1922-05-04

CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I move:
That the name of Mr. Marler he substituted for that of Mr. Martell on the Select Standing

Questions
Committee on Mines and Minerals, and the name of Mr. Martell he substituted for that of Mr. Marler on the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The object of this
bill is to afford proper protection of our salmon and lobster fisheries. Both these fisheries are conducted beyond, as well as within, territorial waters. Heretofore our regulations, which have applied to both, have never been challenged. But we have been informed that they may be challenged in some part of the country, especially in British Columbia; and the Department of Justice is of opinion that the regulations should be implemented by legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate), for the relief of Abraham Leibovitz.-Mr. Me- , Quarrie.

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

Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Under what conditions and regulations are Japanese Immigrants admitted into Canada?
2.	In what way are the rights of Canadians in Japan limited as to ownership of land, franchise, mercantile pursuits, fishing, shipping (coastwise and foreign), mining, agriculture, and other pursuits such as are engaged in by Japanese in Canada?
3.	What is the number of Japanese immigrants that have entered Canada yearly in each of the ten years ending March 31, 1922?
4.	How many Japanese have left Canada for Japan, each year, during the same period?
5.	How many Japanese have returned to Canada from Japan each year during the same period?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be able to give an answer to this question to-morrow.
Question stands.



GATINEAU POINT-ROCKLIFFE FERRY PRIVILEGES

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Has the Government called for tenders this year in connection with ferry privileges between Gatineau Point and Rockliffe?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who submitted tenders and what was the amount in each case?
3.	Who was the privilege accorded to and what was the reason governing the award of same?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: In explanation of the delay in answering this question, I may say that tenders have been called for and received for this service, but a license has not yet been issued.



INCOME TAX STATISTICS

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How much revenue did the income tax produce in the last fiscal year?
2.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of $2,000 per year, last year?
3.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $2,000 and less than $3,000?
4.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $3,000 and less than $4,000?
5.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $4,000 and less than $5,000?
6.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $5,000 and less than $10,000?
7.	Whait amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $10,000 and less than $20,000?
8.	What amount was paid by persons having
incomes of over $20,000.	.


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How much revenue did the income tax produce in the Province of Manitoba in the last fiscal year?
2.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of $2,000, per year, last year?
3.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $2,000 and less than $3,000?
4.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $3,000 and less than $4,000?
5.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $4,000 and less than $5,000?
6.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $5,000 and less than $10,000?
7.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $10,000 and less than $20,000?
8.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $20,000.


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	$6,014,254.39.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6.-No information.
7 and 8. Compilation of statistics for the last fiscal year (31st March, 1922) has not been completed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How much revenue did the income tax produce in the city of Winnipeg in the last fiscal year?
2.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of $2,000, per year, last year?
3.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $2,000 and less than $3,000?
4.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $3,000 and less than $4,000?
5.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $4,000 and less than $5,000?
6.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $5,000 and less than $10,000?
7.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $10,000 and less than $20,000?
8.	What amount was paid by persons having incomes of over $20,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No information available, as statistics have not been compiled according to municipalities.



ROUMANIAN AND GREEK CREDITS

Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Have the Governments of Roumania and Greece paid any interest to the Canadian Government on the loans made in 1919?
2.	If not, has the Government taken any steps looking to the payment of such interest, and (b) how much is now owing for interest?
3.	How much is now owing by the Governments of Roumania and Greece on account of principal of the indebtedness incurred through the credits advanced these countries?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	As to Roumania, no; as to Greece, yes.
2.	Yes; (b) by Roumania to March 31, 1922, $2,606,652.20; by Greece, to December 31, 1921, $196, 424.19.
3.	By Roumania, $20,449,104.49; by Greece, $7,520,473.17.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT-CHARTERED BANKS

Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton) :: What is the total amount paid by the Chartered Banks in Canada under the corporation clause of the Income War Tax Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Income Tax, $786,653.17; Special War Revenue Act (on note circulation), $4,278,420.87; total, $5,065,074.04.
The amount paid under the provisions of Part I of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, shall be considered as a deduction of tax payable under Income War Tax Act, 1917.



C. G. S. CHAMPLAIN

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Have notes given by the Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping and Trading Company, Limited, and endorsed by Messrs. Thomas Harling and Clark Brothers, in payment for the Canadian Government Steamship Champlain, been redeemed?
2.	If not, what amounts are still outstanding?
3.	What action does the Government contemplate taking against the Company or the endorsers of the notes to recover payment?


