1900. That represented probably a capital sum of a million dollars at that time. But would any hon. member say that a million dollars would compensate for the hardships we suffered for twenty-seven long years by reason of that failure of Canada to carry out that term of the confederation pact?
But suppose we say we were adequately settled with up to 1900, I would point out to the House some of the things that happened later. In the winter of 1902-03 we were 35 days without steam connection of any kind with the mainland, and 33 days during which there was only a one-way or a half-trip service: in the winter of 1904-05 we were 54 days without any steamer communication with the mainland and were 19 days with only a one-way or half-trip service, while for 21 days we never received any mail from the mainland; in the winter of 1906-07 we were

Maritime Rights-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
thirty-five days without any communication with the mainland. Yet we entered confederation on the distinct understanding with the Dominion government that we would be furnished with an efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers continuously throughout the year between the Island and the mainland. I ask the hon. member: In the face of these facts does he think Prince Edward Island was fairly treated? Why, sir, under the conditions I have described between 1900 and the present time our trade has fallen off through the non-fulfilment of this particular term of the contract, and as a result many firms have gone into bankruptcy owing to losses incurred by destruction of perishable products through delay in transportation. These disastrous conditions have seriously injured our people, until to-day our former thriving industries are a mere memory and our population has dwindled from practically a hundred thousand people in 1873 to less than 90,000 to-day.
Now, this is one of the failures of Canada to implement its promises that we think should be dealt with. Whether the royal commission that has been appointed will deal with our grievances fully and fairly is something that I do not care to discuss. I do feel, however, that we should not be put off with a royal commission, that the facts can be fairly represented to the government by the members of this House and by the provincial governments of the three maritime provinces. The three premiers are now engaged in preparing the case of the maritimes for presentation to the federal government. I know that the premier of Prince Edward Island, in conjunction with the premiers of Nova and New Brunswick, has been working on the case for two years. I believe that those gentlemen and the members in this House representing the maritime provinces are in a far better position than any royal commission to present to the federal government our local needs and claims.
While our claims have much in common with those of the other two maritime provinces, we have a claim peculiar to the Island; I refer to our mainland connection, which is not yet satisfactory. Although in 1912 the Borden government made a start to implement this clause of the confederation agreement, even to-day our communication with the mainland is not entirely satisfactory, but I am ready to admit that it is much better than it used to be. I am not citing the action of the Borden government for political reasons, because I am quite ready to give the Laurier government credit for recognizing our
Claims in 1900, but the Borden government went a long way to improve con-9 p.m. ditions when they began to standardize our railway and provide a car ferry service. But what is the condition to-day? More than half of the Prince Edward Island railway is still narrow gauge, and hon. members, unless they have had the experience of handling traffic from a narrow gauge to a standard gauge line, cannot understand the hardships and inconvenience it entails. Not only that, but the car ferry service cannot carry anything like the quantity of freight that is offered. A few weeks ago there were two hundred cars of freight lying on the sidings between Moncton and Tor-mentine waiting for transportation, which was not available. Perishable products, such as potatoes, have been lying in Prince Edward Island all winter and could not be moved because there was not sufficient steamship transportation, which the Dominion government promised us. Our handicaps are chiefly transportation. When we entered confederation the claim held out was that we would be given the markets of Upper Canada instead of the markets that we had developed to the south. The southern markets, of course, we came in touch with through water communication, but it was said that the Intercolonial would give us a much better market in Upper Canada, and we believed that. It did so, but the condition to-day is that while we have products which we could sell in Upper Canada, and sell to advantage at the prices obtainable in Montreal, Toronto and other cities in Upper Canada, the. transportation charges are so great that they eat up in some cases the greater part of the price we could obtain for our products before they ever reach the market. It would be a good market if we were in touch with it at a reasonable freight rate, such a freight rate as we were led to expect when we entered confederation.
We want additional transportation facilities to-day. There is a very strong agitation in Prince Edward Island for a second car ferry, for two reasons:	First, the present car ferry
is not able to perform all the service that is required there; it is not able to carry the amount of freight that is offered; second, because of the very great danger that exists today in the fact that if anything should happen to that car ferry, we should be isolated altogether. When we look back to the days when we had only ice boat communication, when a passenger leaving Prince Edward Island had to put a strap over his shoulder and assist in hauling the ice boat across, pay-
2336	COMMONS
Maritime Bights-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
ing six dollars for the privilege, we view with alarm the prospect of something happening to that car ferry and of our having to go 'back to those conditions; because if anything does happen there will be nothing else to depend upon. In the strait of Canso, where conditions are comparatively easy compared with the strait of Northumberland, they provide a service of two car ferries; they have one auxiliary in case something should happen to the regular ferry. The distance is practically only a mile, and little ice to contend with, whereas we have nine miles, and very heavy ice to contend with; yet we have to depend on only one car ferry.
There is another way in which this government might easily help out, and that is with an air service. We could at least get mails and light baggage and perhaps some passengers, transported by air if the government would utilize their air force down there. The air force could carry on their experimenting there just as well as anywhere else, and at the same time give some reasonable service that would be of great value to Prince Edward Island by giving us a speedy and sure connection for mails, and perhaps light baggage and passengers, at all times and under all conditions. It is a serious hardship at present, at best, for passengers who have to cross by the car ferry, to be out there for hours, and days sometimes, and missing all train connections. While the service is very much better than it was many years ago, it is still far from satisfactory, and this is one of the things we expect the government to deal with.
To give an instance of the kind of service we get on that railway, I had the experience a few weeks ago of starting from Borden to Charlottetown. After getting off the car ferry several hours late, we had to get into a train, and although the authorities knew that the train had to start out from Borden, when the passengers got aboard there were no lights; something had gone wrong with the electric light apparatus, and we were furnished with old worn-out cars from the railway system on the mainland, with one lantern to light the whole coach. We had not gone very far before a brake beam gave out, and we were detained till that was repaired. We went a little further and then the air hose broke, and the braking system was out of commission. I just mention these things so that hon. gentlemen may have some idea of the difficulties we have to contend with. These things are unknown on the mainland, and the western members I am sure can hardly realize that such conditions exist; but these are some of our problems.
4 
I do not believe a commission of this kind is good enough. I think we can present these matters to the federal government ourselves just as well as any commission could possibly do; in fact, we could do it better. Particularly I say this, that if a commission was deemed to be necessary, if the government felt they could not deal with the question satisfactorily themselves, they would have been wise to select at least one or two practical business men from the Maritime provinces as members of that commission. However, I am not criticizing the personnel of the commission. I am glad to know that a former Prince Edward Islander, Dr. Macmillan, is one of the members. I hope that he at all events will have the interests of his native province at heart, and see that some of our hardships are remedied.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House to any great extent because the general features of the question have been already discussed rather fully. But I do hope that action of some kind will foe taken, and I am sorry the government have found1 it necessary to delegate this matter to a commission, instead of dealing with it themselves at this present session. These delays are expensive, and they are costing Prince Edward Island, as well at the other Maritime provinces, much hardship and much loss. Not only that, but in addition to the loss and the hardship, a great deal of discontent has developed; it is developing day by day. The longer these conditions exist the more will that discontent grow, and the greater danger there will be that some movement will take firm hold of the people which may possibly have very serious consequences for the whole Dominion of Canada and the confederation pact. There is a real danger there, and I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister and the members of his government to deal as speedily as possible with these matters, with the particular object of allaying this discontent, which is perhaps a more serious feature of the situation than the loss and1 hardship, financial and otherwise, which the people in the Maritime' provinces are suffering.
In conclusion, referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who has just spoken, I do not know that protection enters into this question to any great extent, but so far as the members from the Maritime provinces are concerned, there is no question whatever where they stand on the principle of protection. They were all elected on that principle, and they represent that principle, believing it is the best thing for the interests of Canada as a whole. When the hon. member speaks about the delegation

Maritime Rights-Mr. MacNutt
that came from the Maritime provinces four years ago, and says that they had diametrically opposite views, I would ask him why did they not carry their views into effect in this parliament when they had the power to do it. I would once again plead with the government for action, and speedy action, in this matter.


Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take up but a short time in speaking to this resolution, for there is very little I can add to what I said on this question on a previous occasion, and repetition would be merely a waste of the valuable time of this parliament. I think it was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) who declared that the question of Maritime rights would be presented at every available opportunity throughout this session. In view of that declaration I make no apology for addressing the House to-night
I w'as somewhat amused at the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) who ventured the opinion that no contractual rights had been taken away from us. I warn the hon. gentleman that in expressing such an opinion he is venturing on very thin ice. Would my hon. friend have us believe that the pledges of the Fathers of Confederation are no more sacred than the promises of a horse trader? I can assure my hon. friend that if the Maritime rights commission, which is shortly expected to function, entertains the same ideas with regard to the spirit of the confederation pact, that, commission will be very short-lived indeed, in fact its dissolution will begin the very first day it meets. Why, Mr. Speaker, the whole crux of the situation depends upon whether we are going to honour the pledges that were entered into at the time of confederation. It was upon the strength of those pledges and those pledges alone that the representatives of the Maritime provinces agreed to the pact. As I Stated here on a previous occasion, the mere laying of two streaks of steel from Moncton to Quebec through a wilderness of 500 miles was not a sufficiently powerful thing of itself to induce the brainy men of those days who acted for the Maritime provinces to subscribe to confederation. We did not want to enter into confederation; we were persuaded to do so by the pledges given at that time. And the commission which is charged with making the investigation into Maritime province rights must acknowledge that those pledges are equally as binding as section 145 of the British North America Act, which was read by the Minister of National Defence this afternoon.
Unless that is done we shall never arrive at a real solution of our troubles in the Mari-times.
We have been told on several occasions during the present session that in advocating Maritime rights we were raising a sectional cry. In this I do not agree. It is the duty of every member in this House to see that the interests of the district which he represents are carefully safeguarded; and surely hon. gentlemen to my left will resent the idea that in advocating the building of the Hudson Bay railway, and other large enterprises, they are laying themselves open to the charge of raising the sectional cry. I believe that if the representatives from the respective constituencies, or provinces, do not look after the rights of those portions of Canada, they cannot expect members from other parts of the Dominion to do it for them.
A few days ago the legislature of Nova Scotia passed a resolution on this subject. That resolution is brief and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read it. It is worded as follows:
Whereas Nova Scotia in entering confederation made possible the unification end consolidation of a British dominion on this continent;
And whereas at that time certain pledges were given that such measures would be undertaken and such policies pursued as would ensure for the future a satisfactory economic position for this province;
And whereas the pledges given have been disregarded as a result of which Nova Scotia has not shared in equal measure in the prosperity enjoyed by the Dominion as a whole;
And whereas the government is now engaged in preparing a memorandum setting forth in detail the claims of the province with the object in view of seeking such adequate redress as will ensure such a return of contentment and prosperity to our people;
Therefore be it resolved that this House approves the action now being taken by this government,
And be it further resolved that sueh memorandum be presented by the government to the federal government with the assurance that the people of this province believe that adequate remedies exist and must be applied.
The foregoing resolution passed the legislature on a strict party vote, the three Liberal members of the House voting against it. That resolution was not presented in any party spirit or with any desire to make party capital. Premier Rhodes closed a memorable address with which he supported the resolution in the following words:
The serpent of secession has raised its slimy head in this province, so I am told. I wish to dissociate myself with any man who ever suggests secession. There are those who say we would have been better off had we not entered confederation. From the bottom of my heart I think we were wise to have entered confederation. I believe the Fathers of Confederation built better than they knew. They were men of prophetic vision, and that we have not reaped the full benefit

