Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):

Mr. Speaker, when at six o'clock yesterday I moved the adjournment of the debate I was discussing railway construction in the several provinces from 1907 to 1920, and the increased railway mileage then built. During this period the increase in railway mileage constructed in Saskatchewan was 4,200; Ontario, 3,363; Alberta, 3,181; British Columbia, 2,639; Quebec, 1,425; Manitoba, 1,329; New Brunswick, 310; Nova Scotia, 109; Prince Edward Island, 12.

Mr. CANTLEY:

These figures, Sir, show

that the percentage increase in railway mileage within each of the provinces for the same period was as follows:

Alberta, 238; Saskatchewan, 208; British Columbia, 155; Ontario, 57; Manitoba, 43; Quebec, 40; New Brunswick, 21; Nova Scotia, 8; Prince Edward Island,

ih-

Then consider the amount of Dominion aid given to each of the provinces by way of subsidies, construction of the National Transcontinental railway, the purchase of the Canadian Northern railway, the practical assumption of the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the aid given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. These payments or contributions by provinces are as follows-* and I am giving the figures in round millions:

Ontario, 288; Quebec, 158; British Columbia, 167; Manitoba, 138; Alberta, 128; Saskatchewan, 163; New Brunswick, 28; Nova Scotia, 21; Prince Edward

Island, 8.

For canal construction and enlargement from 1867 to 1925, the capital expenditure in round figures was 225 millions, of which about 20 millions was spent prior to confederation

The Address-Mr. Cantley

To the balance of, say, 200 millions, expended since 1867, is to be added the estimated approximate cost of completing the Welland ship canal, about 54 millions, and this in addition to about 61 millions already expended! on this new work up to the end of the last fiscal year; or, a grand total since 1867 of 280 millions, when the Welland ship canal work now in progress is completed. Of this great sum about $650,000, or less than three-eighths of one per cent was spent on the half mile St. Peter's canal in Cape Breton.

Now Scotia has nearly twenty per cent of the whole population of Ontario, and more than twenty-five per cent of the rural population of that province, but Ontario received nearly $1,400 for every dollar Nova Scotia received by way of railway expenditure, and up to the clos'e of 1923 more than $150 for every dollar expended in Nova Scotia by the federal government on canals. Nova Scotia in 1920 had twenty-four per cent more population than Alberta, while that province received as milway aid from the Dominion more than six times as much as Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan, with practically the same population got 163 odd millions, against 21 millions for Nova Scotia, or nearly eight times as much. British Columbia fared even better, for while the population of Nova Scotia was twenty per cent greater, she got but slightly over one-eighth as much Dominion railway expenditure. Manitoba received nearly seven times as much as Nova Scotia, and Quebec more than seven times as much. We have not forgotten that a few miles of privately-owned branch lines were taken over in Nova Scotia, and several such railways in New Brunswick, but at much below the cost of construction, and in ail the expenditure did not amount to five per cent of that spent in any one of the western provinces.

The province of Nova Scotia gave in land grants to Nova Scotia railways now comprised in the Canadian National Railways,

160,000 acres. The province's proportion of the lands given in grants to other railways, also now merged in the Canadian National system, aggregate 1,770,000 acres. As a partner in confederation Nova. Scotia bad, and by right still has, a substantial interest in these lands and in the benefit derived from this or other such exploitation, though made chiefly in the prairie provinces for railway development there.

Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba were all allowed to extend their boundaries into the territories abutting on these provinces, and so added immense areas-some of great mineral value-to their respective domains. No such advantages came to Nova Scotia, and no com-

pensation has yet been made to Nova Scotia for those portions of the territory so alienated from the Dominion and given to these other provinces. Nova Scotia's interests as one of the four original partners who acquired and paid for these lands is being ignored. I repeat, Sir, Nova Scotia as one of the original partners in confederation has contributed! in proportion to her population to all the national expenditure of the Dominion, and should have realized a proportionate advantage with the other provinces. Neither in railway mileage, railway expenditure, canal construction, nor the free traffic thereon, has she received back a proportion more than, trifling. No share of the prairie public domain has been given her or any compensation for her proportion given to other provinces.

The cost of transportation on the Intercolonial railway has been- doubled, and in many important oases more than doubled, thus virtually cancelling the only commercial consideration promised at confederation. Our basic products are practically dftty free today, and1 we are left not only without protection, but the canal system, to the building of which we have contributed our share, supplies free transportation not only to Quebec, Ontario and the central western provinces, but also to our foreign competitors, who pushed three million tons of soft coal and a considerable tonnage of iron and steel through these waterways into Canada during the season 1923-4.