Ernest Lapointe: 1 and 2. The steamer Champlain was sold to the Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping and Trading Company for $61,050. A cash payment of $13,102.50 was made and notes for 3, 6, 9 and 12 months dated May 1, 1920, accepted for the balance. One of these notes for $12,000 was paid on maturity. The notes for 6, 9 and 12 months for $12,000, $12,000 and $11,997.50 respectively have not been redeemed.
3.	The Department of Justice has taken action to recover amount of notes from the endorsers.



RETAIL DRUGGISTS-ALCOHOL PURCHASES

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Has the Government or the Finance Ministers received a request from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association for an amendment of the existing law with respect to the purchase of alcohol by retail druggists, for the manufacture of medicinal, pharmaceutical and other preparations?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to comply with such request, either in whole or in part, and amend the regulations, and to provide, subject to proper safeguards, restrictions and regulations, for the purchase by retail druggists of alcohol for such purposes, at approximately the same rate of excise duty as that payable by the large manufacturer?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	An Act of Parliament would be required to make such a change. Announcements respecting legislation dealing with taxation are made in the Budget Speech.

Questions



ST. JOHN HARBOUR

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What amount was expended by the Dominion Government on the harbour of St. John, New Brunswick, during the years 1911 to 1921, inclusive?
2.	What were the respective amounts expended on the said harbour during each of the said years?	_
3.	What was the nature of the work performed during above years on the said harbour?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1. and 2.
Fiscal year	Capital	Income	Voted	Expended	Voted	Expended1Q11 IQ 	$ cts. 950.000	00 1,100,000 00 3.100.000	00 3.000.	000 00 1.500.000	00 1.000.	000 00 1,000,000 00 500.000	00 1,000,000 00 1.250.000	00	$ cts. 579,059 21 1,100,155 02 2,668,626 97 2,999,950 20 1,132,533 45 997,308 25 446,905 13 266,725 95 997,720 57 1,249,735 80	$ cts. 27,500 00 25.000	00 71.000	00 150.000	00 150.000	00 100.000	00 301,400 00	$ cts. 24,412 93 24,930 84 17,774 10 2,731 06 982 99 730 00 3,066 891Q19 13 	1Qia 14 	1Q14 IS 	1Q1S 1fi 	1Q1fi 17 	1917 is 	
1920-21					
Total		14,400,000 00	12,438,720 55	824,900 00	74,268 81
Total amount voted-$15,224,900.00. Expended $12,512,989.36.
3.	Work consisted in the construction of new wharves and the improvement of wharves on the west side of St. John harbour, and repairs to old breakwaters, also the construction of a new breakwater and the dredging of a channel from the main channel up to the basin in front of the dry-dock now under construction in Courtenay bay under the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, also the dredging of the main harbour and slips and berths therein.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GRAIN LEAKAGES

Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	What was the cost to the Canadian National railways of leakages of grain, from cars, between points of shipment and the head of the lakes, during the past railway year?
2.	What was .the cost to the said railways of new grain doors, and repairs to grain doors upon grain cars, during the same season?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: The information in answer to this question will have to come from Winnipeg, and it will probably be about ten days before I can give the information to the House.
Question stands.



IMPROVED FISHING METHODS

Hon. Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Does the Government intend to take any action on the application of W. A. Wick and others, asking for the introduction of improved methods in the fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Gaspesian coasts?
2.	If so, what action?


Ernest Lapointe: While preparations were in progress for such action, in view of the arrangement that was made with the provincial authorities, for the administration of the fisheries on that portion of the coast, it was decided to discontinue them, and the provincial authorities were so informed.



EXCESS OVERAGES

Mr. SALES:: 1.	What terminal elevator companies have paid moneys to the Government by reason of excess overages?
2.	What terminal elevator companies owing money on excess overages have not yet paid?
3.	What are the names of these companies and the amounts owing by them for the year 1919-20 and the year 1920-21?
4.	Why have the companies referred to in question 2 not paid?
5.	Has the right of the Government been definitely challenged in regard to enforcement of payments?
6.	If so, what is the policy of the Government in respect to the challenge, and also in respect to companies who have not challenged the authority of the government but who have paid the moneys?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. For the 1920 weigh-up, the following terminal elevator companies paid moneys to the Government by reason of excess overages:-Empire Elevator Co., United Grain Growers, Fort William Elevator Co., Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Co., Port Arthur Elevator Co., Thunder

