Mr. DAVIS:

Yes.

Mr. BALDWIN:

Is the hon. member aware that Canadian lead pencils could not be obtained through wholesale jobbers in Canada until the recent government came into power? That has been my experience. They were not advertised by the big jobbing houses in Toronto.

Mr. DAVIS:

I could not catch the question.

Mr. BALDWIN:

The hon. member mentioned lead pencils a little while ago.

Mr. DAVIS:

I do not know what the question was, but I have an idea what my hon. friend would ask. If there is one large industry, it is the lead pencil industry. The production of lead pencils involves the taking away of a valuable asset we have in the soil, namely, graphite. The United States Dixon pencil industry gives employment to a large number of men. That is one reason why I say that if there is any hope for

4 p.m. the salvation in the building up of this industry for which concessions have been given by this government to the president of the Liberal Association of North York, it is the proper thing to do. But I object to one individual, because he holds a high and honourable position in the ranks of a certain organization, receiving consideration or redress from the government which other people in similar lines of business cannot receive.

The Address-Mr. Davis

I desire to draw the attention of the House to certain legislation that has been on the statute book for some time, and in this connection I wish to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Ro^etown (Mr. Evans). The hon. member made a statement in this House some days ago which I regretted very much to hear him make. Cn page 488 of Hansard he is reported ns having said, speaking of protection for the manufacturers of Canada:

I say (that the whole business of protection is robbery, legalized robbery; that you subsidize the manufacturers and that the manufacturers in return subsidize you.

As a brother representative from the western country, following the same pursuits in life as he does, on behalf of the people of the west and on my own behalf I must take exception to any statement of that kind.

Mr. EVANS:

Let me inform the hon.

member that that was a quotation rather than a statement of my own.

Mr. DAVIS:

It appears in Hansard as a

statement. While I am free to admit that the industry which we follow has received a great deal of consideration, not only from the Dominion government but from the provincial government-for which we are truly thankful -it ill becomes him, or any other representative of that industry, to use the phrase that he did. There is no industry in my opinion in the Dominion of Canada that has been subsidized at the expense of the public to the extent that the industry that he and I follow, namely, farming and ranching. I refer the hon. member to page 73 of Sessional Paper No. 16. 1923, in which he will find the following:

This policy provides for payment by the Live Stock branch of reasonable travelling expenses of fanners residing in Canada who purchase stock at general stock yards for return to country points. In eastern Canada the assistance rendered is confined to purchases of female breeding stock, cattle, sheep or hogs. In western Canada the policy covers stooker and feeder cattle in addition to breeding stock. Purchasers are required to fulfil certain requirements of the department in connection with their shipments and to give satisfactory assurance that none of the stock is being purchased for speculative purposes.

This policy has proved a very valuable educational agency in that its terms have encouraged farmers from all over the country to visit the stock yards and to became acquainted with methods of doing business at these points, and has unquestionably played a very important part in encouraging a return of unfinished cattle and sheep .to country points for funther feeding and also in the return of young female breeding stock, particularly from yards in western Canada.

The policy has been in effect on the stock yards of western Canada since the fall of 1916. On the yards at Toronto and Montreal it has been effective only since May 1, 1918. The following is a statement of the shipments made under its terms.

We find that under the terms of that legislation, which was enacted for the purpose of subsidizing the farmer to enable him to feed his stock and prepare it for market, there was spent in Canada no less a sum than $63,64620. There were 106,077 head of cattle, and the freight in connection with these, added to travelling expenses incurred by the purchasers, together with the keep of the farmers while at the stock yards, amounted to the sum T have just stated. And in the purchasing of sheep, there were distributed under the act and various regulations 126,795 animals in connection with which the government of Canada spent no less than $21,553.45. Under this act alone this government has paid out in the subsidizing of the live stock industry, in the way of travelling expenses and freight on sheep and cattle, some $85,000 odd. This is only one of several subsidies which this government has given to the farmers and for that reason I take exception to the remarks of this or any other gentleman who will quarrel with a government for subsidizing other industries when these subsidies apply to his own. There is another angle to this question, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in the House now that I am discussing it. The act provides for certain concessions for the building up of the live stock industry in this country and it has been in force for a good many years, but it has recently been repealed, and some day I shall have the pleasure of ascertaining why this was done. I can truthfully say, however, that the benefits of the act have been exploited by others. It has been common talk in the west for some years past that certain people have been going to the stock yards of western Canada and purchasing live stock under these regulations, having their expenses met and the freight paid upon cattle shipped to towns adjacent to the United States, unloading the animals at these places and driving them on * the hoof over the line. If the Minister of Agriculture has not been apprised of this fact I take this opportunity of informing him of it. It seems to me that it would be in the interests of the industry for the minister to make further inquiries in this matter with a view to finding out why the benefits of the act have been exploited by others.

