Introduction
The Maritime Rights Movement began in 1919 due to the post-confederation. The confederation resulted in national policies that were unfair to the Maritime Provinces. The movement became prominent in early 1920s from the time when rural protests in Canada were staged to protest for better treatment of the Maritimes by the federal government, to the time when the Duncan Commission was established in 1926 by Canada’s Prime Minister of the time Mackenzie King to address the issues raised by the Maritime Rights Movement. The movement agitated for the central government of Canada to address political, economic and social needs of the Maritimes. The movement acted as a uniting factor for the people of Maritimes Provinces in the fight for their rights and interests. Common social and economic interests encouraged unity in the Maritime region.
Issues leading to the Maritime Rights Movement (1919-1920)
The Confederation of 1867 caused social, political and economic problems to the Maritimers. What first emerged as a project intended to create a liberal order in Northern North America resulted in disparities.[1] Canada’s Maritime policies went against the wishes and interests of Maritimers, causing them to agitate for their rights. Various groups from the Maritimes emerged in favor of the Maritimes rights. The complaints of the Maritimers were often disregarded by the federal government. To make things even worse for the Maritimers, other regions also discouraged the Maritimers by brushing off their complaints and ridiculing them with sarcasm and abusive utterances.
Forbes (1983) suggests that the anger shown by Maritimers took shape during and after World War I. Therefore, this period was a time of thorough preparation for a rather time ahead for the Maritimers. The three Maritime Provinces’ governments resolved to fight for central government to settle their financial claims. The Civil society leaders also called for the organization of “a Maritime Popular League” to fight for the demands of the Maritime Provinces.[2] University Spokesmen, farmer organizations, church newspapers and labor unions protested against. The national policies neglected the Maritime’s financial claims. This made the governments of the three provinces unable to pay trained teachers enough salaries or implement social welfare reforms including allowances of mothers which were already operational in other provinces of Canada.
Groups led by the Maritimes Board of Trade also made their claims to the federal parliament concerning freight rates and transportation policies which they said were unfair to them. In 1919, the board agreed that it was paramount for the Maritimers to unite in order for their voices to be more audible in the ears of the federal government. Various organizations then united and forgot their differences to stage unity for the benefit of Maritime’s economic, social and political prosperity.[3] Labor unions also emerged in 1919 to fight for improved wages and salaries as inflation rates hit the economy harder than ever. They demonstrated through strikes several times between 1919 and 1920. However, the laborers were also aware that their needs could not only be met with their strikes while other sectors of the economy were dwindling as a result of the poor national policies. Labor union leaders recognized the fact that the high freight rates occasioned by the confederation affected maritime workers as much as other Maritimers.
Historian Forbes posits that the regionalism of the Maritime Provinces that occurred early 20th century was a major cause of the Maritimes movement.[4] It was important for the Maritime Provinces to cooperate if their economic and social needs were to be addressed successfully. Regionalism also resisted the national policies which were perceived to have increased pressure on the governments of Maritime Provinces to implement expensive reforms. To overcome these problems, Maritimes’ regionalism considered that unity was the most viable solution to the problems of the Maritimers. This led to increased regional awareness which caused increased support for the Maritime Rights.
Policies on the intercolonial railway also caused regionalism in the Maritimes. Those who supported the Maritimes opted for the intercolonial railway to be managed from the Maritime Provinces while people from the prairies and central Canada opposed such a move. Manufacturers who united to fight for the inter-colonial railway played a crucial role in the formation of Maritime Rights Movement in 1920.[i] De facto jurisdiction of intercolonial Railway was moved to the Board of Railway Commissioners. This raised freight rates to the level of Ontario’s rates. The freight rates escalated between 140% and 216% in the Maritimes in 1920.[5] Cancelling of special rates such as sugar rates also caused agitations from the Maritimes. The rates also affected Maritime merchants and consumers; hence occasioned unity of purpose by all the affected Maritimers.
Maritime Rights Movement (1921-1925)
The Maritime Rights Movement peaked in 1921 after the first world war of 1919-1920. Post-confederation problems caused severe economic recession to the Maritime region after the First World War. As a result of the recession, many Maritimers left their homes and closed their businesses. Several business people migrated to the New England area due to the low freight rates at their port as compared to the Maritimes.[6] These problems became so detrimental that the people had to fight for the Maritimes Rights. The Maritimes Rights Movement was initiated to be the channel of communication of maritime issues, agitation, and unity of the Maritimers.