These Unfavourable conditions, Mr. Speaker, which make it impossible for Nova Scotia to do any volume of profitable business with her sister provinces west of the ancient city of Quebec, are as depressing as they are powerful in effect. Appreciation of the situation is reflected in the building programme of the Dominion for the past year, which in the Contractors Journal is forecast at eighty million dollars. Of this amount it is said that five-eighiths, or thirty millions, will be spent in Ontario, and but one million in the three Maritime provinces. In other words, it is expected that the Maritimes, with a population of one-fifth of that of Ontario, will thus spend on new construction this year only one-fiftieth of the amount to be spent in Ontario. I ask: Why?

A few days ago before I left home to come to Ottawa I saw eighteen expert artisans leave New Glasgow for the United States. These artisans, some of the best mechanics we have in this country, followed nearly three thousand others, most of them equally expert, who have left either New Glasgow or within a radius of five miles of that town within the last two years. Why did they leave? Why were we not able to provide employment in

The Address-Mr. Cantley

this country for those skilled artisans? Why is it necessary for them to leave the Maritime provinces and go to Detroit, Boston, and other points in the United States to get employment? Mr. Speaker, we used to talk some years ago, and I have heard a good deal of that talk myself sitting in the gallery here in past years, about remittance men, but I want to tell the House that we have to-day a large number of remittance men, not in Canada, but in the United States- Canadians who have been forced to go over there, and who, after paying for their board and living expenses, are remitting from week to week and month to month what they can save to maintain their families in Nova Scotia and the other Maritime provinces.

Any serious attempt to investigate the two questions to which I have referred will bring to light the realization of a deep-seated and widespread situation where, due to unfair territorial treatment, tariff inequalities and disappointing traffic conditions, the natural development of the Maritime resources is restricted and the opportunities for employment similarly affected.

I have made little or no reference to the question of protection for our Maritime industries. During each of the months of June and July last there was imported into this country from the United States about

55,000 tons of steel; I do not know what the total tonnage imported in August, September and October was, but for the month of November last we imported into this country from the United States 68,000 tons of steel, seven-eighths of which could have been produced equally well in Canada. Only a few days before I left home, I was in Stellarton, three miles distant from the town of New Glasgow where I live, and there the Public Works department are building a post office. In the construction of that building some structural steel is being used, and what did I find? I looked at the steel and I found rolled into it the name of the Carnegie Steel Company of the United States. The same material could have been bought and was in store at the works at New Glasgow, within four miles of where that building was being erected. There was in store at the works at New Glasgow 6,000 tons of it, 560 different sections of various shapes and sizes, all available for that work. Why was that not used? Why do we bring in, why are we allowed to bring in, American material for use in the construction of public buildings when within four miles of that construction there is ample material available for the purpose, when Canadian steel is stored and

remains uncalled for and unsold so near that construction? That is a condition of affairs, Mr. Speaker, which is not creditable to this country, and it is a condition of affairs that bears hardly upon the province from which I come. During recent years between

600,000 and 700,000 tons of foreign steel has annually come into the Dominion of Canada, and I repeat, 90' per cent of that steel could have been and should have been manufactured within the Dominion of Canada. I do not intend to delay the House much longer in dealing with this phase, but I expect to refer to this question of protection for our iron and steel and coal industries at some later date.

Mr. CANTLEY:

Yes. I think I know

the point to which my hon. friend refers, and

I will deal with it later. This is the statement:

Drumheller Actual rate

Miles rate

2,125 $7 00 $7 00 | Basis of 3.5 mills717 2 48 3 60 J per ton mile.816 2 82 3 901,140 4 00 984 3 20 1,318 4 28 1,001 3 25 4 501,335 4 90

TMr. Cantley.]

The Address-Mr. Cantley

This shows that from Sydney Mines to Montreal, a distance of 984 miles, if the Drumheller rate applied we should get a rate of $3.20. From Sydney to Montreal, a distance of practically 1,000 miles, the actual rate is $4.50, a higher rate than that charged in Ontario for United States coal between points about the same distance apart. Had we the Drumheller rate which was accorded last year to a certain quantity of coal from Alberta, the rate would have been $3.25. I am not objecting at all to my hon. friends on my left getting that rate. What I ask of them is to afford us equal facilities for carrying our coal to the central provinces to those which they enjoyed last year, and the same rate at which I think the minister who, I understand, represents .the railway department, stated that he was prepared to carry 25,000 tons of coal to-day from Alberta to Ontario if that was desired. The Springhill-Montreal coal rate is thus 45 per cent higher than the mileage rate from Drumheller to Toronto, the Stellar-ton-Montreal rate 38 per cent and the Sydney-Montreal rate 20 per cent higher. The railway management say that the Drumheller rate is unremunerative and cannot be given save at certain seasons of the year. But the fact is that a considerable tonnage of coal was last year carried to Toronto at the rate I have quoted, and equally low rates were not and are not now available for Nova Scotia coal going west.