It was my intention to say something about the coal situation, but as I hope that this matter will come up in the future I shall make no extended reference to it at this time. I desire, however, to call to the attention of the House the name of one man who has been very prominent before the public for some time past and who of late has evi-

The Address-Mr. Davis

dently become a protectionist. That gentleman in the last few days has been taking part in the by-election at Prince Albert; I refer to the Hon. Mr. Dunning of Saskatchewan. I should like to read what he had to say in regard to the development of the coal industry in the west. In his evidence before the Grain Inquiry Commission at Regina on August 6, 1923, the Hon. C. A. Dunning, Premier of Saskatchewan, declared for protection of the Canadian coal industry. He said he would have the government put up the protective tariff on United States coal so as to make competition of Alberta coal with American coal, at present freight rates, possible. He said:

This is the first opportunity to make the people of the east suffer for what they have given the west for the last forty years, and I think we should give them a dose of their own medicine now that they want our coal.

The Hon. Mr. Dunning said that, and the only comment I have to make upon the statement is that such is not the attitude of the western people. We have coal there in abundance and there is a field open in central Canada for that coal, and when the time comes for the movement of that product all we shall ask is that instead of the people of this part of the country sending their money to the United States and having it circulate there, building up that country, they purchase Alberta coal and thus help to develop what will prove to be one of our greatest industries. Certainly, however, the sentiment contained in the words of the Hon. Mr. Dunning, which I have just quoted, is not the sentiment of the people of the west, for the prosperity of this Dominion must depend upon the development both of the east and of the west in order to afford employment to as large a number of men as [DOT] possible.

I come now to the question of immigration. Some things have already been said in this connection and the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) has, I think, reflected the feeling that prevails among the majority of the people of the west. The Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) has told us that it is his intention to co-operate with our provincial governments with a view to promoting immigration in western Canada. Let me tell the minister that the Alberta government is a farmers' administration and is antagonistic to immigration under present conditions. For the information of the House I may read what the Hon. Herbert Greenfield, Premier of Alberta, said a short time ago on this subject:

[Mr. Davis-3

There should be no encouragement of wholesale immigration into Alberta from anywhere, until economic conditions in the province and in the west have been adjusted in respect to freight rates, marketing and natural resources, so that there will be a reasonable prospect of prosperity for the immigrants.

Perhaps I might indicate some of the reasons for the strong opposition of the west to a policy of immigration at the present time. A large number of people in the west purchased lands on the strength of the assurance that railway transportation would be afforded them. They have lived upon these lands for ten or fifteen years and so far that promised accommodation has not been realized. Others have purchased lands from the Natural Resources Department of the Canadian Pacific Railway on long-term payments, and after developing and improving their land and making payments for upwards of ten or fifteen years, they find that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has greatly reduced the price of similar lands, thus practically destroying their investment. This has caused great dissatisfaction. Some three years ago a movement was on foot by some of our members of the United Farmers of Alberta to encourage farmers of that province to sacrifice their interests there and move to Bolivia, which country, it was reported, offered great opportunities for the Alberta farmer. During a convention in 1923 they adopted a resolution requesting the Dominion government to expend1 the moneys proposed for immigration purposes to maintain the western farmers then in distress.

Public prejudice prevails over our banking system, the lack of financial accommodation for the western farmer and rancher, and the common practice of increasing the rate of interest payable by a farmer or rancher who is falling behind in his payments, thus making it still more difficult for him to meet these obligations. General dissatisfaction has always prevailed on the question of protection, the western farmer having had his education on the principle of free trade. These are some of the reasons given for the general opposition to immigration.

At the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta held a couple of weeks ago, Mr. H. W. Wood, the president of that organization, in the Calgary Herald, Jan. 20th, is reported to have said:

We are inviting immigrants to come here, and at the present time conditions for that purpose are better than they have been for some time. It will mean that the people will have to pay from five to ten cents on every bushel of what they raise. If they do they would be of such mental calibre that we would not want them We must fight this infernal thing to death-

.879

The Address-Mr. Cantley

He said this with stronger emphasis than he had employed on any previous occasion at the convention:

-and if we cannot do it in any other way we must appeal to the immigrants of other countries and say, "For God's sake don't come here."