The Maritimes Rights movement fought for fair freight rates, nondiscrimination against the Maritimers and easy access to resources such as ports and railroads. This is evidenced by the primary source of figure which represents a drawing that shows how the Maritimers organized themselves for the war, and some of the issues that they needed addressed. This primary source was obtained from the Acadia University archives and has been cited by many Historians including Forbes. The figure indicates that various groups had come together to join the Maritimes movement in its fight for the equal rights of the Maritimes. These groups include: Maritime Club of Moncton, Maritime Club of St. John, Maritime Club of Halifax, and Maritime Club of Truro.[7] These groups represented various interests of the Maritimes. Some of them including the Maritime Club of Halifax had been formed earlier before the Maritime Rights Movement in order to fight for the rights of the Maritimers.
Development of merchants and commercial ports as points of entrants by Canadian winter trade affected the interests of the Maritimers.[8] In 1922, a group of manufacturers and merchants from Halifax and Saint John formed a committee which coordinated their agitations on reclamation of the Inter-colonial and enhanced access to the Maritime Ports. The tasks of the Maritimes Rights Movement was also organized by the Maritime manufacturers and merchants supported by certain prominent Maritime personalities such as W.A. Black of the Pickford firm. W.A. Black came out after his retirement to vie during the 1923 by-election of Halifax on a Maritime Rights ticket. This was opposed by his physician and his wife who feared that the move could affect him negatively.
A business group referred to as Lumbermen who dealt with lumbering business also joined the movement in 1921 in order to ensure that their interests were catered for. According to them, the Fordney Tariff increased the American duty. This was made worse through the increased freight rates. Another interested individual, Angus Maclean of the Bathurst Company also asked the Prime Minister of Canada Mackenzie King to offer relief on freight rates and tariffs.[9] Mackenzie King did not give in to such demands. As a result, Angus and other lumbermen supported the candidates of the conservative Maritimes Rights party in the 1925 federal election. Maclean played a key role in the Maritimes Rights Movement while he was the Maritime Board of Trade’s president.
Following the agitation of labor unions earlier in 1919, workers did not have to be forced into the Maritime Rights Movement later in 1920s.[ii] In 1923 by-election, labor supported the Maritimes Rights, resulting in the election of W.A. Black to the parliament. Another personality, Neil Herman, also used his position as a labor organizer and the editor of Halifax Citizen Media to fight for the rights of the Maritimes and sought support for the movement from newspaper media in Quebec and Ontario.
Farmers also contributed to the Maritimes Movement in quite a number of ways. Farmers had been affected negatively by the increased freights as producers and consumers. Due to community disintegration and inevitable depopulation in rural areas that were caused by the First World War, farmers joined the Maritime Rights Movement in order to support the reforms of the Maritime area in its quest for equality, fairness and vigilance on human rights. The Maritime farmers joined some associations and organizations such as Canadian Council of Agriculture which was prairies-dominated. Maritime farmers were also attracted to the movement through the United Farmers’ Guide.[10] Due to the domination of prairies in the farmers’ association, the association largely supported national policies that were in some way discriminatory to the Maritime Provinces. As a result, Maritime farmers slowly withdrew their support for the farmers’ association in order to provide substantial support of the movement.
4. The Duncan Commission (1926-1927)
After the1925 federal elections, the Maritime Rights Movement became strong and its pleas were heard by the federal government. This was largely contributed by the great influence of regional issues and the increased representation of Maritime Rights candidates in the elections by 24.1% in Nova Scotia, 20.3% in New Brunswick and 10.8% in Prince Edward Island.[11] The King government then became a minority. As a result, the king appointed a royal commission led by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, a British lawyer with a good industrial experience. He also promised to implement the commission’s recommendations as the 1926 elections came closer.
After a thorough study of Maritime issues, Duncan gave recommendations for the Commission. His recommendations mainly called for and supported subsidizations by the government. Duncan called for an immediate increase in subsidies in order to enable the Maritime region to come to a fair equality with other regions. The commission also recommended that freight rates should be reduced by 20% throughout the Maritimes.[12] It also argued that port development should be enhanced through federal funds that were to be provided through Halifax’s and St. John’s National Harbours boards. Other recommendations included an introduction of one other car ferry for Prince Edward Island and subsidization of the Maritime Steel Producers. Recommendations were not provided on tariffs because Maritimers were divided on the issue. Giving recommendations would favor one side of the Maritimes.