Due to our position at the extreme eastern edge of the Dominion of Canada, and situated as we are practically 1,000 miles from our nearest Canadian market, transportation is a basic economic factor in the interprovincial trade of Nova Scotia. That factor was realized by the fathers of confederation when the Intercolonial railway was offered to the Maritime provinces as a means to solve that problem. The union of the provinces was urged by the Imperial government of the day. Why? The object as I understand it, was to create a united Dominion, more capable of defence than were the scattered provinces of that date, a Dominion which in sentiment and substance would remain British. The empire, the central and the western provinces have benefited, but faith has molt been kept with Nova Scotia, and we suffer thereby.

Well managed and efficient railways are vital and indispensable to our whole economic life. Transportation is a national problem, not a local issue. It is of peculiar importance to Nova Scotia on account of her position as the extreme eastern member of the confederation. What, it may be asked, has Nova Scotia contributed to the transportation system of the

Dominion, and what share of the advantages of that development has she received, or does she now enjoy? I wish it to be known that Nova Scotia has paid her full share of all the development cost of the Dominion from July 1, 1867, down to this present hour, while the promises made and pledges given prior to and after 1867 have not been kept. Hence we find this Maritime unrest.

Nova Scotia's one commodity (that affords a large measure of employment and that should find a market in Quebec and eastern Ontario, is coal. About 5,000,000 tons of anthracite coal, as well as ail the bituminous coal required1 for the production of coke for ithe blast furnaces of Ontario, is admitted into Canada duty free. During 1923, 22,687,320 tons of foreign coal were imported into Canada. More than

17,500,000 tons of bituminous coal were imported into this country in the same year, this coal now paying an average duty of about 12 per cent on its delivered cost. As regards anthracite, every ton of this fuel, long imported, could be replaced by by-product retort-oven coke having a higher heating value than hard coal and at a price about two-thirds of that paid for that kind of fuel of which in 1923 Canada imported 5,167,881 tons. Had that tonnage of anthracite been replaced by Canadian coke, it would have increased the market for our soft coal by say 7,000,000 tons. Canada in the same year, 1923, imported 17,519,439 tons of soft coal. Had we bought this coal from our own mines to the extent of four-fifths of these two quantities, or say twenty million tons, we would have retained in Canada over one hundred millions of dollars, provided a larger traffic to our railways and afforded employment to 37,000 men and boys who, working an average of 280 days per year at an average yearly wage of $2,500 each would have earned $92,500,000, thus leaving seven and a half million dollars to meet the cost of mining supplies and overhead charges. Why do we not do it?

Mr. CANTLEY:

At the time I refer to,

when we bought out the Hudson's Bay Company, there was very little settlement in the western provinces.

Mr. CANTLEY:

The Address-Mr. Cantley

horse-power for about six to ten dollars per year. Under the circumstances we could not compete with them, because in the cutting of nails pow'er was the largest item in the cost of manufacture. That gives you a concrete example of the advantages derived by manufacturers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in connection with the power privileges from the system of canals.

This great lake commerce made possible by and dependent upon the Canadian canal system is reflected in the enormous tonnage passing through the Soo canal, the main artery of the west. The contribution the Maritime provinces have made and are continuously making towards the construction, extension, repair and operation of this great free transport system, useful only for the more favoured provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and the central west, is seemingly quite overlooked or, if realized by those who profit most, is seldom if indeed ever acknowledged.

Per contra, the Maritime provinces were contributors to the purchase of the prairie land, the policing, settling, early government, and opening out of the country for settlement, aiding immigration, quelling rebellions, building the Canadian Pacific railway, guaranteeing the Canadian National and Grand Trunk Pacific bonds, and constructing the Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge- all projects foreign to our necessities, but to which the Atlantic provinces have contributed their full per capita proportion of cost, interest and upkeep. And yet the Maritime provinces, when they ask that their larger, richer predominating partners abide by the promise they have given, are told that the Intercolonial railway is regarded as the milch cow of the Maritime provinces. To this taunt, and it has been made if I mistake not in this House in years past, it might then have been retorted that the Canadian canal system is the champagne locker of the central provinces, shared in some degree with our American coal and steel competitors. The milch cow of the Maritime provinces forsooth! We got the cow in exchange for our independence. We have fed her, and the older and central provinces have both the milk and the manure, and the Minister of Agriculture, when sometimes he feels his bowels of compassion moved, throws some of the latter product back to us. That is all we get.

At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.

Thursday, February 11, 1926