2338	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. MacNutt
of confederation is due more to neglect on our part, and I say regardless of whether a Conservative or Liberal government was in power at Ottawa, that the remedies for our ills can be found within the four corners of confederation. If we will only diligently seek them and apply them we will solve our problems.
Like Premier Rhodes I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can solve our problems not only within the four corners of confederation but within the four walls of this building. I believe the representatives from the Maritime provinces have sufficient data to enable this investigation to be carried on while this House is in session. I think it was the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who made the suggestion a short time ago that a parliamentary committee be named here before whom the desired investigation could be held. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) characterized the suggestion as a good one and expressed the belief that the government was ready to consider such an appointment. Unfortunately, following that announcement the minister was taken to the hospital a very sick man and for some weeks he was absent from the deliberations of the government. I believe, Sir, that if the hon. minister, who is the only minister from the Maritime provinces, had been in the councils of the government during those weeks, a parliamentary committee would have been appointed rather than the royal commission which has been named by the government. We are glad indeed to hear his voice in the House this afternoon, and we hope he may yet prevail upon the government to name a parliamentary committee before whom we may take our case. The question is such an important one that it seems to me unsafe to allow it to be dealt with by a royal commission for the next six, eight or twelve months. We realize that the situation is a very difficult one for any government, and personally I sympathize with the government which has to face the problem. I believe it is the biggest problem that has had to be dealt with by any government in recent years. But it must be faced, and the sooner it is faced the better for this country and I am sure the better for the Maritime provinces.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) a few moments ago referred to the west not getting more than the east. I should like to draw his attention to the matter of the distribution of outlay. This information can be obtained from the reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Railways and Canals. The Canada Year Book shows that in the year 1924 the total commitments for railways and canals was $3,103,259,242 and that the proportion of that amount for the Maritime provinces, according to popu-IMr. MacNutt.]
lation, should have been $341,858,512. But it was found that the amount spent in the Maritimes up to 1924 amounted to $194,024,017.


John Livingstone Brown: What was the total amount?


George Taylor MacNutt: $3,103,259,242. The Maritimes have received 53 per cent of the proportion they were entitled to. We do not ask that dollar for dollar be spent in these provinces.


John Livingstone Brown: Was that money spent for railways and canals?


George Taylor MacNutt: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Did the hon. member say three billions?


George Taylor MacNutt: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: In one year?


George Taylor MacNutt: No, the total up to 1924. We can easily see now that this session another $100,000,000 will be added to the debt of the country, and I am sure that the Maritime provinces are not going to gain much by the bills now before the House.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the hon. member included the steamship subsidy and expenditures for docks and all that kind of thing?


George Taylor MacNutt: No, that is railways and canals only.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member might make a comparison between the harbour expenditures in the west and in the east.


George Taylor MacNutt: I think I might present that to the hon. member at some future time, but not to-night. As the transportation question in Canada seems to transcend all other questions, I have recently secured1 a copy of an address given by D. A. McGibbon, Professor of political economy in the University of Alberta. This address was delivered before the agricultural society in Saskatoon on January 14, 1926. I have not the pleasure of an acquaintance with' the professor. I do not know whether he is a Maritime province man or not, but in his address he told the people that logically and morally he believed the position of the people of the Maritimes was absolutely unattackable. He referred to four great transportation problems; first the demands of British Columbia that the railway should make very low rates to enable that province to handle all the grain of Alberta and western Saskatchewan; second, the agitation for the completion for the Hudson Bay route as a grain carrying channel; third, the project of

Maritime Rights-Mr. MaeNutt
deepening the St. Lawrence to enable ocean going carriers to load at Fort William and Port Arthur, and fourth, the contention of the Maritime provinces that the people of Halifax and St. John should handle the Canadian grain that now goes out via New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia. I regret that this pamphlet is so long, because I would like to see it in the hands of every hon. member in this House who has not seen it. I will quote briefly a few portions of it. He says:
The facts that I have placed before you suggest a conclusion which may not have occurred to you. All these projects, in so far as they lean upon the government, in so far as they aim to divert trade, industry and capital from the courses they would naturally take under conditions of free enterprise, are part and parcel of a policy of protection. Many people in Canada identify protection only in connection with the policy of maintaining a protective tariff. But that is a mistake. A protective tariff operates to divert capital and industry into lines that it would not take if the government had not intervened. This is what all these transportation measures, directly or indirectly, propose to do. The bringing of transportation systems within the scope of economic protectionism is well known to students of the subject. The German authority Grunzel points out that in Germany before the war, "railway rates became not merely an auxiliary to protective duties, but in a still higher degree a means of encouraging exportations". The Germans manipulated railways rates to feed their own ports at the expense of their Belgian and French and Dutch competitors. Grunzel relates how Bismark exerted his influence upon the railways to make them "become instruments of government policy."
Of exactly similar import are the reductions arranged for on coal from Alberta to Ontario. The government has granted a sum of money drawn from the taxpayers of Canada to make these shipments possible. This sum of money is a bounty expended in the interests of encouraging home industry. The same thing is true of the government subsidizes a route to Europe via Hudson Bay, or a ship canal via the St. Lawrence, or by meeting deficits on the National Railways, due to its requiring them to carry grain exports at less than remunerative rates.
Then he proceeds:
The claims of the Maritimes.
This brings me to the complaints that are being registered by the cities of St. John and Halifax. Logically and morally, I believe their position is absolutely unattackable.
I will repeat that and emphasize it.
Logically and morally I believe their position is absolutely unattackable. Transportation ventures, all purporting to be fer the national benefit, are being or have been subsidized right and left by our national government. On the basis of political promises, on the ground of transportation subsidies given elsewhere, in the very words setting forth the reasons for the construction of what are now the National railways, our sister provinces by the sea and the city of Quebec have the right to feel that their claims have not received full consideration. The promises which the people of Canada endorsed by the election of 1904 have not been implemented. . .
Nor can I agree with a former premier of Nova Scotia when he said that the grain growers of the 14011-149J
west should ship their grain through Canadian Atlantic seaboard ports even though it cost them money to do so. That is too much to expect of human nature, nor is it in accord with the logic of economic protectionism, of which all these transportation ventures and schemes are a type.
This leads only to one conclusion. We cannot expect the Board of Railway Commissioners to order the railways to make rates that the latter can show are not remunerative in order to subsidize Canadian routes. Valuable as its function is, there are metes and bounds to what it can accomplish. The only way by which a volume of grain shipments might be set flowing to. Canadian Atlantic seaboard ports is through parliament, frankly subsidizing the route. The method of ac

complishment would be: (1) to have the Board of Railway Commissioners make a thorough investigation and' determine a rate that would not cause loss to the railways; (2) determine at what rates grain should reach tidewater in order to compete with the American range of ports; (3) the difference between these two figures-would have to be made up by a rebate to the exporter using Canadian lines and seaports; (4) the burden of making these rebates would have to fall upon the Dominion treasury; (5) such rates should come into effect with the closing of the St. Lawrence river, and should remain available each year until the opening of that channel in the spring. This is the only method I know of by which the Maritime seaports may hope to share in a large way in the export of Canadian grain.
If the people of Canada wish to utilize their own ports this is the course they will have to pursue. Economic protectionism has been part of the policy of Canada for 46 years. The doctrine of the development through protection of infant industries has been preached incessantly-a subsidy to encourage the Maritime ports would be in accord with the logic of that policy.
I should like also to refer to a paper that came into my hands a few days ago. Hon. members can see it. There is this heading in two-inch, heavy type, block letters in the Boston Advertiser of March 31, 1926:
Secession Move in Maritimes
Separatist banner is likely to be hoisted on birthday of confederation.
The 59th birthday of Canada's confederation, on July 1, next, may see the banner of secession formally hoisted by the Maritimes provinces, if plans now afoot here mature according to schedule.
Secession rumours have stirred eastern Canada before now, and the issue of "Maritime rights" has been one of those most persistently to the fore in the present session of parliament. The movement now launched, according to its sponsors, is designed to fan the embers of unrest into an open flame, and to win complete fiscal autonomy for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Geographic transportation conditions make it impossible for them to find a market for their exports in the other provinces of Canada and the present United States tariff closes the doors of that country to their produce.
Other planks in the secessionist platform are:
Complete control of the provinces' natural resources.
Provincial collections of all duties and excise, income taxes and other levies.	[DOT]
Control of all fisheries within the provinces.
Co-operation with the Dominion in military defence, postal services and navigation.
Contributions to the National railway deficit to be in proportion to mileage in the province.

