April 5, 1922

PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

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

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
LIB

James Malcolm

Liberal

Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce) :

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

I am just as much in sympathy with the viewpoint of hon. members from the maritime provinces as anyone can possibly be, but it seems to me that it would be a fatal mistake for us to discriminate at this time against the Atlantic port of the Canadian National railways, and therefore I hope that this resolution will not be pressed at least until a time when we will not be so directly interested in Portland as one of our National railway ports.

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
LIB

Lewis Herbert Martell

Liberal

Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but it seems to me that the principles of my party would be absolutely ignored if this particular resolution were permitted to pass. We have been told a great deal by some speakers about national unity; but if we are -to have national unity we must of necessity get away from sectional interests. While the port of Halifax is not far from the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and the port of St. John is not a great distance away, nevertheless any resolution which would have for its object the forcing of trade to those ports at the expense of cheaper goods to our people I think should not be tolerated.

I believe that the British preference should be increased, and I am one of those bold enough to state that I hope I shall see the day when we shall have absolute free trade with the Motherland. If we pass this resolution to-day to force goods getting the British preference to come through Canadian ports, we are in effect supporting what is practically an argument to bolster up that false principle of protection against which I shall always raise my

Preference-Seaports

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

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):

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

tion that a policy is to be measured by its consequences in dollars and cents rather than in its consequences on our nationhood and our national outlook.

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

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
PRO

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

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

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

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

Preference-Seaports

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

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Progressive

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my thought in the first place to take part in this debate, but the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Ladner) has given me a text. We have heard something from him, as we have from the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), about national unity; and it was very noticeable that while according to the Rules of the House they addressed Mr. Speaker, both of them directed their remarks toward hon. members in this corner of the Chamber.

The hon. member for St. John and Albert rebuked us for what seemed to him to be our failure to grasp the situation as it related to the Dominion as a whole. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one more than I would decry any attempt to set race against race or section against section. But when the hon. member who has just taken his seat tells us that the Conservative party above all other parties is animated by sentimental considerations and that dollars and cents do not enter into its discussion of these matters-well, that is something which up to the present we have not understood.

Let me say this in regard to national unity. As I have said already, certain remarks were directed to our corner of the House, especially, perhaps, to those representing the West. If there is any feeling of resentment-I say, if there is-in the prairie provinces to-day against other portions of the Dominion, it has been brought about by the attitude of ownership that has been assumed by other parts of the Dominion in regard to the West. Has anybody ever heard it stated that the Canadian Pacific railway was built by the prairie provinces and for them alone? Yet I am sure that that attitude of ownership, which, I say, has been taken in the past, will be taken again when the question of the natural resources comes to be discussed. When the plea is made for national unity it must not be forgotten that during the past fifty years the West has had good reason to believe that it has been considered a fair subject for exploitation on the part of those who live in the East and extreme West. So that sometimes when we are asked in the interests of unity to forego certain things or to refrain from seeking certain advantages, we are asked to do what the lamb did-lie down with the hon. but inside.

The economic aspect of the question has been very fairly set forth by our hon. leader (Mr. Crerar). When the people of the West are asked to agree to a proposal of this kind they will need to be shown a good deal. Much has been said in the past about a certain Wood from Missouri. Well, there are a great many people from Missouri in the West, in the sense that they will need to be shown and shown very clearly that a proposal of this kind will not mean the imposition of an additional burden upon them. My experience in the West goes back over forty years. I recall very clearly the difficulties and the hardships of the pioneers who sought to develop our part of the country and make it what it is to-day. The prairie provinces have furnished a great market for the East as well as the West. Without that section of the Dominion, I venture to say, the interests of the East would long ere this have ceased to enjoy the prosperity they are enjoying to-day, and would, perhaps, show a greater tendency than they do now to establish trade lines north and south.

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink
CON

Murray MacLaren

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert) :

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

Royal Assent-Supply Bill

Topic:   BRITISH PREFERENCE AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS
Permalink

THE ROYAL ASSENT


Sitting suspended for Royal Assent to bill. A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate. Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate. And having returned, The Speaker informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bill. An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the Financial year ending on 31st, March, 1923.