I mention these circumstances so that the government may have full knowledge of the feeling prevailing in the western provinces with respect to any immigration policy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I beg to call attention to some remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) which will be found at page 4S9 of Hansard. He said:

I will make make this further statement, Mr. Speaker, that the advocates of protection in Canada do not believe in their own policy.

I also wish to quote this statement which Mr. H. W. Wood is reported to have made during the last election:

We might just as well forget about protection. We have it, and will have it for two hundred years hence.

I agree with Mr. Wood. I am here as a representative of the principles and policies contained in the platform of the Conservative party. We believe that in them are to be found the only solution for many of the difficulties that now confront the Dominion. We are here 116 strong, loyal to our right hon. leader, and it is the determination of every one of us in this quarter of the House, if the opportunity ever presents itself, to put into effect the policies presented to the people of Canada during the last campaign by the right hon. leader of the opposition.

Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):

Mr. Speaker, may I explain that my presence here is due primarily to the personality and the persuasive powers of my respected chief, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). Whether I can be of any real service to the country at large, to my constituency and to my province, is as yet a matter of some doubt. But peradventure I may be able to offer a few constructive and practical suggestions to meet what I consider to be some of the vital needs of this Dominion.

May I in passing refer to a remark made a few days ago by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), when he spoke of the Conservative representatives from Nova Scotia as "a group of Maritime righters." We eleven blue-nose Conservatives are each and all champions of Maritime rights; but every one of us was elected as a supporter of the declared policy of our leader, and to him we confidently look to vindicate those rights and remedy some of the wrongs of which we complain, and which he has publicly acknowledged as existing. He has exhibited a sympathetic interest

in our situation, in our disappointment, in our aims and in our ambitions. This is in striking contrast with the attitude of the right hon. leader of my friends opposite, Mr. Mackenzie King, who, when in the Maritime provinces during the recent election campaign, said thal it was useless for us to expect to do any business with our sister provinces, that we must on the contrary look overseas for any satisfactory trade. In effect, he told us that confederation for us has been a failure. Well, Sir, it may be so; I hope it is not. But I ask: If we cannot trade with the sister provinces, how long do our friends opposite expect the Maritimes to remain partners in this Dominion?

The union of Nova Scotia with the other provinces on July 1, 1867, was a marriage of convenience-not a love match. The then guardian of the fair daughter of bid Scotia, the Colonial office, for imperial and strategic reasons, urged the union. The marriage settlement was written by the family solicitor in Downing street, and is entitled the British North America Act. The provisions of that act, as expounded and interpreted to the people of the Maritime provinces prior to the union, have not been implemented, nor have the promised advantages been in any degree realized during any part of the intervening period since 1867. In short, this marriage has proved no more successful than most marriages of its class.

May I refer to some of the facilities available to the Maritimes in regard to overseas business which the leader of the late government advised us to cultivate. The Riverside Manufacturing Company of New Glasgow, ot which my friend John Underwood is general manager, has for years exported a fair quantity of hand cultivators and other agricultural implements of that class. They have found it necessary to ship those goods to Liverpool. You .may ask me: Why to Liverpool? Because at Liverpool practically every week in the year steamships are leaving for all the known markets of the world. Some of my friend's goods go to the west coast of Africa, some to South America and some to the West Indies and to reach these points he finds it necessary and desirable to make shipment through the port of Liverpool. I ask hon. members to mark the assistance given to this company by the Canadian National Railways as operated at the present time in Nova Scotia. In 1924 the through rate from New Glasgow to Liverpool was 60 cents per 100 pounds, or S12 per net ton. The distance from New Glasgow to Halifax is 106 miles, and for that distance the railway exacts a rate of 32 cents per 100 pounds. For the distance of 2,585

The Address-Mr. Cantley

The Address-Mr. Cantley

is fair to protect Ontario and western Quebec on the basis of the same rate for 1,000 miles territory, the same rate should surely apply in the territory between Montreal and Sydney, comprising 956 miles, thus giving Sydney and other Maritime province points a rate of 841 cents per 100 pounds on fifth class goods to Port Arthur, as against the present rate of $1.01, and other classes in proportion.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

When were those rates

put into effect?

Mr. CANTLEY:

Which rates?

Mr. CASGRAIN:

The rates the hon. member is discussing.

Mr. CANTLEY:

At various times. The

last was in 1924.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Were there not others

in 1919 and 1920?