Maritime Rights-Mr. MacNutt
Contributions to the national debt to be in proportion to population.
Appointment of a royal commission to investigate the *grievances of the Martime provinces, was one of the promises made by Premier King at the opening of the present session of the Dominion parliament. But the secessionists declare that their grievances have been too long ignored; that the hour for investigation and negotiation has passed, and the hour for direct action has struck.
That is what is appearing in papers across the line. I am not a secessionist. I do not like the word. I do not believe that at present you can find a great number of secessionists in my province, but I believe we are to-day standing upon a volcano of public feeling in that province, a volcano which is liable to burst into eruption at any time. I plead with this government and ask that they recede from their present position in the appointment of a royal commission, act upon the suggestion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and name a parliamentary committee before whom we can place the case for the Maritime provinces.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Maritime Rights-Mr. Church
this folly of free trade, look at what it has done for the natural resources of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. For almost fifty years the natural resources of Nova Scotia were administered according to the principles of Adam Smith, as those principles were interpreted by corporations, corporationist Liberals, in Halifax with headquarters in Montreal. Private ownership grabbed all the water powers and coal resources in sight.
I believe our national railway system might be so operated as to help very considerably to solve the problems of the Maritimes. Is it to be operated for the benefit of the people that own the railway, or for the benefit of the American coal barons who have their headquarters in Philadelphia? A committee of this House dealt with the coal question and found that 17 a ton was a fair rate for Alberta and Nova Scotia coal. What happened? Nothing was done. Sir Henry Thornton after accepting it in two years openly repudiated the finding of the committee. He might as well have quoted a rate $15 or $25 a ton as $9, because anything over $7 is prohibitive and, as I contend, is a surrender to the American coal barons of the coaj market of the central provinces and is a blow to the coal industry of Alberta and the Maritime provinces.
I believe in a national policy for the solution of all our problems. We mobilized our resources in war time with great advantage; it is equally necessary and advantageous to mobilize them in times of peace. We should mobilize our railways in peace time to develop our great natural resources. If that was done you would have the national railway system co-operating in the solution of these maritime problems. I entered the lists on behalf of the Maritime provinces with a fuel policy at my first session of parliament. I have never yet seen any reason to regret that action. I have advocated a national policy for the marketing of our coal, our grain, our fruit, and all our products. I support that policy to-day after a very close study of conditions in the Maritime provinces, which I had the good fortune to visit for a couple of brief periods
10 p.m. during the war. I then reached the conclusion that there were never three provinces where Providence has done so much and man so little. In my opinion, protection for the Maritime provinces is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
Our railways are Americanized to-day. Canadian grain is carried at preferential rates to the head of the lakes, where it is diverted to the port of Buffalo, although we have

spent millions of dollars on our canal system in an endeavour to secure an all-Canadian route. Buffalo to-day has the cream of the milling business, not only of the United States but of Canada as well. We are losing that whole industry. The grain industry is not a north-and-south industry, as some hon. gentlemen to my left contend, but an east-and-west industry, and an overseas industry, with the product selling in the markets of continental Europe. I went into this question at length last session and discussed the elevator combine, the transportation combine, and the Great Lakes combine. There is now a merger of all Canadian and American boats on the Great Lakes, and the result is that our grain trade is being diverted to Buffalo, as a return that was brought down to the House on the 3rd of March last shows. If you take 150 as the unit, 100 per cent of our grain goes through United States ports, and only 50 through Canadian channels. I think that is a fair summary of the return that was brought down. The grain industry is one which could do a great deal for the Maritime provinces. In Ontario we used to have a chain of elevators in days gone by, but to-day there is hardly a terminal elevator in the whole of central Ontario. Why? Buffalo a few years ago had only a few elevators, but the whole elevator policy and grain policy of this country has resulted in the erection of twenty-eight big elevators in Buffalo to handle Canadian grain, as is set out in the report of the grain commission and has resulted in the great bulk of our grain going through American ports. The more you look into this thing the more clearly you see how the Maritime provinces have got the worst of it all along the line, through our grain not being routed through Canadian channels. Sir Henry Thornton has made somewhat of a superficial study of the question, and his conclusions are contrary to those of the grain commission which studied this particular problem. If there is any industry in this country which should be under a national policy, it is the grain-growing industry. The United States is a grain-growing country; it grows far more than it can consume itself; it consumes only little more than half of its crop and has an exportable surplus of about a third of its crop. We consume a little more than that, and it is the price obtained for the exportable surplus which by the economic law of supply and demand determines the price for the part used at home. What has been the result in Canada? Canada's grain crop should go through Canadian ports under adequate protection

Maritime Rights-Mr. Church
and by Canadian railways. Buffalo has twenty-eight elevators to-day as a result of the folly of such an anti-Canadian grain policy. The industrial department of the city of Buffalo, in its advertising, speaks of the great boon the present grain policy of Canada regarding grain has been to that port. It has built up the port of Buffalo, and built up traffic on the Erie barge canal. Instead of our grain going to Port Colborne and then to Montreal, it goes to Buffalo and New York and Baltimore, where in violation of the law and by a bootlegging policy it is mixed with American cheap grain and milled, whence it goes out in the form of flour, under certificate, to Europe as No. 1 grade. The United States has captured not only the oversea grain trade of Canada, but the oversea market for the milling trade as well, and the solution of this grain and milling problem and the development of the industry on an embargo principle in this country would pay off the deficit we have on the National railways of fifty to sixty million dollars a year. The Buffalo papers for the past few months have carried columns of printed matter wondering if at this session anything was going to be done to divert Canadian grain through Canadian channels by placing an embargo on hard wheat as recommended by the grain commission. According to a report of the American Shipping Board published in the Toronto Globe this morning, about 25 per cent less grain is now going through United States channels than last year. That has been diverted to Canadian channels as a result of the educational campaign that has been conducted in this House in the matter of a grain embargo during the last four sessions. Secondly, it has been due to the invasion of new blood, the sixteen new members in this. House from the Maritime provinces.
The coal problem is also connected with this question. Coal should be carried on the same preferential rates as grain and flour, for after all is said and done, coal is equivalent to food, because nothing on the breakfast table can be prepared as food without the use of coal. You can do without a meal, once in a while but you cannot do without fuel in winter time; we have to burn coal for six or seven months in the year. I have proposed to this House that we should have a national policy on coal, and that the government merchant marine and the National railways should be mobilized and utilized to put this policy into effect. Nova Scotia had a Liberal government for thirty-four years, but did you ever hear of the legislature of Nova
Scotia making any attempt to solve this coal problem until the new government came in? Did they send any delegation here last year when the Conservatives brought this matter up? Premier Armstrong prepared a learned memorandum in which he spoke of the evils of this particular problem. I would urge that a system of bonuses, subsidies and subventions, be applied to the coal industry. We have the president of the Canadian National Railwaj'S, and its dummy board meets now and then; it looks to me more like the board of a Liberal campaign fund than a board of railway directors. Some of them do not know any more about running a railway than they do about running a movie theater. The people of Canada are disappointed in the management of the National railways to-day. We have spent nearly two billion dollars on the National railway system to help solve our problem, and we are disappointed with the result.
Where does the railway commission stand to-day? I have not heard of them. They are supposed to investigate freight rates as applied to Maritime rights of their own volition. The Railway Act requires them to prevent unjust, unfair, and undue discrimination between localities, and lays down the principle that there shall be equality of treatment, that preference shall not be given to one product at the expense of another. A railway must be operated to provide, first, sinking fund and fixed charges on the investment; secondly, it must make operating expenses; thirdly, a reasonable dividend on the investment; fourthly, provide, if possible, a sum for betterments and extensions. The basis of all rate structures in this country is the Crowsnest pass agreement. Who is responsible for that bungle? The Liberal party. Who is responsible for building the Grand Trunk Pacific, and for the deficits on the National railways? Who is responsible for building the National Transcontinental, when one transcontinental with a double track would have been sufficient for our needs? The Liberal party. The Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, a man for whom we have the utmost respect, went up and down the Maritime provinces during that National Transcontinental campaign and promised that grain would be routed through Canadian channels and that the Maritime provinces would come into their own when that railway was built. What happened? I venture to say that we would not have had the railway bungle we have in this country to-day if Sir William Mulock and the late Mr. J. F. Lister had had their way. They attacked the Laurier-Sifton

Maritime Rights-Mr. Church
proposals for the construction of the Crowsnest pass railway. Sir John Willison for weeks and months carried the slogan across the front page of the Globe, "Concessions for Concessions," representing the maximum rates proposed in the Crowsnest pass contract as then, in 1897, and forever applicable to shipments from every point on the Canadian Pacific system in Canada. The Crowsnest pass deal was put through by the Liberal party and from that day forward freight rates were fixed by statute, preferences given, and a political rate structure established. The enactment of that legislation was the greatest mistake this country ever made. It is responsible to-day for a great many of the transportation ills from which this country is suffering. It is the basis of the political railway rate structure of Canada from coast to coast. We have always had a political railway rate structure in this country. We have not yet, and never have had, an economic rate structure. The railway commission is not competent to create an economic rate structure because this parliament has seen fit, since the inception of the Crowsnest pass agreement, to fix rates on some products and not on others, and establish certain tolls by legislation at the expense of others, for 'instance on grain and flour from the west to the head of the lakes. Who pays for this? The central provinces of Canada. The railway commission is not in a position to-day to solve this problem as long as the Crowsnest pass legislation, or any part of it, remains in force with all the evils flowing therefrom. I believe this unfair legislation is one of the reasons why the Maritime provinces are suffering from the discrimination pointed out by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). I have copies of the railwa3r tariffs and codes which have been passed for the last ten years and I can corroborate every word the hon. gentleman has said not only as regards the rates on steel and coal but also as regards those on fruit, lumber and .agricultural, and other commodities carried between the head of the lakes and the city of Sydney, between the head of the lakes and Halifax, between Hamilton and Montreal, and between Hamilton and the seaboard. Between these points the greatest discrimination exists.
Instead of having a proper regulation of rates and a fair rate established as between one city and another, certain basic products have been selected for a preference which has been given certain parts of Canada at the expense of the rest of the Dominion. Not only has the hon. member for Pictou spoken

in an absolutely correct manner, but the statements made by the representatives for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) and Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) are entirely accurate. Reasonable and equitable rates are necessary in the interest of the great fishing industry of the Maritime provinces, as well as other industries, but instead the worst discrimination exists.
A proper solution of this rate problem would bring the producer and the consumer together in a mutually satisfactory manner, and meet the existing difficulties in a variety of ways. The province of Ontario has by cheap light and power solved its problems by protection in a very satisfactory manner. For thirty-four years the needs of the situation in the matter of cheap light and power were overlooked bj^ the various provincial Liberal governments there, but the Liberal party could see nothing and had no vision in Ontario. It remained for the government of the late Sir James P. Whitney and the late Sir Adam Beck to take action and they handled the situation in a manner which has made Ontario the admiration of the world. The following are some of the results which have been achieved by the hydro in Ontario:
1.	Every dollar of the $160,000,000 Hydro investment is earning interest and sinking fund.
2.	Hydro investment saved Ontario from a coal famine that would have bankrupted the province in war time.
3.	Hydro investment saved 2,200,000 shareholders over $75,000,000 in reduced coal, light and power bills.
4.	Hydro investment saved Ontario over $100,000,000, on coal prices which would have gone to $30 per ton in war time but for the Hydro investment that gave Ontario the equivalent of 3,000,000 tons of United States coal per annum.
If Ontario can solve its problems through the Hydro-Electric Commission why cannot the Maritime provinces do the same? The hydro-electric policy involves the protectionist principle. It is protection in the truest sense; it means utilizing the public resources of a province for the benefit of that province. The hydro has fought in Ontario the battle of the masses against the classes. If the principle involved in the policy of the HydroElectric Commission of Ontario in the conservation of its light and power resources had been applied to the Maritime provinces, those provinces would have developed their coal mines, power, and timber instead of giving those resources away to political favourites. I say to hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces: Do not blame everything on the central provinces of the Dominion, do not blame everything on the confederation pact. The people of Nova Scotia kept in power for thirty-four years a Liberal administration that