CON

Murray MacLaren

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacLAREN:

I was urging, when interrupted by the summons to the Senate that this resolution and the principle it embodies should be regarded from a high and broad national standpoint, as a question affecting the interests of Canada as a whole; that the suggestion that it was being brought forward to benefit a few individual points was an incorrect and restricted view; and that if you entertained it, it would weaken the outlook regarding the development of this country, because, Mr. Speaker, this question affects not only the seacoasts and seaports of our Dominion, both on the Atlantic and Pacific, but also the whole maritime position of our country. I wish, therefore, to support this resolution which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) with very much satisfaction.

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
PRO

Arthur John Lewis

Progressive

Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current) :

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

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

That in the opinion of this House the British tariff preference should he increased 25 per cent on all goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.

That to me, will show whether there is sincerity in the motion, and whether it will mean greater trade for Canadian ports.

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is moved in amendment by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Brown;

That in the opinion of this House the British tariff preference should be increased 25 per cent on all goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
PRO

Arthur John Lewis

Progressive

Mr. LEWIS:

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

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
LIB
PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

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

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
IND

William Charles Good

Independent Progressive

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) :

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

Preference-Seaports

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

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

I shall take up only a short time in discussing this resolution. I dissent somewhat from the statement made this afternoon that an issue must be broad and appeal to many people if it is to be an issue for the purpose of binding the country together and promoting the idea of nationality. I have been in this House for a long time now, and my experience in studying developments that have taken place in the House and in Canada, is best expressed by this little rhyme:

Little drops of water,

Little grains of sand,

Make the mighty ocean,

And the pleasant land.

Nations sometimes come into being on account of great events, such as the late Great War; but the bulk of our national progress, as I have read history and seen its development in this House, is made little by little, chip by chip. The hon. member (Mr. Logan) who introduced the resolution to-day, did me the honour of quoting something which I said in this House some years ago, and my opinion remains the same. He also quoted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who was then and is now in the House, in the same direction. He also quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the same direction. Go where you will, you will find, in this country, many people who believe in our nationality, in the future of Canada, and who believe that our success as a nation is to be achieved by one thing at a time, by moving in a certain direction, our progress involving, as all progressive measures do, not so much agreement as concession by one portion of the country to another. If I read history aright, the manner in which we have made headway in this country is by one section being broad enough to recognize the claims of another, and by mutual concessions. .

Let us come back to one or two other points that have been brought up this afternoon. Mention has been made of the port of Portland. I am an absolute be-

46J

liever in the future success of our national railways. The appeal made by an hon. gentleman opposite that we might, in some way, hurt our investment, or the future of our Canadian National railways, if we passed an act discriminating against imports coming in by Portland and thence by our railways, and that thus we would be injuring ourselves, has some force in it. But that question came up in regard to our possession of railways in the United States, and it was argued not so long ago that we should not own railways in the United States; that they would resent our owning railways in their country and we would resent their owning railways in Canada. During a certain period in our history, the American government controlled railways in this country, and we are now controlling railways in their country. If the matter comes to the broad issue of national railways, I may say that I am prepared to-morrow to see our Government allow the United States government, if it sees fit, as a national proposition, to take over the Grand Trunk and also the Canadian Pacific in so far as they lie in the state of Maine, that section of the Grand Trunk between Detroit and Chicago, and Canadian Pacific sections that run to Minneapolis and St. Paul. Indeed, I hope they will take over those sections of railway that Canadian railway companies or this Government own in the United States, provided they take them over and consolidate them into a national system owned by the people of the United States. Then, having that control, they will co-operate with us in regard to these two national roads for the development of the commerce of this continent. That is my answer to that proposition.

As to this special proposal to make a discrimination on goods that are routed to this country by Canadian ports, I still believe we can afford to make these concessions. No progress is made simply by benefits secured for everybody; progress is made by concessions that one makes to one's neighbour, by co-operation. Co-operation is the word. We must co-operate in order to build up our ports. Every one knows that the future is not clear to us at present. Let me tell my hon. friends from the West that, if they hope that a people that is wholly pastoral or agricultural, is going to maintain its nationality, they are mistaken because nationality can be maintained only by organizing a country industrially. Some day we shall see the necessity of making these concessions for the benefit

Preference-Seaports

of our ports. It is claimed there is a menace to our country from Asiatic inroads through our ports on the Pacific; but these people may come from a purely national and patriotic point of view to develop those ports, and it is concessions like these and a policy of the character contained in the resolution that, while they may interfere with the interests of the individual or of sections of the country, may benefit the country as a whole.