Mr. CANTLEY:

There may have been.

I am not referring to them, but to the rates in effect to-day.

On the same basis the same arbitraries should apply over Montreal to all points in the Maritime provinces. If distance is eliminated from Ontario to Port Arthur and the west, as it is under Schedule "A," why should not the Maritime provinces be treated similarly in the interchange of business between the Maritime provinces and industrial Ontario and western Quebec? The fact of the matter is that these commodities are carried over a whole zone of one thousand miles at one level rate, but when it comes to the question of rates between Montreal and Sydney, the territory is divided into several zones carrying several different rates.

It would appear that some fairer basis should be arrived at for the establishment of commodity rates than now exists. As an instance of discrimination in this respect, consider the rates on steel products, blooms and wire rods, from manufacturing centres in Ontario as compared with the rates on the same products from Nova Scotia. I will mention a few: The fifth class rate, which is the class to which these products belong, from Hamilton to Montreal is $9.63 per gross ton. The commodity rate is $3 per gross ton, which is 31 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Sydney to Montreal is $5.10 per gross ton, or 41 per cent of the fifth class rate. Again, the rate from Hamilton to Owen Sound is $2.70 per gross ton on wire rods,, or 38 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Sydney to Owen Sound is $7.90 per gross ton, or 47 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Hamilton to Welland is $1.70 per gross ton, or 42 per cent of the fifth class rate,

while the rate from Montreal is $7.50 per gross ton, or 50 per cent of the fifth class rate. Again, the rate from Sault Ste. Marie to Toronto is $4.30 per gross ton, or 39 per cent of the fifth class rate, while the rate from Sydney to Toronto is $6.60 per gross ton, or 46 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Sault Ste. Marie to Welland, Ontario, is $5.40 per gross ton, or 37 per cent of the fifth class rate, while the rate from Sydney is $7.50 per gross ton, or 50 per cent of the fifth class rate.

May I also refer to discrimination in pig iron rates. The rate from Hamilton to Charlottetown, P.E.I., a distance of 1,063 miles, is $6.50 per gross ton, which is 73 per cent of the tenth olass rate, and the rate from Sydney to Charlottetown, 398 miles, is $7.17, which is 100 per cent of the tenth class rate. Mark this, Mr. Speaker, if you please: The rate from Hamilton to Charlottetown, 1,063 miles, is $6.50 a ton, and from Sydney to Charlottetown, 398 miles, $7.17 a ton. I ask the question: Have we any grievance? The rate from Hamilton to Sherbrooke, Quebec, is $4.80 per gross ton, which is 62 per cent of the tenth class rate, while the rate from Sydney to Sherbrooke is $5.40 per gross ton. or 65 per cent of the tenth class rate. The rate from Hamilton to Ottawa is $3.20 per gross ton, which is 49 per cent of the tenth class rate, while the rate from Sydney to Ottawa is $5.40 per gross ton, or 64 per cent of the tenth class rate. I have a lot more figfures of the same nature; I have a bundle of tables here, numbering a hundred or more, which show similar unfair discrimination,

I will only refer to one other item. Take rail fastenings. The rate from Sault Ste Marie to Winnipeg is 61-J per cent of the seventh class rate while the rate from Sydney is 75 per cent of the seventh class rate, and from New Glasgow 74 per cent of the seventh class ra.te. Again, we have to pay a full 100 per cent of the seventh class rate from New Glasgow to alt points in Ontario and western Quebec, while Sault Ste. Marie has rates to the same points varying from 70 :to 86 per cent of the seventh class rate; from Hamilton from 63 to 75 per cent of the seventh olass rate, and from Toronto from 66 to 85 per cent of the seventh class rate. These figures are based on the class rates now in effect from Sydney, and if these class rates were reduced by lowering the arbitraries over Montreal, as suggested in the foregoing, the discrimination would be very glaring. The fairest basis to apply in steel products would be a fairer percentage of the class rates to which they belong, reducing or increasing the percentage of reduction as the mileage increased; that is to say, 85 per cent of the class rates over a dis-

The Address-Mr. Cantley

tance of 500 miles, 80 per cent to points over 500 miles and up to say 1,000 miles, andi 70 per cent over 1,000 miles and up to ,2,000 miles. If this basis was applied to all territory in Canada it would eliminate discrimination completely. Why is it not done?