Questions

Bay Elevator Co., Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Co.
2.	For the 1920 weigh-up the Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. has not yet paid.
For the 1921 weigh-up the following companies have not yet paid: Canadian Pacific Railway Co., Consolidated Elevator Co., Western Terminal Elevator Co., United Grain Growers, Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Co., Northwestern Elevator Co.
3.	1919-20-
Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. $49,027.07
Canadian Pacific Railway Co...	29,184.17
Consolidated Elevator Co		3,432.73
Western Terminal Elevator Co. 47,907.42
United Grain Growers	 41,971.05
G. T. P. Terminal Elevator Co. 5,697.45 Northwestern Elevator Co		2,331.24
4.	Because the right of the Government to these overages has 'been contested.
5.	Yes.
6.	The matter is at present under the consideration of the Department of Justice.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What has been the cost of the trips to Europe of the ministers of the Canadian Gov-eminent during the war period and since?
2.	What has been the cost for each minister who attended any of the after war conferences
-tr ^>aris' Geneva or elsewhere in Europe?
3.	How much, if any, has each one of such ministers returned to the Treasury of the amounts allowed for such trips over and above their actual expenses ?
4.	What are the names of such Ministers and the respective amounts allowed to each, as well as the amounts returned by each?



CROWSNEST PASS AGREEMENT


William Costello Kennedy: That notwithstanding that the regulation of railway rates is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, it is advisable that a Select Special Committee be appointed to make inquiry into the question of railway transportation costs, it having been disclosed by recent conferences held between the Government and the chief executives of the various railways with respect to the reduction of freight rates that the representatives of the railways deem it inadvisable immediately to reduce rates on basic commodities because of the expiration, on July 6th, 1922, of the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement;
That, in the circumstances, it is advisable to afford opportunity to all interested parties to submit their views upon the subject matter of the inquiry to the said committee with partl-

cular regard to the effect of the rates established by the Crowsnest pass agreement upon Canadian National railways and other lines, as well as upon agricultural development and Canadian industry generally;
And that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, including the minutes and evidence taken before the Committees of this House in previous Sessions, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.
He said: The resolution just read states the reasons why it is considered at the present time in the public interest to appoint the committee proposed. When this Government assumed office there was, as there is to-day, a general feeling throughout the country that freight rates were unduly high and that they not only interfered with, but were oppressive to, the trade and commerce of the country. The Government were anxious there should be an immediate and substantial reduction in the rates, and while this could be effected in part by allowing the Crownest pass agreement to become once more operative in July next, it was felt that the matter was of such' far-reaching importance that the Government would not be justified in permitting this to take place without having a committee of the House appointed to inquire mto the effect which such a revival of the agreement might have, and to make such recommendations as, in the public interest, that committee might deem advisable. As intimated in the speech I delivered to the House on the railway situation a short time ago, the Government, soon after its assumption of office, had a conference with the heads of the Canadian National Railways, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with a view to securing, if possible, a voluntary reduction m rates^ on those products known as basic commodities. The matter was thoroughly investigated and as a result of the conference, the executive of the railways felt that, in view of the fact that the Crowsnest pass agreement would expire on July 6, it was not advisable at the present time, however desirable it might be, that any immediate reduction should be made. As hon. members know, the Crowsnest pass agreement is an undertaking entered into in 1897 by the Government of that day with the Canadian Pacific Railway whereby, in consideration of a subsidy, freight rates on certain commodities were limited. That agreement stood until 1918, when the United States Government, through its Labour Board, increased the wages of the railway employees in that country. The employees on the Canadian