How are we g'oing to get lower freight rates in this country? I spoke of this matter the other day, and hon. gentlemen must know what is going on in the United States. There is a prospect of securing lower freight rates in this country by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, and this development will bring seaports into our upper lakes and even up to the waters of the Saskatchewan and the Assini-boine. We want all the sea ports we can get; but we often cannot develop them by a broad policy, and we must do this by making headway a little here and a little there. I read in the press this morning some news which may interest my hon. friends from the West, namely, that the leader of the Imperial Government announced in the British House of Commons that they are prepared to have the question of the British embargo on Canadian cattle come up again in that House, and the announcement goes even further, that the vote will be open and that members of the House will have an opportunity of voting whether or not they are in favour of the removal of the restriction that that Government, in the interest of protecting the British cattle breeder, have insisted on in the past. That may be a small matter to some people; but it is by constant agitation on our part, partly by farmers in the different provinces, that some headway has been made in this regard, and it is by small concessions that these successes are eventually achieved.

It is not by advocating any broad principle of British preference or free trade. We cannot have absolute free trade, but we need protection, because that is the only policy that will develop our industries, make us strong, and provide the sinews that go to make a sturdy nationhood. I have every sympathy with the West and their aspirations, but the national policy of protection-the policy of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier-is the one we need in Canada; and possibly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when tariff proposals

are disclosed, will be persuaded to base his policy on the necessities of the whole country.

I have not heard a single argument today that would induce me to abandon the view I stated on the floor of the House in support of a similar resolution some years ago. During my time in this House I have observed that the national progress of the country has been due to legislation of this kind. The reasons for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway were largely embodied in the remarks of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to-day. The Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental have broadened to meet the requirements of the whole country; and anything that is done to meet the claims of the West must also have regard to Canada at large. For the protection of our own interests, I agree with the member for St. John (Mr. Baxter), we should increase the use of our own ports by our own ships. We have a large fleet of ships now that were built for an emergency. They are not doing much and they ought to be put to use so that we might have lower rates, both in taking our own goods to foreign markets and in bringing cargoes to our own people. I trust that hon. members will not forget the views of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as quoted to-day, in regard to the development of our ports. We cannot depend on American ports; we must have our own. It is absolutely essential for a nation, if it wishes to maintain its integrity, promote its future prosperity, and realize its visions, to be broadly organized in the matter of transportation. It is as much in the interests of the people to develop the country's trade by means of its ports, as it is to have a tariff that will promote industry.

Moved by all these considerations, I still hold that no great mistake would be made by enacting legislation of this kind which proposes to build up our ports and, through them, our railways, and to do so in the light of the experience of the United States. The most highly organized nation in the world to-day is that republic, and its success is founded on a national policy. The greatest producers of food in the world at the present time are those people of the United States who have had the good fortune to control the Mississippi valley, which is rich in corn, coal, cotton, wheat, live stock, and meats of all kinds. The United States has been the most protective nation, and it has had the broadest

Preference-Seaports

national policy of any country in respect of its ports, and all the utilities established for the purpose of developing the trade and commerce of the people. They are so pronounced in this policy that they discriminate against us. The farmers of the United States have a national policy in agriculture, and a bill is now in progress through Congress establishing a high tariff which is backed by the farmers' bloc, with its chief mouthpiece in the farmers' organization.

My hon. friend, the second leader of the House (Mr. Crerar), does not realize how far his arguments are taking him. In Japan they used to have a Mikado and a Tycoon, and perhaps we have them in this House to-day. The hon. member does not realize that the farmers in the United States have a policy which discriminates against us, but which nevertheless is designed to make them the greatest country in the world. There is a diversity of employment in the United States and they have large industries that give employment to many simply because they have pursued a broad national policy and have built up the country at every point. They have highly developed their railways, their industries, and their agriculture, and have made concessions here and there, in all cases from the national rather than the sectional point of view.