May I point out further the favourable position in which industrial points in Ontario are placed as compared with the Maritime provinces in the matter of export rates. Belleville, Brantford, Collingwood, Guelph, Hamilton, London. Milton, Owen Sound, Toronto, Welland, and Windsor, can all, under the present tariff, export their steel products to Quebec, St. John, Halifax, Portland, Boston, and New London, Connecticut, at two cents per hundred pounds over the rate to Montreal. Brantford, Hamilton, Collingwood, London, Owen Sound, Welland1, and Windsor, can include New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore at the same rate, while Guelph, Mfiton, and Toronto can ship via the latter ports at three cents per hundred pounds over the Montreal rate. Hamilton can ship via Halifax to any foreign country including St. Pierre and Newfoundland at two cents per hundred pounds over the Montreal rate. That is to say, the railways receive for the haul from Montreal to Halifax, 800 miles, two cents per hundred pounds, while the rate from Sydney to Halifax, a distance of 289 miles, is 19 cents per hundred pounds, this rate being applicable only to exports to British and foreign countries. The rate from Sydney to Halifax for export to Newfoundland and St. Pierre is 25J cents per hundred pounds, while the railways haul for the manufacturers in Ontario the 800 miles from Montreal to Halifax, at the rate of two cents per hundred pounds. The rate from Hamilton to North Sydney for export to St. Pierre and Newfoundland is 54 per cent of [DOT] the fifth class rate, which includes terminal charges, while the rate from Sydney to North Sydney is 124 per cent of the fifth class rate, including terminal charges.

I should like the House to grasp this fact. That on an export basis iron and steel products are carried from Ontario, and from Montreal after the close of navigation, to Halifax for two cents per hundred pounds whereas the rate for the same products from Sydney to Halifax is 19 cents per hundred pounds. In the former case the distance is 800 miles and in the latter case only 289 miles. These rates apply if the products are going to Great Britain. If Sydney products are going to Newfoundland they are charged 25i cents, or 12 times the rate that is charged the iron and steel manufacturers of Ontario. Again I ask is there any ground for dissatisfaction?

14011-50a

We submit this is an unfair discrimination. Ontario and western Quebec are surrounded by iron and steel commodity rates far lower on percentage of class to their own local territory than the railways allow from Maritime province manufacturing points, and Ontario manufacturing centres receive export rates on their surplus products which are not granted to Maritime province manufacturing points. We submit that if mileage is eliminated for export purposes, as already explained, to help out manufacturing centres in Ontario in order to reach world markets via Baltimore, New York, Boston, New London, Conn., St. John, N.B., and Halifax, the same consideration should be given the steel manufacturing plant in Sydney and Sydney placed on the same rate basis to those shipping ports in order to reach the world markets. The rates referred to from Ontario for export to St. Pierre and Newfoundland make it impossible for the Sydney steel plant to compete in those markets except by providing their own water transport, which is awkward and very difficult at times. We have to ship by steamers in the ore carrying trade from Sydney to Wabana, and thence by coasting steamer to destination. It is unreasonable to ask the establishing of rail rates from Sydney, and any other points they please, to all ports on the great lakes, on the same basis and in proportion to class rate as is now in effect to other water competitive points in Canada such as Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John. Ports in Ontario such as Toronto, Hamilton, and Owen Sound should receive the same consideration as other ports having these competitive rates. We would ask in establishing from ports on the great lakes the same commodity rate on a similar mileage basis as is in effect from industrial points in Ontario, or in the Maritime provinces for that matter, that these rates might very well be confined to Canadian products.

Not only are Canadian products for export carried at the rates which I have mentioned, but American products are carried at the same rates although they enter into competition with the products of our own plants in Cape Breton and other parts of Canada. Discrimination seems to exist in connection with shipments from Nova Scotia to points in Ontario reached by both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railway systems, in case where the purchaser has his plant connected by a siding from the Canadian Pacific railway, but not by a connection from the Canadian National. Up to a few years ago the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways had a joint

The Address-Mr. Cantley

tariff to many of these points; routing could be given as desired by the customer, and the business was so routed. These joint tariffs however have been discontinued, and additional expense is therefore incurred on either the shipper or the receiver in the way of extra charges. Let me quote for the information of the House a letter recently received from a customer of one of the steel plants in Nova Scotia, in Harrison, Ontario, which reads as follows:

We are returning your draft of July 16, at thirty days for $823.47, covering car of iron. When your representative was here we stated the car must be Shipped via Canadian Pacific railway and it came in Canadian National, and cost us $13.50 more to unload than if it came in Canadian Pacific, as we can unload from Canadian Pacific siding into our yard, while from Canadian National railway it has to be teamed. Your representative said any additional cost in unloading if it came in Canadian National railway could be deducted from .invoice and we will charge your account with $13.50. You may pass draft for $S09.97, or we will send you a cheque for that amount when due.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very unnecessary burden which is placed on an industry located in the Maritime provinces; and it is discrimination against that industry in favour of the Ontario manufacturers. If both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways issued a joint tariff, as they formerly did, and each took a share of the haul, this burden would be eliminated. An alternative would be for the Canadian National railways to absorb the extra switching or extra cartage caused by their refusal to combine in a joint tariff. We know that this is done in other sections of the country.

Again, take the case of Sydney, with its steel manufacturing plants, which has for years felt itself discriminated against in the failure of the railways to issue export tariffs via this port on the same basis as they do for other Maritime and United 5 p.m. States ports. As previously stated herein, if distance is eliminated for the benefit of the manufacturing centres of Ontario, there is no reason why it should not be eliminated for the manufacturing centre of North Sydney, as at present they are handicapped in this world trading by the great difficulty in getting steamers which trade with all ports of the world to call for the products of the port, although these steamers pass in and out from St. Lawrence practically within sight of *he harbour. Outside of coal, which is not exported in less than cargo quantities, the export of Sydney is confined to steel products for shipment to the various markets of the world. In order to get steamers to call, certain minimum quantities have to be guaranteed them. This is a serious handicap compared with the advantages

enjoyed by steel plants in Ontario which have low export rates to all parts of the United States and Canada. They can take an order for and ship a carload to any part of the world as cheaply as they can 1,000 tons, and as the steel business is generally of small volume-done in carloads, so to speak- these low rates place them in a most favourable position as compared with Sydney plants, which have to guarantee a minimum quantity of some hundreds of tons before a ship can be induced to call for it. This discrimination could be overcome by Sydney being placed by the railways on the same basis, so far as export rates are concerned, as other Canadian and United States ports. In that manner export business could be diverted to this port in summer and to Louisburg in winter, by our efforts to procure sufficient cargo to induce steamers to call there, which, together with our own, could be of sufficient volume to make business profitable. True, there are no public terminal facilities. They have offered the railways the use of our own private facilities, as far as they can go, for handling such business, but the discrimination in the matter of export freight rates through the port of Sydney still continues. It may be added that it is a serious reflection on the government, and perhaps on the people, that proper shipping terminals are not provided in one of the best harbours of the world. The lack of them makes the Transcontinental railway practically a dead end at this port. However, if proper export rates were established By the railways, that would go a long way towards drawing the attention of the government to the need of proper dock and shed for storing inbound and outbound freight for furtherance.

Referring further to discrimination in railway freight rates, permit me to refer to the advance made in the old Intercolonial standard mileage rates on May 10, 1923. These rates apply to all classes other than those covered by town tariffs and special commodity rates. Among the items heavily affected is explosives from Beloeil, Quebec, to the Sydneys. In 1916 the rate was 94 cents per 100 pounds. At the present time the rate is S2.55J, per 100 pounds, an increase of 171 per cent. Explosives are a necessity in mining coal, ore and limestone. The freight alone at present means a cost of 4.6 mills per ton on every ton of coal mined. With the cost of this material and other expenses which enter into the cost of mining, this is a very heavy charge, and it amounts to considerably more on ore and limestone. Why this exorbitant increase has been made on explosives is difficult to understand. Since the rate existing in 1916 originally

The Address-Mr. Cantley

went into effect, the formulae of all explosives has come under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, and its manufacture and transportation have been greatly safeguarded. A steady improvement in the process of its manufacture has taken place, the improvement lessening the danger in handling it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I cannot at the moment recall a case where a single accident has occurred in the transportation of explosives -by rail. Cases are on record where explosives have been destroyed in cars when crashed into by a locomotive, but without any explosion or injury to surrounding property. A reduction on this commodity in line with others is therefore requested.

By the same change in the old Intercolonial standard mileage rates, the rate on horses in carload lots has been unreasonably increased. The Nova Scotia coal companies use in the mines and about their various works a large number of horses. We have occasion to bring these from Montreal and surrounding territory. The rate for these in 1916 was 38 cents per IOC pounds. To-day it is 100i cents per 100 pounds, an increase of 164 per cent. This makes the minimum freight rate per horse on the minimum carload $9.25, an increase of $5.75 per horse since 1916. These horses are light in weight, ranging about 900 pounds. The rate is unreasonable and unjust to the mining industry. As far as we are aware or can ascertain, no reason was ever given for increasing the Intercolonial rates to that of the standard mileage. The other increases made during the war period had some reason to support them, but this increase, made long after the war was over, does not seem to have had any justification whatever.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal to some extent with the coke and coal rate.