Crowsnest Agreement
lines thereupon made application for a similar increase in their wages. The Order in Council which made the McAdoo award effective on government owned lines and recommended its adoption on privately owned railways authorized the Board of Railway Commissioners to prepare a schedule of rates which would grant increases in freight rates in Canada similar to the increases that had already been granted in American territory. The Board of Railway Commissioners prepared such a schedule of rates which was given effect by Order in Council of July 27, 1918, under the War Measures Act, authorizing the board to set aside the Crowsnest pass agreement or any other rate-limiting agreement. This Order in Council remained effective until the revision of the Railway Act was under consideration in 1919, when, by subsection 5 of section 325, authority was granted the Railway Commissioners to set aside the Crowsnest pass agreement for a period of three years from the passing of the act. That period of suspension expires on July 6, 1922. The Consolidated Railway Act came before Parliament for revision, having first been dealt with by the Senate, and was referred to a select committee of the House, and it was that committee that finally incorporated in the bill subsection 5 of section 325 to which I have just referred. The bill was passed and returned as amended to the Senate. The Senate objected to this section in its original form, and a conference was held between the managers of the two Houses. Sir Robert Borden afterwards intimated that it would be satisfactory to the Senate if acceptable to the House that a limitation be made in subsection 5; and the limit was then fixed in that subsection at a period of three years from the passing of the act in 1919.
To-day the railway companies have come to us and represented that they are in exactly the same position in which they were in 1918. They are faced with the still increased costs of labour and materials and they declare that if the Crowsnest pass agreement goes into effect on July 6 it will mean a loss of millions of dollars, adding to the already very heavy deficit of the Canadian National Railways, and materially affecting the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway. On the other hand, there are those who contend that the reduction in freight rates would stimulate business and bring about increased activity, which would result in greater earnings for
89J	7?;
the railways. Furthermore, they add, there is the possibility that in a very short time there will be a further decrease in wages in the United States, which would in all probability apply in Canada as well, and that the railways would not suffer the loss they claim would ensue. But there is another reason why the matter should be considered by a special committee. The Board of Railway Commissioners, in the last adjustment made in September, 1920, through its chairman, Mr. Carvell, gave this judgment:
As our jurisdiction for granting increases on certain lines of railway in Western Canada depends entirely upon the amendment to section 325 of the Railway Act, 1919, which expires on the 6tli day of July 1922, the rates hereby established cannot continue beyond that date unless Parliament in its wisdom sees fit to extend the provisions of that section. Therefore, the rates herein provided for shall not extend beyond the first day of July, 1922.
The Railway Board have themselves put the matter up to Parliament. So far as the Crowsnest pass agreement is concerned, they have no jurisdiction because it is a matter of statute; and I may say that it is not the intention of the Government, nor is it the desire, to interfere in any way with the functions or the duties of the Board of, Railway Commissioners. The Board of Railway Commissioners are the proper authorities to fix rates. In so far as the Government is concerned, this committee is to deal specifically with the Crowsnest pass agreement, not with the general question of rates. It may. be necessary, in order to deal intelligently with this matter, to get information with reference to rates, in their application to this agreement and the committee will determine this under the powers conferred upon it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have only to say that this is a matter of great importance to this country from every standpoint, agricultural, business and railway, and the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement or its continuation should have the very careful consideration of every hon. member. The Government is anxious to have this committee obtain the fullest possible information that can be gathered in connection with this matter so that it may recommend to Parliament what will be in the interests of all the people of this country.
At a later stage of the proceedings I shall move the nomination of the members of the committee.
Crowsnest Agreement


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the subject involved in the resolution has not only commanded the attention of the Parliaments of Canada for years, but since Confederation has been one of the main problems confronting the country. The construction, control and general supervision of our railway systems has, in the very nature of things, been one of the great difficulties that our people have had to overcome.
Canada is a vast country, and when she essayed the task of confederating all of British North America, she did so at a time when her population was sparse, and when consequently the burden of transportation was heavy relative to the number of taxpayers to sustain it. Therefore, in the very fact of our geography, in the very fact of our sparse population, lie the roots of the great transportation problem with which we have wrestled through these fifty years; and that we should now be faced with that problem virtually only in the form of a question of rate reduction is a matter of some congratulation.
I think the people have wanted neither in courage, nor intelligence, nor practical business capacity in the manner in which they have addressed themselves to this question, faced all its difficulties, and surmounted them one by one; and in my humble judgment, though we have made mistakes, and one major mistake, we have surmounted those difficulties so successfully that we find ourselves to-day with the greater number of them behind us. .
That there should be at this time a demand for a reduction of railway rates is natural. We have had that demand before us with growing insistence for months past. In the period of the war, for reasons very indirectly referred to by the minister (Mr. Kennedy), increases of rates were not only necessary, they were so manifestly inevitable that there was no difference of opinion as to bringing them about. After the war ended, the problem instead of being an easier one, really assumed dimensions greater still. Later on we met with the first movement towards reduction of rates, a slight reduction taking effect on the first of January, 1921, to the extent of five per cent, under an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners. On first December, 1921, a ten per cent reduction was made. These reductions were ordered conformably with the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement to which the hon. gentleman