Some hon. member has challenged us to give any instance where the Progressive party has advocated any sectional policy in this House. Well, I should not like to see my hon. friends from the West taking any narrow stand, and that is why I say that we should consider this question in a broad spirit. I am very much in sympathy with my hon. friends, and I think I can say that I am more of a democrat in many respects than they are; and I believe I am as progressive as they themselves. But I differ from them in some ways, and if there is one difference in particular between us it is the fact that I like to take the broadest national view of any question that comes up, mainly because Canada is still in the period of its formation. And while there has always been a difference between the public men of the country as to what policy will conduce most to its development, I do not think there is any doubt that the national policy, not only in regard to the tariff, but also in the matter of building up our own ports and railways, is the best.

I will take, the view that the Minister of Finance will make no mistake if when he

introduces his Budget he recognizes that in some way the development of our ports should be encouraged. I hope hon. members on the other side of the House will not think that I disagree so much with their views as with the relative merits of those views. I believe more and more in the policy of this country being based on the development of our nationhood along the line of having diversity of employment as a result of encouraging all kinds of industry, and of making our ports the complement of our railway system.

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
LIB

Hance James Logan

Liberal

Mr. LOGAN:

Mr. Speaker, as I stated when I introduced this motion this afternoon, I do not intend to press it to a vote because I do not believe it would be constitutionally right that the Government should be asked to commit itself on a tariff matter in anticipation of the Budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance. But in withdrawing this motion I am constrained to say, that some of the speeches delivered in the course of this debate have been very disheartening to those of us who desire to build up a great and united Canada. If it has come to this pass, that there is nothing in the cry of "Canada for Canadians", then God help Canada! When we reflect that every day freight given the advantage of the British preference is passing the port of Halifax-probably one of the four best ports in the wide world-to be landed in the port of New York, seven hundred miles further by sea than our port, upon which we have expended sixteen or seventeen million dollars-and for which my hon. friend from Marquette cannot deny responsibility because he was a member of the government that voted millions of dollars for the terminal port facilities in that harbor and the building of grain elevators in St. John and Halifax-we must ask ourselves: What has it all been for if not to create Canadian trade through Canadian channels?

It is unfortunate that in this debate we have heard so many inconsistent statements. Surely my hon. friend from Marquette does not say that if you have a full cargo both east and west you do not secure better rates on your eastbound cargo? He needs no knowledge of ocean freights to appreciate that; his own common sense must force him to that conclusion.

It is unfortunate that whenever we move a resolution in this House it should give rise in the minds of many of my hon. friends to the suspicion that there must be some ulterior motive influencing us and inimical to the interests of agriculture. I

Preference-S eaports

want to assure you, Sir, and this House that behind this motion there is only the desire, to build up a more united and independent Canada to give more business to our ports and railways, and to show the world that we can do business on the northern part of this continent without having to depend on the ports of the United States. If the contrary is true, what did we build the Grand Trunk Pacific for? Why did we spend two or three hundred million dollars in building this transcontinental railway if there is nothing in this proposition of east and west traffic? The attitude of some hon. members seem to be: Let the grass grow on the wharves of Halifax and St. John. What do we care so long as we can get our grain sent across the Atlantic one or two cents a bushel cheaper via Portland, Boston or New York? That attitude is discouraging to a Canadian. And then as if to accentuate the inconsistency, my hon. friend, after making a long speech denouncing this resolution, proposes that we should increase the British preference on British goods coming through Canadian ports! " Consistency, thou art a jewel."

I urge upon the Government that they consider this matter very seriously, and I can only hope that when the Budget is brought down the Finance Minister will declare that this preference-which, as I have said, is an arrangement between mother and daughter-shall be confined to goods landed at Canadian ports. We have not had time to discuss this matter at length, but had I the opportunity now I would demonstrate conclusively that the argument advanced by hon. members in opposition to this resolution has been based upon wrong knowledge. I would prove that the freight rate to-day between Liverpool and Winnipeg, via Canadian ports, is not any higher than it is via New York and Boston; in fact, in some cases it is lower.

Topic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink

April 5, 1922