Mr. DUFF:

Will the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. CANTLEY:

Certainly.

Mr. DUFF:

If within the last ten years such discrimination as he refers to has existed, have the management of either the steel company or the New Glasgow company appealed either to the railway authorities or to the railway commission for an order for a fair rate?

Mr. CANTLEY:

The hon. member knows the management of both these concerns fairly well and he would1 not expect them to put up with conditions such as I have referred to without making some protest.

It is hardly necessary to state that these are serious times in the coal industry in

Canada. Competition is keen with the foreign product. Everyone recognizes that for the independence of Canada in the matter of its fuel requirements for domestic, industrial and railway purposes, this industry should receive every possible consideration. The greatest difficulty is experienced, not only in making any material expansion, but even in maintaining production. Innumerable efforts have been made to'obtain freight rates to enable this product to be placed on the market to meet foreign competition. Rates in effect throughout middle and eastern Canada go to show that the railways are giving preference to the foreign product and discriminating against Canadian production. Rates on this product, also on coke made from Canadian coal, should receive the careful consideration of parliament. We find that rates in effect from Buffalo, Black Rock and Suspension Bridge to Canadian destination are far lower than we can obtain for similar distances for our products. From Buffalo to Cochrane, a distance of 1,049 miles, the Canadian railways give a rate to American coal of 3.9 mills per ton mile; from Black Rock to the same destination, 3.9i mills per ton mile; and from Suspension Bridge to the same destination, 4.0 mills per ton mile. From Montreal to Cochrane the best we can get is 6.4 mills per ton mile, and from Quebec 6.6 mills per ton mile. To get to Montreal we have to carry the coal by water for about 900 miles, and to Quebec for about 750 miles. Besides the expense of transferring from steamers to cars, there is considerable loss owing to degradation in the coal compared with coal moved direct by rail from United States mines. The degradation, even in transporting bituminous coal by rail, has been given consideration by the United States Interstate Commerce Commission in considering rail freights. So much more should the degradation in transferring from steamer to ears, in addition to the movement by rail, be considered in establishing competitive rates on this Canadian product, and we think the railway should give this phase careful consideration. We submit that the long water haul should be considered a factor in establishing rail rates that are just to the industry.

We find that from some of the United States coal fields the Interstate Commerce Commission has recently established rates on bituminous coal of 5.4 to 5.7 mills per ton mile for distances of 380 to 400 miles- and this in a country whose coal industry has been brought up to the highest development and has practically no competition

The Address-Mr. Cantley

from outside sources. The rate by rail from Sydney to Montreal, a distance of 956 miles, is $4.50 per net ton, notwithstanding that this is a water competitive point, while the rate from Buffalo and Black Rock to Cochrane, a distance of 1,049 miles, is only $4.10 per ton; almost 100 miles longer, with a freight rate of 40 cents per ton less.

Have we any grievances in the Maritime provinces, and should parliament do something to improve those conditions? I ask this question of hon. gentlemen to my right, who time and again have expressed some consideration for our situation, and of hon. gentlemen opposite, many of whom claim to be of Nova Scotian birth. Are those hon. gentlemen prepared to support us in our demand for fair and equitable rates for the basic products of our province? I have referred only to the rates, from two points, on American and Canadian coal.

I may mention again the rate from Black Rock to Cochrane a distance of 603 miles, which is $3.80 per ton, as against Quebec, to Iroquois Falls-a coming coal consuming centre-of $5.55 per ton for a distance of 608 miles. If the railways can afford to carry American coal at such a low rate to meet water competition, they should surely do so to assist the mainstay product of the country, to meet foreign competition. You will find here a difference of $1.75 per ton in favour of the American product. Take again the rate from Buffalo to Sherbrooke, a distance of 536 miles: the American product gets a rate of $3.60 per ton, or 6.7 mills per ton mile, while the rate from Springhill, Nova Scotia, to Sherbrooke, a distance of 638 miles, is $4.30 per ton; exactly the same rate per ton mile. If distance reduces the rate per ton mile, it was not considered here, thereby again discriminating in favour of the American product. I claim we should have established from Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Levis, and shipping centres in the Maritime provinces, rates at least equally as low as those referred to above on American coal from the American border; otherwise discrimination against the Canadian product will exist.