The report was supported and positively commented across the nation. The prime minister also promised to implement the commission because he wanted to rebuild his party which had lost support from the Maritime Provinces. However, the new ministers in the King’s cabinet hampered the implementation of the Duncan recommendation. The Minister of Finance J.A. Robb claimed that the implementation would interfere with tax reduction policies.[13] Furthermore, the new cabinet inflated the cost of implementing the provisions of the commission. Implementation of the recommendations was also opposed by Prairie representatives whose intention was to use the recommendations of the commission for the benefit of their own regions. As a result of the oppositions to the implementation of the report, Maritime Rights leaders vowed to start new fights in 1927 if the report was not implemented.[iii] This led the Cabinet to agree compromisingly on implementation of more significant recommendations such as subsidy increase, reduction in freight rates, and increased access to the coal market. The King suggested that any recommendations that were not mentioned were not rejected; instead, they were halted for further study.
Conclusion
Post-confederation federal policies led to various social, economic and political problems in the Maritime region. Merchants, manufacturers, farmers, fishermen and workers in the Maritime region experienced difficulties following the federal policies of the confederation. Freight rates increased, tariffs became unfavorable for merchants, cost of production for farmers increased, and the cost of living for consumers also became unbearable. Freight rates and the movement of the management of Inter-colonial to Ontario became one of the major reasons for agitations by merchants. Political classes, labor unions, individuals and other organizations with interests in the Maritime region joined hands in support of the Maritime Rights through the Maritime Rights Movement. They fought for a good representation of their interests in the federal government since 1921, and they achieved that goal in 1926. Due to their increased political influence, leaders from the region were then granted their wish through the formation of Duncan Commission that addressed their issues.
References
[1] Forbes, E.R. (1983). Aspects of Maritime Regionalism, 1867-1927. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association.p23
[2] Forbes, E. R. 1980. The Maritime Rights Movement: 1919 – 1927: a study in Canadian regionalism. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
[3] Rusty, B., Mackinnon, R.A. and Wynn, G. (1993). Of inequality and interdependence in the Nova Scotian countryside, 1850-70. Canadian Historical Review, 74(1), 1-43.
[4] Forbes, E. R. 1980. The Maritime Rights Movement: 1919 – 1927: a study in Canadian regionalism. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
[5] McKay, I. 2000. The Liberal Order Framework: A Prospectus for a Reconnaissance of Canadian History. Canadian Historical Review, 81: 618
[6] Forbes, E.R. (1983). Aspects of Maritime Regionalism, 1867-1927. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association.p159
[7] Rusty, B., Mackinnon, R.A. and Wynn, G. (1993). Of inequality and interdependence in the Nova Scotian countryside, 1850-70. Canadian Historical Review, 74(1), 27
[8] Belanger, C. (2001). The Maritime Provinces, the Maritime Rights’ Movements and the Canadian Federalism. Marianopolis College, Department of History.p87
[9] McKay, I. 2000. The Liberal Order Framework: A Prospectus for a Reconnaissance of Canadian History. Canadian Historical Review, 81: 635
[10] Forbes, E. R. 1980. The Maritime Rights Movement: 1919 – 1927: a study in Canadian regionalism. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
[11] Belanger, C. (2001). The Maritime Provinces, the Maritime Rights’ Movements and the Canadian Federalism. Marianopolis College, Department of History.p34
[12] Forbes, E.R. (1983). Aspects of Maritime Regionalism, 1867-1927. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association.p121
[13] Forbes, E.R. (1983). Aspects of Maritime Regionalism, 1867-1927. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association.p132
[i] Forbes, E.R. (1983). Aspects of Maritime Regionalism, 1867-1927. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association.
[ii] McKay, I. 2000. The Liberal Order Framework: A Prospectus for a Reconnaissance of Canadian History. Canadian Historical Review, 81: 617-645.
[iii] Belanger, C. (2001). The Maritime Provinces, the Maritime Rights’ Movements and the Canadian Federalism. Marianopolis College, Department of History.