Maritime Rights-Mr. Church
gave away its resources to be developed for private greed and private gain. The Maritime provinces would have had a place in the sun long ago if the people had looked after their resources and conserved them. If the principle of protection were applied to the development of the power, coal, fisheries and lumber resources of the Maritime provinces it would solve the existing problems almost automatically. After all Providence only helps those who help themselves. The people of those provinces have only themselves to blame for not working out the solution of their problems on the protective principle and in the manner I have indicated.
I wish now to say a word or two about the way in which the Canadian National Railways have been Americanized. The passenger and to some extent the freight rates from St. Louis and Chicago, and points beyond that as far as Minneapolis, to Montreal, are only about one-third of the rates from Toronto, Hamilton and London to the same port. In other words, under the auspices of this parliament, and of the board of management of the system, the Canadian National Railways are being operated for the benefit of foreigners at Rotterdam and other cities in Europe and America and for the benefit of cities and towns in the United States. Sir Henry Thornton would rather quote a price like $9, $10 or $15 a ton for the carriage of Canadian coal, in order to permit the Philadelphia coal barons to get the cream of the business, than quote a rate of $7 in the case of Alberta coal and $4 in the case of coal from the Maritime provinces and solve some of confederation's problems. If the latter policy were pursued, Alberta and the Maritime provinces would get the cream of the Canadian coal business rather than the American coal barons.
In addition to that, the L'nited States branch lines of the Canadian National railways are being operated in such a way as to divert trade to Portland and other American ports. The Canadian shippers are not to blame. They must obey the railway laws of this country. That those laws are what they are to-day is the fault of the present and past Canadian parliaments, and the parliament that preceded the present one, in erecting in Canada a political rate structure instead of an economic rate structure. We believed in mobilizing the resources of our railways and transportation systems in time of war. Why do we not do the same in peace time? Surely we should do that in order to protect our industries,, our people and our markets from foreign competitors. Why was an elevator built at Halifax if there was no grain to put
in it? Why have we spent about 2 billion dollars in building railways for the benefit of the United States, the highest protected country in the world? The condition in the Maritime provinces is very largely due to the fact that they have not had a safeguarding of industries act, and consequently their industries have not been properly protected. If they had had a Stanley Baldwin in the Maritime provinces during the thirty-four years of Liberal administration, he would have accomplished something for the provinces and would have done a great deal to protect their resources and their products. The Maritimes want an economic revival and a revivalist to lead it. What the Maritime provinces require is an act for the safeguarding of industries and protection. But what has happened? Instead of this government attempting to solve the problem in a rational way they have made a football of it. I do not know what this Maritime commission has been appointed for. What is the commission to do? To find out what the Maritime rights are? The members of the government can easily ascertain what those rights are if they read the speeches of hon. members from those provinces on this side of the House.
The former Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Armstrong, seemed to find out very suddenly what Maritime rights were. He came up to Ottawa previous to the election and found out what the Maritime rights were, and he presented his bill of rights. He refers to the question of coal, steel, fisheries, lumbering and all the other matters relating to the provinces. If I understood the reports in the papers, he was told that the government of Canada did not understand what Maritime rights were. I think however, they have had a better idea of those rights since the 29th of October.
I believe the provinces of central Canada desire to trade with the Maritimes, and they think it would be much -better for confederation if they would. The quicker the railway commission, of their own volition, settle these problems for the Maritime provinces, the better for -Canada. That would be far better than waiting for this government to take action. The career of some of the Liberal prime -ministers and statesmen who came from the Maritime provinces to this House after having enjoyed cabinet rank in the provincial legislatures, is not reassuring. They have made a great success, perhaps, in finding material for speeches and in delivering speeches, but they have been about the biggest public failures in Canada when it came to doing anything in the way of practical policies

Maritime Rights-Mr. Church
for the Maritime provinces. I have seen them administering the affairs of the Maritime provinces, and they have treated the resources of the Maritime provinces as they would a Christmas tree; and made handouts off the Christmas tree-to all the big interests. Of course, they took the coal resources off the Christmas tree and grabbed many other things, such as power, timber resources and water-powers. They played Santa Claus for 34 years to the resources of the Maritime provinces, the timber wealth and the fisheries, and in fact I might say the products of the sea, the soil, the forests and the mines were given away in hand-outs. They handed these resources to whom? To a commission on public utilities? No, they handed them over to the big interests and party favourites. They transferred many of these interests to Montreal, and the big interests took charge of them there. These Liberal provincial premiers Ottawa bound-abound in public speech, but as a result of their work for forty years in the provinces, those provinces are not a dollar richer or have an additional inhabitant. They have been ruled for thirty-four years by a sort of non-apostolic succession of rulers and premiers and now that apostolic succession of Liberal rulers has been displaced. They believed they could make Nova Scotia rich by the free and unrestricted distribution of the coal, the power and other resources of the province to favourites and by giving preferences. They did and they were mistaken. They have handed out all these resources to the big interests in Montreal at the expense of the Maritimes. They have carried on this principle of handing out these resources, not only the coal but the other valuable assets; even the banking system-everything-has been sacrificed for the big interests. Talk about banking! Who is responsible for the bank legislation? Two or three of the finance ministers came from the Maritimes. What did they do? They allowed the solicitors of the Bankers association to draft the Bank Act and as drawn up it was never enforced or carried out. You cannot blame central Canada for that. Blame your own statesmen who could prepare and make speeches but could not create a policy for their province. We have had many mergers of banks, and we have seen the actions of those big interest companies which had control of the coal and other Maritime industries. They have had coal strikes, lockouts and other calamities as a result. Talk about agriculture 1 What did the Liberal Premiers of Nova Scotia ever do down in those provinces for agriculture or lumbering?

What was done in the last parliament in the way of bill of rights? Nothing that I know of. We have had a debate annually in this chamber for three years in regard to the national coal supply. Did we ever get any help from the Premier of Nova Scotia or from any of his ministers in regard to the coal question? No resolution was ever sent here to help us along.
I am glad this question has come up. While we have many problems in Ontario, we are getting practically no help in the wray of a tariff-all is nibbling and reducing and uncertainty of tariffs. We have had a very uncertain tariff for the last few years, and we have had a reduction of the tariff which has had the result of closing many industries. Ontario is badly in need of protection for its basic products and industries. We could very well present a bill of rights from Ontario. I do not know of any province which is suffering more on account of the transportation problem than Ontario. They thlk about Ontario getting the Grand Trunk Pacific. They did not want it. The province of Ontario had to build the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway themselves, and this was a work for the general advantage of Canada. They will have to build their own railway to James Bay. Ontario did not want the duplication of three National Transcontinental or three or four lines also Toronto to Belleville where one line with a double track would have been sufficient.
Sir William Mulock and other prominent men opposed the system of Crowsnest railway construction which produced railway chaos in rates. I approach this question with a feeling of sympathy with the Maritime provinces. What would Canada have done in time of war, were it not for the Intercolonial? It was all right to have a national railway to the Maritime provinces in time of war, to transport manufactures and goods to the seaboard. But when the war was over they soon forgot all about it. During the war the people were glad to have the British fleet to protect our shores and our Maritime ports, but as soon as the war was over they were glad to forget all about it and do nothing to contribute for all this protection and Maritime freedom.
The solution of this problem is not by means of a commission. I have lost confidence in any commission appointed by the government. We have not got responsible government in this country to-day. Problem after problem is side-stepped and handed over to commissions. I never knew a commission in Canada yet to accomplish anything, except one, and that was the commission which solved the light and power problem of Ontario and

Maritime Rights-Mr. Mackenzie King
created a surplus for every municipality. I refer to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. The railway commission got lost during the last two or three years. They were appointed to fix rates, and they have had the cases of the Bell Telephone and the express companies and other public service corporations before them, but what did thej do? These companies come down and ask the railway commission to increase rates and presented figures to the commission. The commission practically took their figures as gospel and increased rates were allowed and granted.	They took their figures of expenditures, and so on. They might just as well have allowed the companies to make their own tolls and fares and their own rates. Instead of the railway commission having long ago solved the problem of equality of rates and preventing unjust, unfair and undue discrimination between localities and provinces, they have done nothing of their own volition to carry out the functions for which they were appointed by this honourable House.
In conclusion, I congratulate the mover of the resolution, I congratulate the Maritime provinces on having been led into a revival and on having sixteen revivalists here in parliament to waken up the people of this country and parliament to do something practical for the people of the Maritime provinces by adopting a policy of protection to remedy Maritime ills. A policy of protection for all the provinces from coast to coast is the only thing that can solve our economic ills and bring about a better understanding among the different provinces that go to make up this British confederacy of Canada.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with my friend and colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) in expressing appreciation of the attitude in which this resolution has been approached for the most part by all hon. members who have thus far spoken upon it. The debate throughout the day has been conducted largely without partisan spirit. Hon. members have recognized that the subject is one of the most important with which our country is concerned and with which parliament can be called upon to deal, and doubtless this fact has influenced the addresses which have been made in the course of the day. One is bound to feel that hon. members of the House have at heart first and foremost the interest of our great Dominion and not less a desire to show to our friends in the Maritime provinces that, in so far as we come from other provinces
in the Dominion, our attitude towards the Maritime provinces is a wholly sympathetic one.
This question of Maritime rights or of the just claims the Maritime provinces may have is not a question to be viewed from the standpoint of Conservative or Liberal, of government or of opposition. It is rather a matter between the Maritime provinces and the other provinces of the Dominion. I think the essential feature of it is that in so far as it is a question at all it is a question of the other provinces of the Dominion joining in a wholehearted way in an endeavour to have the Maritime provinces feel that, as they are a part of confederation, every effort should be made to see that their rights in confederation are implemented to the letter and in full.
If it will help at all to take this resolution out of the realm of possible partisan discussion, I should like to go one better than my hon. friend the member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) who has seconded the resolution. He said that he hoped this motion would be pressed to a vote and that the House would approve the resolution as it is drafted. I should rather hope that it will not be necessary to have a vote and that the House will express its approval unanimously of the resolution which has been moved and which he has seconded. The resolution is one which in my opinion the House should unanimously accept.