With regard to coke rates, an effort is being made at the present time to find a substitute for hard coal for domestic use in Canada, and by-product coke seems to be the only alternative so far possible. The introduction of coke from Canadian coal is greatly handicapped by the attitude of the railways in the matter of freight rates. The Canadian National Railways, the only rail carrier by which the coke produced in eastern Canada

from coal mines in Canada can be transported, does not take kindly to establishing rates which the needs of the country and the industry call for at the present time. Their latest proposal is for a rate twenty per cent in excess of coal rates. The president of the road, I absolve from any knowledge-at least, any considerable knowledge-of what his traffic officers are doing in the matter of preparing and enforcing the rates to which I have referred.

In the preceding portion of this statement I endeavoured to point out the discrimination against the Maritime provinces in coal rates. Adding twenty per cent to these rates, even should they be brought to a proper basis, to arrive at coke rates, we consider most unreasonable. We claim, in the interests of Canada as a whole, that as coke for domestic use is to replace anthracite coal, the rates on coke should not bear any heavier burden -than, at the outside, the percentage of rate on hard coal over bituminous, and in view of the fact that it is a new product for domestic use, and to get it established in place of hard coal, that it should be carried at the same rate as bituminous coal. We find in Quebec and Ontario anthracite carried at the same rate exactly as bituminous coal. For instance, from Montreal to Belleville, Ontario, the rate on bituminous and anthracite is the same, namely, $2.30 per ton. In no single instance can we find a rate on anthracite in excess of 20 cents per ton over bituminous. For instance, the rate from Buffalo to Cochrane, a distance of 1,049 miles, on bituminous coal, is $4.10 per ton, while the rate on anthracite is $4.30. Although we have the same rate on coal and coke to Montreal at the present time, it is our understanding that it is the intention of the railway to propose a change on this and charge us for coke 20 per cent over the coal rate.

What adds to the discrimination against the Nova Scotia coke is the fact that the minimum carload weight imposed by the railways in the Maritime provinces is 50,000 pounds, while on coke made in Ontario from American coal, and also on some American coke, they allow a minimum carload of 40,000 pounds. Where this hits the Canadian product severely is with a domestic customer who wants only the smallest carload he can get at a time with the minimum amount of freight. For instance, a buyer in Amherst can purchase a carload of coke from Hamilton of 40,000 pounds, which is freighted a distance of 1,032 miles at a rate of 6.6 mills per ton mile, or, $276. From Sydney to Chicoutimi, practically the same distance, 1,041 miles, he will have to pay 8.7 mills, or $455.

The Address-Mr. Cantley

Have we any grievances in the Maritime provinces! What are you going to do in the way of rectifying them?

Another factor bearing on freight rates, not only on coal and coke but also on steel products, is that these products are carried from the Maritime provinces in what otherwise would be return empties. This applies not only to the Maritime provinces but also shipments westward and northward from Quebec and Montreal, while the same products from the United States are carried in cars which in the majority of cases have to return empty. The industrial centres of the Maritime provinces, such as Springhill, Stellarton, New Glasgow, Trenton, Sydney Mines, Sydney and the colliery districts surrounding Glace Bay, buy practically everything they depend on for a living, namely, flour, butter,, meat, canned goods of all kinds, furniture, boots and shoes, hay, oats and other feed-in fact almost everything required outside of fuel they buy from Ontario and Quebec. All these commodities are good revenue producers for the railways. For this reason alone coal and steel products from the Maritime provinces going back in the returned cars which bring these products east and which would otherwise- and do otherwise-return empty, should receive more favourable rates than coal from the United States or coke made from United States coal that is transported in cars that invariably return empty.

May I point out the tonnage of some of the items I have referred to? Last year there [DOT] were transported over the Canadian National Railways to Nova Scotia:

25,000 tons of meat.

600.000 barrels of flour.

350.000 bags of oatmeal.

1.000 barrels of oatmeal.

5.000 barrels of rolled oats.

We consumed one-third as much oatmeal in Nova Scotia as we did flour. Perhaps that explains why some of us are here! May I tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that we also consumed 2,741,000 pounds of butter and 707,000 pounds of cheese?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

You do not make

enough down there for your own use.

Mr. CANTLEY:

No, sir, we do not; we

have other work to do. We do not claim to be a farming country.