Murray MacLaren: My suggestion was a
vote and naturally a unanimous vote, I hope.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Murray MacLaren: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I referred to the Canadian National Railway board, not to the railway commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But this is an instruction from the government to the commission which has the control of railway rates and is the proper body to deal with the rate question. If the Canadian National railway is not carrying out the policy of the government in this matter, it becomes the duty of the railwajr commission, when so instructed by an order of the government, to see that that policy is carried out. A word from the commission should be much more effective than any communication from the government itself to the management of the National railways. Nothing could be more emphatic than the words "the fixed policy of the government." It is not some chance assertion of policy. Our desire is that the railway commission, the railways, in fact, everyone shall realize what the policy of the government is-namely, that we wish to encourage trade over Canadian railways east and west, and that in particular we wish to encourage Canadian trade via Canadian ports. That is the fixed policy of the government and our hope in connection with the enquiry before the railway commission and before the roya^ commission is that that policy will become more firmly emphasized, and as a consequence more effectively carried out as opportunity offers.
Now, I am not aware that the House has had before it up to the present a copy of the order in council which refers this matter specifically to the railway commission. I will therefore read it to the House. It was
approved on January 7 of this year and is in these words:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 6th January, 1926, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, representing that the Committee of the Privy Council has had under consideration the advisability of encouraging to the fullest extent the movement of Canadian grain and other products through Canadian ports.
The minister states that by order in council (P.C. 8S6), dated 5th June, 1925, the Beard of Railway Commissioners for Canada was directed to make a thorough investigation, already under way, of the rates structures of railways and railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rate structure which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities, so as to permit of the freest possible interchange of commodities between the various provinces and territories of the Dominion and the expansion of its trade, both foreign and domestic, having due regard to the needs of its agricultural and other basic industries, and in particular to:
(a) the claim asserted on behalf of the Maritime provinces -that they are entitled to the restoration of the rate basis which they enjoyed prior to 1919;
(b)	the encouragement of the movement of traffic through Canadian ports;
(c)	the increased traffic westward and eastward through Pacific coast ports owing to the expansion of trade with the Orient end to the transportation of products through the Panama Canal.
The Committee of the Privy Council therefore recommends that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada be directed, as a part of the general rate investigation above referred to, especially to enquire into the causes of Canadian grain and other products being routed or diverted to other than Canadian ports, and to take such effective notion under the Railway Act, 1919, as the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may deem necessary to ensure, as far as possible, the routing of Canadian grain and other products through Canadian ports.
There is a statement of policy, Mr. Speaker, which is unequivocal and leaves no room for doubt. It refers to a general rate investigation, which is a larger matter that the board entered upon some time ago. As an evidence that this rate investigation is likely to be helpful to the Maritimes and is the proper way of proceeding, may I again refer to the speech from the throne which was delivered by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of the Nova Scotia legislature on February 9 of this year. Paragraph 12 reads as follows:
During the past summer an agreement was entered into with the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to engage jointly the services of an expert to prepare a statement of facts in connection with railway freight rates affecting the Maritime prov-incse, to be submitted to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. I am informed that certain changes in rates as a result of these efforts have already effected a considerable saving to shippers in these provinces.
There is a statement made by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia only
2352	COMMONS
Maritime Rights-Mr. Mackenzie King
a few months ago with reference to a result already achieved through representations made by a solicitor retained by 11 p.m. the Maritime provinces to appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and argue for their rights with respect to freight rates.
So, Mr. Speaker, I submit in relation to the resolution which has been moved and seconded, and which contains the reference to freight rates over the Intercolonial and their adjustment in accordance with whatever understandings there may have been at the time of and as a part of confederation, that in expecting this matter to be dealt with by the railway commission, and in particular by instructing that commission to pay special attention to this very question of routing Canadian grain and other products over Canadian railways and through Canadian ports, the government has taken the course which, if any course at all is calculated to bring about the desired result, is the one that may be expected so to do.
I might take up considerable of the time of the House by making further references to the desire and action of the government to meet the Maritime provinces with respect to matters which are of great concern to them. I would submit that this reference to the commission of certain matters is only one part of the work of the government in that regard. Last session I recall making a strong appeal to members of the Progressive party in this House to support the government in an effort to raise the tariff on bituminous slack coal, mainly because of a desire to help in the Maritime situation. I think it is permissible to refer to a debate in a previous session, though not to one in the same session, and I would like just to remind hon. members of the House of what I said at that time. This government was npt standing for any general increase of the tariff, but we were thinking of the Maritime interests with respect to a particular industry which we believed needed to be assisted in a particular way, even if the measure proposed did not accord with our policy as generally applied. I hope we shall never become such slaves to any doctrine that when we find it necessary to invoke the exception which proves the rule we shall be unwilling to make the exception. This was a case where it seemed to us there was ground for an exception, and speaking in the budget debate, on April 30th, I used the following words with reference to increasing the duty on bituminous slack coal:
We have felt further that there is one part of our Dominion which to-day has been having a hard

struggle; no one can deny that. The Maritime provinces have had and are having a hard time. We were not without hope that our action in this particular would put new faith and comfort into the hearts and minds of the people of the Maritime provinces and for no class more than those who are engaged in the hard work of mining coal in connection with the primary industries of that part of our country. We felt this was helping on as well a great national policy of selfsufficiency in the matter of our coal supplies in this country. Those were great national reasons transcending, I believe, alt other reasons. I ask my friends of the Progressive party:	Are you not going to be
magnanimous enough to sink any little feeling you may entertain with respect to some theoretical maximum on tariffs and stretch to our friends in the Maritime provinces the same helping hand they stretched out to you in good faith and good fellowship last session? You have an opportunity to do so on this budget. You have an opportunity by your action on this budget to show that in your outlook, you are something more than sectional; that, you have a broad vision; that you are thinking first of Canada as a whol$. You have your chance on this budget and it is for you to say. I again appeal to my hon. friends. It has been from this larger point of view, from the point of view of national interest as a whole, national economy, national well-being and national goodwill, that the government has taken the stand that it has on the tariff question at this particular session.
That was the attitude in which the government approached the Maritime provinces' problem at the last session of parliament, and I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government's attitude to-day towards the Maritime provinces is what it was then.-an attitude of seeking to understand the problem, and of seeking to meet it, of give and take as between the different provinces of this Dominion. The most unfortunate thing that could happen in this parliament is that we should begin to discuss public questions in terms of east or in terms of west. I need not remind the House of those well known lines:
But there is neither east nor west, border nor breed nor birth
When two strong men stand face to face, tho' they come from the ends of the earth!
We are sent here by our different constituencies to speak to each other as strong men, men who can speak their minds fearlessly and courageously, with one aim and one end in common, and I venture to say that if, in discussions of these questions, this House will keep first and foremost in view, the end and the aim, the idea and the ideal, which we have in common of a united Canada. we shall not have jnuch difficulty in reaching a solution of the Maritime or any other problem. That spirit I think has been evident this afternoon.
As I was saying, the government has in this matter of the commission sought to take one step which it believed was fundamental and essential to a proper understanding of and consequent dealing with the situation in

Maritime Rights-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Maritimes. Other policies we have had and have which we believe will do a lot for the Maritime provinces. I am not so sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will agree with all of them. One policy in which the Liberal party has strongly believed, and in which we still believe, is a policy of reciprocal trade in natural products. I believe that the defeat of that policy in 1911 has done more than almost any other single thing to affect adversely the situation for the Maritime provinces, for if there is one part of this Dominion that would have profited by having a wider market for the sale of the natural products, they have in such abundance, the products of the mine, of the farm, of the forest, and of the sea, it is the Maritime provinces. Our policies in that regard have had in view the well-being and the welfare of the Maritime provinces in common with the well-being and the welfare of the whole Dominion, but I would submit again that, taking the Dominion as a whole, there is no part unless it be western Canada, that would have stood to gain as much as would the Maritime provinces had that particular agreement gone into force.
But it has not been only in that particular that the government sought to further the interests of the Maritime provinces. Reference has been made several times to my having asked the question in the Maritime provinces during the last campaign, what are Maritime rights? I did ask that question, but I asked it in order to answer it, and I did answer it. My hon. friends have not done me the justice to give the answer I made at that time. Having asked the question. I proceeded to answer it by pointing out what I thought were Maritime rights, and among the things I pointed out as Maritime rights was their right to the largest possible market that could be found for their commodities; the right to have their instruments of production in the basic industries made as cheap as possible; the right to expand their trade in different directions; the right to have as much Canadian import and export trade brought through the Maritime provinces as it was possible to bring; the right to more effective steamship services as between the different parts of the Maritimes and as between the Maritimes and the British West Indies. These are only some of the answers I gave to that question. I asked the question, what are Maritime rights? But I asked it with a view to making an answer, and hon. gentlemen will find that to be the case if they care and will take the trouble to look at the speeches I made in the Maritime provinces.
May I say with regard to this question of meeting the Maritime provinces' problem, that other of our policies have had in view Maritime interests, as well as those pertaining to trade-the policy, for instance, that we had with respect to the reduction of duties on the implements of production. There was a policy intended for all of Canada, but it was a policy with very particular benefits and with particular relation to the Maritime provinces. Only last session we further reduced certain duties on some of the equipment used by fishermen, on gasoline engines installed in fishing craft, as I recall it. We had in a previous session made other reductions in the duties on the implements of production, in mining, fishing, lumbering, and agriculture, all of which were greatly to the benefit of the Maritime provinces, not exclusively, but in common with the rest of the Dominion.
In regard to the encouragement of trade through Maritime ports, in 1923, I think it was, in order to further Canadian trade by Canadian ports, we gave an additional ten per cent discount on the tariff inposed on commodities coming under the British preference into Canada where they came through Canadian ports; in other words, we increased the preference where goods coming from Great Britain or other parts of the empire enjoying the preference came through Canadian ports.
Hon. members will recall that at the inception of this movement on behalf of Maritime rights, a delegation of very considerable proportions came to Ottawa from the Maritime provinces to urge upon the government the desirability and the necessity of taking some action which would cause all trade under the British preference to come via Canadian ports, in order that the Maritimes might get the benefit of that trade. These gentlemen were no sooner assembled here than they discovered, some of them much to their chagrin, that what they had come all the way to ask for had already under the policy of this government been carried out, and that as the result of the ten per cent discount on the existing preferential rate which the government had granted, something like 98 or 99 and a fraction per cent of the total trade enjoying the British preference was coming to Canada via Canadian ports in so far as it came through ports on the Atlantic. Now, if it will cause our friends in the Maritime provinces to feel any greater trust in the government's desire to further Maritime interests by having it understood that in order to enjoy the British preference at all the trade must come through Canadian ports, I for one would be very pleased to see that

2354	COMMON'S
Maritime Rights-Mr. Mackenzie King
policy carried out-. It. might help to give more general satisfaction were the British preference made applicable only to commodities coming into Canada via Canadian ports. That, as I have said, is practically accomplished to-day by the additional discount, but if the extension of the idea by express terms will help in any way, I believe we should undertake to see that that further step is taken.
Now, to come to another matter of policy. One hon. gentleman speaking this afternoon said, "Drop the question of commissions and get down to practical business."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear, hear.
Mi . MACKENZIE KING: My hon. friend says Hear, hear." Well, we got down to practical business when we negotiated the trade treaty with the West Indies. True enough that treaty may mean something by way of subsidies to provide the necessary transportation facilities that will be required, we may have to ask our friends opposite to join with us in agreeing to ipay out of the public treasury a little more for subsidies in order to secure the improved steamship service which is proposed in order to get for the people of the Maritime provinces the increase in their trade we desire to see. At any rate the government has felt that one of the needs of the Maritimes was to secure for the Maritimes the nearest available market beyond our borders. Now there is a natural market for them in the West India islands, a market which if it was ever'intended to serve any purpose seems designed to suit the needs of the Maritime provinces. While the actual location of the British West Indies is closer to parts of the United States than it is to this Dominion, we have a relationship to those islands much closer in the true sense of the word than that which geography affords. We have the relationship of common kinship under a common sovereign and under a common flag. We are of the opinion that the most should be made of that relationship, and that we should seek, so far as is possible, to develop inter-*imperial trade wherever the opportunity presents itself. Here it presents itself in a very special and helpful way, in a way particularly helpful to our friends in the Maritime provinces. The government went to a good deal of trouble in the matter of negotiating that agreement. 'We did not go at it in any hurried slapdash fashion. We had a representative of this parliament visit the British West Indies. Mr. Hance Logan, the then member for Cumberland, was the gentleman
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
chosen. He had given the subject much careful study and had brought it to the attention of parliament. He visited the West Indies and extended to those islands a formal invitation to send representatives to Ottawa to meet with the representatives of the Canadian government and see if we could not work out a trade arrangement which would give to the products of the Maritimes a wider market, and to the consumers of the Maritimes as well as the consumers of other parts of Canada at a lower cost certain commodities which are produced in tropical regions and which are not produced here, though in considerable use. After a period of negotiation an agreement was come to which is before the House at the present time. Now, I believe hon. gentlemen opposite, in fact hon. gentlemen generally, are going to meet the government in the matter of permitting that agreement to go into force. Whatever criticism there may be of details, I believe the House will rise to the point of saying, "After all, here is an agreement which means something in inter-imperial relations. We are going to see it through, and we are going to give it a trial." I submit that regardless of what it may mean in the matter of a little additional cost for the establishment of proper transportation facilities it is the duty of all who have the interests of the Maritime provinces at heart to join with the government and to strengthen our hands in making that arrangement effective.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not taken up too much time. My desire has been simply to point out that in this matter we have endeavoured sincerely to meet a serious condition and one which it is the supreme duty of both government and parliament to meet.
A word has been used in the course of this debate, not in any direct way but indirectly, the word "secession." I do not think it is necessary to bring that word into our discussions in this House. In this case the word was quoted from some American publication. I hear a good deal of talk about going to the United States for this purpose and for that, but I do not think we need to go to the United States in order to bring into this House any talk about secession in the Dominion. We can afford to leave that word out of our vocabulary altogether. But do not let me be misunderstood. I do believe that in the Maritime provinces there is a feeling of unrest. I do believe that in the Maritime provinces there is a feeling that they have suffered in sorqe particulars. I do not believe that feeling will be removed by ignoring the situation. Neither do I believe that the
235C

Maritime Rights-Mr. Mcighen
situation will be helped by seeking to secure in virtue of it party advantage or party gain in any particular. If we study the history of this continent we will find that the experience of the Maritime provinces, whether they were in or out of confederation, was bound to a certain extent to have been very much what it has been for the simple reason that as the great west developed, as expansion has gone westward, the older provinces of the Dominion were bound to suffer considerably with respect to their agricultural and some of their other industries. It was so in the New England states, it has been so in every country; where there has been expansion and development from old settled parts to new, the former have more or less suffered relatively for the time being. The more aggressive, the more energetic elements of the population, those who have most in the way of initiative, move to the new fields where they think the opportunity is greater. IVe have in Canada-to-day a great west that has been built up by men possessed of the necessary initiative who were content to endure all the hardships incidental to pioneering because of the future advantage they foresaw. That development in Canada has been in part from the Mari-times and has had a certain adverse effect on the Maritime provinces. But that condition is beginning more and more to right itself. It only remains for us who really desire to be helpful and not sectional or critical to seek by united action to bring about the object aimed at in this resolution, and thereby to further the larger objects which we have at heart with respect to the good of the country.	_
In conclusion may I say that during the week just past much was said in commemoration of the ninth anniversary of the great-victory at Vimy Ridge where the Canadian army corps fought as a unit, with one aim, with one idea. Speaking of that great achievement the distinguished commander of that great army corps has used the expression that at that time the nine provinces of Canada had gone up the hill side by side animated and united by a common idea and a common ideal. If that was the inspiration; if that was the means whereby victory was achieved in a great war, to the lasting glory of this country and the empire of which it is a part, surely we in this parliament representing the nine provinces of the Dominion will not in these days of peace find it difficult to go up the hill together in the solution of whatever problems may still remain in the perfecting of confederation and the great idea and ideal of national unity it was intended to serve.
14011-1504	____


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it will not
be necessary for me to comment, at least in any adverse way, on a considerable portion of the speech just delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I make this comment to concentrate attention on the lino I propose to follow more than for any other purpose: that the speech was replete with very much interesting matter, some good declamation, full of very good ideals, but was singularly wanting in discussion of what really is before the House, namely, the need, the reason for and the office of this new royal commission.
As to the resolution which we are asked to support, moved by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), I am in accord with the views expressed by the Prime Minister. The resolution certainly could not be voted against, nor do I think the resolution is in danger of misinterpretation, certainly not intentional misinterpretation, at the hands of any hon. member on this side or any side of the House. So that so far as the vote thereon is concerned, further discussion is unnecessary. The only object which can be served is to disclose what has been the course of parliament, and especially this parliament, in relation to the whole question; what has been the conduct of the administration; what now is the administration offering, and should the House be satisfied with what the government proposes.
That the responsibility is a serious one we all admit. That the problem is a complex one we equally agree. What it is we are pretty well agreed on too. This country since 1921 has suffered from very general depression. We revolved into it along wdth all other nations on this continent. We have remained! in it longer than any other nation. We-suffer from it still. Certain portions of the country have undergone greater trials than others. Those which labour under what one might describe as geographical disabilities naturally suffer the most. One of those portions is the Maritime provinces of Canada. That they have undergone many hardships in the last five years there can be no question. They were generally prosperous for a number of years before, but they recently have lost in population; they have lost in business enterprises and they have lost in hope-more so, undoubtedly, than any other portion of our country. There may be some discussion in regard to what the reason has been, but there can be no dispute as to the fact itself. These things have given rise to questioning as to whether or not they have received what was their due at the hands of the country,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend failed to recognize that I was confining my remarks to the words of the resolution, and in speaking of confederation I referred to the understandings arrived at, not the specific terms of confederation.


Arthur Meighen: I will broaden my remarks accordingly; I was intending to anyway, and in fact I had already done so. We know what the concomitant speeches were. There is nothing unknown. Indeed there is nothing left for investigation. If any of us had forgotten, they have certainly been brought to our minds most pointedly and forcibly by hon. members from the Maritimes this session. There may be a question as to the implications. There is no question as to the meaning of the terms, but as to the implications there may be some. But surely we in this House can judge of the implications a3 well as any living beings. We Canadian citizens here, elected to legislate for Canada, can decide what the implications are and act accordingly, we do not need any commission, however learned, to instruct us. I think there are implications beyond the exact effect of the words. For example, when in order to induce Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to enter confederation, we agreed that the Intercolonial railway would be built, it is too narrow to reason from those words that our obligation was fulfilled when the road was built. That, I presume, would be a mathematical deduction from the words; but surely it cannot be taken to be a complete deduction, because we being in control, the majority being west of the Maritimes, could build the road and then establish freight rates so high that the road would be worthless. This would not be carrying out the terms of confederation; it would be only mocking them by a subterfuge. It seems to me to follow as a necessary implication that in addition to the construction of the road we must see that it is so operated as to fulfil the well-understood purposes of its construction.
We all know what the well-understood purposes were, and therefore we know the implications. What i3 there to inquire into in order to enable us to determine what the high line of policy should be? Do we say that we do

Maritime Rights-Mr. Meighen
not know whether they are being violated? We know what we are doing. We are doing it even ourselves; we are running the railway. We know all that. There is no fact in this sphere that is obscure; there is nothing here for a commission. We who made the contract are doing this. Do we need Sir Andrew Duncan to tell us whether we are keeping the spirit of it? We certainly do not. There is no purpose, therefore, to be found for a commission from any exploration in that field. What then i3 the commission for? Has anybody in this debate suggested up to this time what it is appointed for?
I come now to the terms of this order in council which is indeed a fearful and wonder-full production. I read the portions which intimate the several subjects into which the commission must inquire. The order recites that representations have been made and then it states:
Such representations relate more particularly to the alleged failure to use Canadian ports for Canadian trade to the extent to which they might be utilized.
That is one subject.
And to the handicaps said to result from the operation of the schedules of rates chargeable for the carriage of goods on the railways uniting the Maritime provinces with the other provinces of Canada.
Subject No. 1 is "use of ports". Subject No. 2 is "railway rates". What is the third?
And to the manner of administering that part of the Canadian National railways system which was formerly known as the Intercolonial railway-
I presume that is the work of the National railway board. I do not know whether any importance is attached to that or not. I cannot see what it is if there is any. The next is:
-by methods and conditions alleged to be inconsistent with the pledges given at the time of confederation in regard thereto and with the practice followed from the time of the construction of the railway until December, 1918.
That is all one subject-"administration of the railways." Next:
These representations have also been directed to the effects of the customs, immigration and other economic policies adopted by successive governments, of certain financial measures, and of the disposition or allotment to provinces of public lands of Canada.
I will ask the House to analyze those quotations carefully. The first is "use of ports;" the second, "rates"; the third, "administration by the government's directorate", and the fourth "the effects of the customs." The House will note how skilfully "customs" is used instead of "tariff." In a word, and to call a spade a spade, this means to inquire into tariff policy. What the "other financial measures" are I do not know, but the fourth
subject is "tariff policy." I have already read the fifth:
The disposition or allotment to provinces of public lands of Canada.
There I have reviewed the five subjects of inquiry. Let me now proceed to ask the House whether there is anything that can be described as common sense in the appointment of a commission at this hour to inquire into those subjects with a view to determination of policy. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I say that if the government would take any one of them and say: Here is a case that demands a remedy and we move to remedy it along this line, there might be reason for an inquiry to find out just what the effect of the adoption of that line of policy is, how far you should go, where it should apply, in a word, to work out the application. I do not know that there would be such reason; it would not appear to me likely, but there might be. But before you do that, to ask a commission, for example, to say what are the rights of the Maritimes in respect of those western lands,- can you think of anything more absurd? Think of asking Sir Andrew Duncan, Judge Wallace and Professor Macmillan to tell the Commons of Canada what are the rights of the Maritimes in respect of' the subject of the natural resources of Alberta 1 I put that seriously to hon. gentlemen opposite. Does their imagination enable them to think of anything more absurd? What is the limitation on this government that it cannot decide such a thing? Where is the restraint? What light is it that they are asking for? Where is it to come from? Is there anything concealed? Why, the documents have been before us for fifty years. The. only conclusion I can come to- and I submit it to the House-is that it is just a method of enabling the government not to decide for a while yet. Is that not all?
Let us come to the other points. Sir Andrew Duncan, Judge Wallace and Professor Macmillan are to help this House decide what is the best tariff policy for the Maritimes! Mr. Speaker, if you were not in the Chair you could not sit with sober mien when I put that question. This government declared, just two years ago, that so far as coal was concerned they knew what the right policy was, that it was protection and more protection. How is it that they know what the right policy is as to coal, but they do not know what it is as regards steel? How is it that they know what the right policy is for the rest of the country, but for the life of them they cannot tell what it is for the Maritimes without the help of Sir Andrew Duncan?

Maritime Rights-Mr. Meighen
The performance of the Prime Minister . (Mr. Mackenzie King) was a pretty skilful one and I like to see a skilful performance even in a bad cause. Looking to his Progressive friends he said, and of course with an eye to Maritime sympathy:	"Do you
not remember how I appealed pathetically to you two years ago to support those extra duties on coal?" Even in the face of our declared policy we knew there would have to be an exception as regards coal, the exception as he described it, which proved the rule. He said it was a special case, forgetting for the time being that "the tariff was a tax." Has that immortal truth been lost to memory? Why was he not reminded by his Saskatchewan supporters that the tariff was a tax and that you can never in the world help an industry by taxing it? Why did they not think of that? It is quite true that two years ago the Prime Minister, commanded to do so by the Liberal party of the Maritime provinces, came to this House and demanded a higher duty on coal, and he did so in the face of a policy pronounced at the time of lower tariff on the implements of production. I wonder if coal is not an instrument of production? I appeal to the Liberal members from Saskatchewan; I appeal to those on my left, who supported a higher duty on coal at the instance of the government of the day; is not coal, of all things, an instrument of production of nearly everything? Is there anything more distinctly and fundamentally an instrument of production than coal? Then how is that to be the exception which proves the rule? Yes, they knew that there had to be more projection on coal but what else do they want -Sir Andrew Duncan to tell them. No, they >do not; they do not want Sir Andrew Duncan 4o tell them anything. This is just another stall on the tariff.
But, Mr. Speaker, what about this new tariff commission? Where has it been relegated to? That commission, with the Right Hon. George P. Graham as its head; with Mr. Daoust scattered to the four winds because he believed in protection on coal and said so, and protection all around-where is that commission now? Is it only competent to decide tariff matters for the rest of the country, and incompetent to decide them for the Maritime provinces? WThat a position the government is in! They have referred to a new commission, not ten days after their tariff commission is appointed, the question of deciding what is the right tar'ff policy for the Maritime provinces.

Let us now go back to the first, ones; what were they? To inquire into this long standing question of the use of Canadian ports a brand new commission has now been appointed which is to report to the government. The Prime Minister says, "On this we have a policy," and what is the policy? It is to use Canadian ports to the fullest possible extent. When was Canada without that policy? There never was a time when any government did not profess it, but everyone knows that the question must be reduced to the concrete, "What are you going to do to bring it about?" What is their policy on that? Their policy is nothing; objective alone is not policy: there must be a method -a plan. What is the government method- a royal commission? No, it is not one royal commission, it is two or three or four of them. Possibly I cannot account for four, but I am sure that I can recite three references of this same question to commissions. The Prime Minister read, when on his feet, a reference of the same subject to another commission, and the railway commission is engaged this very day in labouring over that very point. While the railway commission is in the throes of its toil another commission is appointed to inquire into the very same thing.
The same words apply to the subject of rates, and with that subject I have covered all. The second thing this commission is to inquire into is rates as between the Maritime provinces and the rest of the country. That was referred to the commission, but do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it was the third reference of this question? I will read the second now. I have in my hand an order in council dated June 5, 1925; it is a long order in council, but I will read the last paragraph:
The committee therefore advise that the board-
That is, the railway commission.
-be directed to make a thorough investigation of the rate structures of railways and railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rate structure, which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities, so as to permit of the freest possible interchange of commodities between the various provinces and territories of the Dominion and the expansion of its trade, both foreign and domestic, having due regard to the needs of its agricultural and other basic industries and in particular to:
(a)	The claim asserted on behalf of the Maritime provinces that they are entitled to the restoration of the rate basis which they enjoyed prior to 1919;
(b)	The encouragement of the movement of traffic through Canadian ports;
(c)	The increased traffic westward and eastward through Pacific coast ports owing to the expansion of trade with the Orient and to the transportation of products through the Panama canal.

Maritime Rights-Mr. Meighen
So this is the third reference to a commission, but that is not all. These things have been before the railway commission ever since the commission was\ created 1 Ever since that commission became a commission its plain duty under the Railway Act was tc erect a rate structure based on these very principles. So if reference to a commission would cure this situation the government has tried the application of that dose in repeated and unstinted measure. Month after month they come before parliament; now it is referred to this commission and again to that commission. But can you imagine the chaos we ai'e in now, with the railway commission sitting on these very questions, hearing evidence and arguments; and in the midst of it all there is another commission appointed, headed by Sir Andrew Duncan, to make a thorough inquiry, over top of all the others, into the very same thing.
This is the government policy, and we are asked to believe that it is devised because of anxiety for unity in Canada. Commissions to make unity 1 After this commission comes back *where will we be? I will make a prophecy; we will have another commission appointed to inquire into the same subject again. If this agitation keeps up, a few months more will see a reference of this same subject to some other commission; that is the "fixed" policy of the government.
It does seem clear that until there is an announcement of a step to be taken, something concrete and definite, there is no purpose which this commission can serve.' However good the commission may be, however well intentioned its members, what purpose can the imagination of man divine which this commission may serve at this time? If there is something in the way of inquiry as to the assessment or effect of its policy or as to its application, that is one thing. But to appoint a commission to devise a policy, and especially to appoint such a commission after there had been repeated directions to another commission over and over again is to me the very acme of the absurd.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) spoke this afternoon. I do not yet very well know what his views are. He was very timid about pronouncing himself, but he did say that he had been opposed all along to the acquirement of the Canadian Northern railway and subsequently to the acquirement of the Grand Trunk railway; and in that way he sought to wash his hands of the present situation. "I am not responsible" he said, "I fought the acquirement of the Canadian Northern away back in 1914, I also fought
the acquirement of the Grand Trunk in 1919. May I ask any member of this House: Does the present situation flow from the acquirement of the Canadian Northern railway, or the acquirement of the Grand Trunk railway; does any single atom of it flow from such a source? The minister of National Defence suggested one thing-he did not say it [DOT]-he suggested-I do not think anyone else would seriously suggest it-that because in acquiring the Grand Trunk we got the line which runs to Portland, there flows from this fact the greater use of that port. Can anybody follow his reasoning? Because we own the stock of the Grand Trunk instead of the old Grand Trunk shareholders owning it, does that fact cause more railway freight to run to Portland? Well, if so, who is responsible? Is it not the directorate appointed by this government? Because we own that line to the terminus with the other lines, if there is *ny result in the world, it gives us more commanding control of the situation. Let me repeat. If the fact of our ownership of the Portland line affects the situation in any way whatever, it affects it to give the government of the day a greater control of the direction of traffic.
I know there was a motion moved, and I wondered that the minister of Defence read it -I noticed he did not read it very loudly -a motion moved by the Minister of Justice, then the member for Kamouraska, in amendment to the motion for the third reading of the Grand Trunk bill of 1919. I think I have it here.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my right hon.
friend's pardon, I never moved that motion.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter who moved it, it is here anyway. I guess it was moved by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon, I did not move it.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I certainly compliment them that their second thought is better than their first, for they all supported it, every one of them. That they are ashamed of it now is a tribute to their intelligence today, if not to their judgment then. It was referred to by the Minister of National Defence: I had almost forgotten it. He referred to it by way of emphasizing the consistent stand taken by the Liberal party on this question. "Why" he said, "there was moved a motion that we do not read that Grand Trunk bill a third time." But why? "Because by acquiring railways in the States we would land ourselves in international complications-complications so serious that they

Maritime Rights-Mr. Meighen
would drift us into annexation." The House really will hardly believe that any hon. member could have moved such a resolution. Only in 1919-I remember the debate well- over and over again we were warned that if we got the stock of the Grand Trunk instead of the stockholders in England owning it, then, as the Grand Trunk included some lines in the States, that would land us into trouble with Washington. All sorts of international complications would ensue, and we would be in danger of annexation. Mr. Speaker, it was really for that the Liberal party voted! Well, we have had the road now for seven years, and who has ever heard of any international complications? I appeal to the memories of members of the Liberal party. The member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) shakes his head in the negative. He is the first one to record himself honestly. There has never been the slightest sign or symptom of any such complications. But that was the objection taken to the acquirement. So far as affecting this problem is concerned, if it had any effect at all, it gave the government greater control over the situation.
Then the Minister of National Defence said, " I opposed the acquirement even of the Canadian Northern." What relation that point has to the question I at least am at a loss to divine. He said, " Why, I fought against it in 1914, even though at that time we were only guaranteeing the bonds of the railway." The Minister of National Defence did oppose the guarantee of the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway in 1914. He opposed it all the way through. We felt we had to guarantee them or have the system go into liquidation, which in the end would cost us far more. But did he oppose it because it was a step towards the acquirement of the road? Will the House believe me when I state that he opposed it because we were not inserting in the guarantee agreement a clause to provide for the acquirement of the road? I have before me a motion made by- I hope nobody will deny its authorship-made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It will be found in Hansard of June 2, 1914, at page 4634:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved, seconded by Mr. Pugsley, that the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be resolved that under existing circumstances no assistance should be given to the 'Canadian Northern Railway Company unless at the same time it is provided that the government have power, within a reasonable time, to acquire ownership of the entire stock of the company at a price to be fixed by arbitration, but not to exceed $30,000,000.
If hon. members will turn to page 4633 of the same Hansard they will find among those

voting " yea " on that amendment the name of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysbor-ough (Mr. Macdonald).


Mr. CANNON:: How did the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) vote on that occasion?


Arthur Meighen: The member for West Calgary is not down as voting at all, but if he had voted in favour of acquiring the railway he would not be standing on his feet to-day and boasting that he had always opposed its acquirement. It was not therefore the acquirement of the road that the Minister of National Defence voted against. He voted against our assisting it without enabling the country to acquire it. He wanted us then and there to take steps to acquire it. And he was ready to pay $30,000,000 for the capital stock. So hon. members will seee just how much sincerity there has been in this campaign and talk about the Liberal party having been against the acquirement of the National railways. They were against it just because we found it necessary to acquire those railways, and up to the time when we found that it was essential, that we could not help 12 m. it, they were urging us on in that very direction, finding fault with us and voting for amendments because we would not proceed with the acquirement rapidly enough.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the history of the acquirement question. Again I say, it has nothing in the world to do with this situation. This is a question of rates. The subject of rates is just as much under our control to-day, even more under our control now that we are the owners of one great portion of Canadian roads, than if we were owners of none. It would be, it is true, under our control in any event, even were we not owners. But the question before us is this: How can we so exercise our control as to give the assistance necessary to meet this situation to the far off extremes of our country? I have taken the pains and taken the responsibility, and met with very considerable antagonism on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, in an effort to outline one method which could be adopted to meet the Maritime situation on the side of transportation. It was announced in a resolution moved on the 2nd of June last. By that resolution I still adhere, and by that resolution I believe every member of this House on this side adheres. Our criticism, therefore, is not wholly destructive. We are on record in constructive fashion. Where are the government? We are now almost a year past that date, and their policy

Maritime Rights-Mr. Meighen
is " royal commissions " still. Let the government suggest some other line upon which we can move. What did they say when this line was suggested? I appeal to the Maritime members on whose behalf they are so sympathetic now. They stood up in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec and said: Meighen wants to take out of the treasury of Canada a share of the freight rate to enable Maritime goods to get to these central provinces.


Lucien Cannon: The Tories said it.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and we were denounced for making that proposal. It was declared to be unfair to the central provinces of Canada; it was declared to be unfair to those producing goods in the central provinces to have to sell against the Maritimes, who were to ship them at rates assisted by parliament. These were the men who now stand up and appeal to our Atlantic brothers to believe that they are at great pains and agonies because of the troubles of the Maritimes. If there is any better way than my suggestion we would all like to hear it. I know' of no better way myself. If a better can be found, I will follow it. But I proposed that just described, and I venture to suggest that the government will come to it before long themselves.
I was not going to mention again the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), but now that he is in, I think I ^should. There was read this afternoon by the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) an inquiry put to the Minister of National Defence before the 1921 election. The minister will remember that the 1921 election was run by the Liberal party on the cry: "Take the Intercolonial out of the National system; put it back where it was," and the Minister of National Defence, of course, was the most vociferous and authoritative voice behind the cry. This question was put to him during the 1921 compaign:
Realizing the importance of the campaign which our newspaper has consistently supported for restoration of Maritime rights with Canadian National Railway by establishment of eastern unit, with headquarters at Moncton in charge of Maritime trained men, we would appreciate if you would favour us with a brief definite statement of your attitude on the question.
Here ia the answer:
For the past year and a half I have consistently urged that the only method to enable the industries of the Maritime provinces to be carried on with any degree of success would be by detaching the Intercolonial altogether from the Canadian National railway and Grand Trunk railway connections, and running and operating it as it was operated for forty years under the terms of confederation.
One thing I will say about that declaration:
It is clear, it is definite, there is no misunderstanding it at all. He goes on:
We would thus be freed from the taxation which is now imposed upon the patrons of the road for the purpose of paying the interest upon the enormous debts contracted by the Canadian National Railway in its construction in western Canada. The control of Ihe Intercolonial must be taken from Toronto and vested in Moncton, where it always was, and the railway should be officered by men in sympathy with Maritime interests and Maritime rights.
Now when faced with this to-day and questioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), what was the statement made by the Minister of National Defence? " Why, certainly," he said, "I was against the Intercolonial being run in 1922 by "-I do not know just how he put it; I wish he would put it just the same way again, but this was the effect of it: " Because I opposed the taking over of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, therefore I was consistent in 1921 when I made that statement to the Halifax Herald." What has the opposing of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk to do with that statement? That statement was made two years after they were both our property. Nor did the minister refer to his opposition because specifically he referred to a year and a half before the time he sent his message to the Herald. He says: " For ' a year and a half' I have been urging the taking of the Intercolonial out of the National system altogether, and putting it back where it w'as and where it had been for forty years." But did he do it when he got into power? Did he take a single step towards taking it out? Certainly he did not. I will not say he never intended to; I do not know, but he ought to admit to the House that he was wholly wrong in 1921, and that the votes he got on that declaration he had no right to whatever. All the votes obtained through the Maritime provinces, obtained by proclamations to take the Intercolonial out of the National system, all these votes were fraudulently obtained. The Minister of National Defence sat four years in this House before he went back to his people, and never in all that time had he taken a single step towards redeeming the pledge he openly and publicly gave in the fall of 1921.
The Intercolonial is part of the National system There is an Atlantic division at Moncton. There could not have been one established until the Grand Trunk was fully amalgamated. That could not take place, did not take place even under this government until the end of 1922 or the beginning of 1923. We could not possibly do so for the reason that the arbitration proceedings had

Maritime Rights-Mr. Meighen
not been fully completed and executed. But I stated in that campaign that when such amalgamation was done there would be one established, that the directorate had so pronounced, that its headquarters would be in the Maritime provinces, and that its jurisdiction would extend westward as far as the end of 'the Intercolonial. Such was the purpose of the government of that day. And in opposition to that expressed declaration of policy, the Minister of National Defence and his followers in the Maritime provinces stumped those provinces and declared that if they were elected they would take the Intercolonial out of the National system and restore it to the place where it had been for forty years, and run it as a distinct and separate entity. There is the breach of faith on the part of the Liberal party of this country. It is because of such things that disaffection exists to-day.
I stood in this House some weeks ago and said, as I have always done, that I did not believe the taking of the Intercolonial out would itself be any remedy to the Maritime provinces. It is not whether the National Railway board runs it or not that counts; it is the rates that count; it is the burden on the people who ship goods; that is what tells in the success or failure of trade along its line. So I think I have brought home to the Minister of National Defence conduct which certainly did not help him in the late campaign, and which no doubt was partly explanatory of his flight from Pictou into the county of Antigonish-Guysborough.
_ Now let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in my judgment this problem of Maritime rights mainly is a question, first and foremost, of transportation, and secondly, of tariff adjustments. I am advised-I may not be advised correctly-that a representative of the National Railway board, speaking before the railway commission recently, made the statement that the Intercolonial was not built to give the Maritimes access to the central provinces; but rather was built to give the production of the central provinces access to the Maritimes. I know the gentleman to whom those words are ascribed, and I find it hard to think he would make such a statement, but if he did, I feel he has wholly misapprehended the central purpose which dictated the construction of the road. The road undoubtedly was constructed by way of concession to the Maritimes, and to enable those provinces to reach the central markets of our country. That it was hoped it would serve the complementary purpose there is no doubt, but to intimate that the complementary purpose, access to the Maritimes from the central prov-
inces, was the primary objective of its construction is wholly to misread history and to misconstrue facts. To serve the Maritimes wa3 the great purpose of the Intercolonial, and in national policy to-day this must be taken into account. In deciding what we are going to do to meet the special transportation difficulties of these provinces we must keep ever before us the primary and essential end for which the Intercolonial was built. Along that line you can give relief. My method of acting along that line I have indicated to this House and the country; I call upon the government to indicate theirs. I say to them: do not hide behind more royal commissions. Do not trifle with public opinion any longer. Do not waste the country's money. Do not do what is far worse-waste the country's time and test the patience of our people by those devious, scientific procrastinations.
And then as to the tariff. The tariff has been manipulated in late years undoubtedly to the disadvantage of the Maritime provinces. I wonder by what colour of right the tariff on steel, for example, is taken, the protection cast away and the industry virtually paralyzed in order that some pet hobby about men specially engaged in making "implements of production" being entitled to a singular line of treatment may be carried into effect. All this has hurt the Maritimes. In reference to the tariff the line which must be taken is this: Remove the disabilities that have been placed uipon those provinces of late years and turn our tariff policy in the direction of developing industries in the Maritime provinces by giving those industries protection. I am advised that in the late campaign as the discussion reached its climax and election day approached down in Cape Breton island-yes, and in territory near Cape Breton island as well,-every Liberal candidate was compelled to come out and declare that he supported the principle of protection for Maritime products. I ask that this fact sink into the minds of hon. members from Saskatchewan. "Oh," we are told by the Prime Minister, "if we only had that reciprocity treaty!" Did you ever hear anything discussed in this House and the government utterly at a loss for an excuse that they did not bring up the reciprocity pact? The members from the Maritime provinces as well as from the west will not forget that only a few weeks ago I challenged the government face to face on that issue. I challenged any one of them to stand up and say that if he could re-enact the provisions of that treaty to-day he would do so. Not one of them responded. It is a great treaty as long

Business of the House
as it it out of existence; it is a great treaty as long as it is not readvanced; but I invite them now just to reintroduce that treaty and let us go to the country upon it. The Prime Minister says, "Oh, if we had reciprocity in natural products!" Did you observe this prayer was offered up just about two paragraphs after he had stated that we needed higher protection on coal? Did you observe anything in the reciprocity pact of 1911 for free trade in coal? Mention was made there about free fruit and about free vegetables, but not about free coal. I wonder is coal not a natural product? What is unnatural about it? What is to be thought, then, of the professed fidelity of hon. gentlemen opposite towards free trade or reciprocity in natural products? The only consistent fixed policy of the government is royal commissions. Against that policy I appeal and I ask the government first to lay out the path along which they intend to travel; I ask them to tell us something they intend to do, tell us the policy they intend to adopt. Having done that they will have discharged their duty, and the country at least will have respect for them as men of courage and men who understand their responsibilities.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Before I put the motion I wish to remind the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) that he has the right to reply if he so desires.


Ernest Lapointe: Just make it only one partisan speech.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.1S am. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, April 13, 1926