refers. Since that time the Railway Commission has made no further reductions.
I refer to these matters now-I shall refer to them at greater length perhaps before I close-only to put in proper perspective the situation as we meet it today.
I say it is only natural that the people at this time should' urgently seek for a further reduction in railway rates. One of the vital, indeed, one of the indispensable conditions' of confederation is low railway rates. We undertook at Confederation to construct a nation on this portion of the North American continent. We then had but three or four Millions of people, if we had that number; our territory was four thousand miles in width, and our fathers foresaw that if we were to make a nation we must not only bind that territory with transportation routes, but we must make the conditions of transportation over those routes such that trade would actually flow over them and the bonds of commerce unite the provinces, thereby making progress as a unit possible, and the prosperity of the people a living truth.
We met the same difficulty in relation to our trade question. Historically we have solved that problem along certain lines, and whether rightly or wrongly-in my judgment, of course, I think rightly-the people have solved it every time it came before them in a consistent form with a desire to so direct our trade as also to bind our provinces in trade relations that would be 'healthful and secure.
Virtually the same question that confronted us in trade matters confronts us in transportation matters. It has always been deemed essential that our rates of transportation, even at considerable cost to the national treasury, .should be such that our trade to the utmost extent should flow east and west-that we realy should have a commercial entity which is a fundamental requisite of our continuing as a national entity. Consequently this Dominion has by no means been parsimonious in its treatment of railway companies. On the contrary, we have sought by generous treatment of railway transportation companies to make railway construction possible. We have sought as well by like treatment, even at the expense of the whole nation, to make possible low transportation rates. Canada has borne those burdens as a nation since its inception, in order that the rates of transportation might be such that what might be described geographically as the natural routes of trade would not fatally

, Crowsnest Agreement
interfere with, at least would not predominate in competition with, what was essential to the primary continuance of Confederation-our east-and-west routes of trade.
Therefore we have at all times sought this goal, and never did our people seek it more ardently, never did1 they seek it more devotedly and insistently, than they do at the present time. At all Costs our railway rates must Ibe cut down. I do not say on whom the burden shall wholly fall-it may have to rest on certain classes, probably in part on the whole Dominion; I am not discussing that at all-but the rates of transportation in this country must come down because the present rates are inconsistent with that flow of trade which is an indispensable necessity to the continuance of our country as a real commercial entity.
I do not think there is any great difference of opinion on that score. There is a difference of opinion as to the order and the method in which it shall be done. The railways take one view, and the majority of the people, I think, take another. There must be a disposition to be fair on both sides, but one thing is imperative, and the sooner all come to the conclusion the better: we must have not only lower, but very substantially lower, freight rates in this country generally, and that in a very short time.
Now, what is the history of the treatment of this question? For years it was dealt with in this Parliament. Railways are not a commercial proposition in that independent sense that most others of our industries are. Railways, in the evolution of trade, have become more or less-first less, then more, and now almost wholly- natural monopolies. They must have monopolistic rights of a character; they must have rights of eminent domain. Consequently there grew up in time the doctrine that there must be a review of rates and charges made by companies engaged in railway transportation on the part of the public-that is, on the part of Parliament-differing entirely from that which Parliament would think wise to exercise in relation to ordinary business. That responsibility Parliament itself sought for a long time to discharge, but subsequently it became the function of a committee of the Privy Council. Subsequently, in the year 1903, it was vested by this House in what became known as the Railway Commission of Canada. That Railway Commission was appointed; it was established for the purpose of exercising with respect to all transportation companies that very supervision and review in relation to railway rates, in relation to the distribution of facilities, in relation to the charges to be made for one facility and the other,-in relation, indeed, to all matters that affected the public. It was established, I say, for the purpose of. exercising that review in a manner fair to the public on the one hand and fair to the railways on the other. That legislation was concurred in by all parties in this House. From that time there has been vested in the commission this function, and the major part of it has been that control of the rates for which primarily it was created.
Now, I am not here to discuss at this moment at all the discharge of its duties by the Railway Commission. On the whole, it has undoubtedly been a splendid institution and has rendered great service to Canada. What, however, is the history of the immediate question dealt with or presumed to be dealt with by this resolution?
In 1897, before the creation of the Railway Commission, an agreement was entered into between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the government of Canada whereby, in lieu of certain cash subventions connected with the constitution of the Crowsnest Pass Railway, amounting, I understand, to approximately $4,000,000, the railway company on its part undertook indefinitely to grant certain commodity rates, chiefly on grain passing from western Canada through Fort William eastward, but also on live stock passing from provinces east through Fort William westward. In addition, a somewhat arbitrary selection was made of commodities moving westward from the eastern provinces into the prairies, and certain fixed rates were agreed to be adopted by the company as respects those commodities. The railway company lived up to its obligations as respects that agreement continuously until the year 1918. The living up to its obligations on the part of the Canadian Pacific entailed not only the extension of the application of the agreement to its own largely enhanced mileage both west and east, but entailed as well, in order to get business, the application of the same rates on the same or approximately the same commodities, by other competing companies. As a consequence, those rates became virtually universal.
Crowsnest Agreement

In 1918, the year at which the incidence of the war and all its dangers were at their worst, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States made an order in respect of railway wages known as the McAdoo award. There were many subsequent orders on the part of the Chicago board, and all of these had the result of very materially-indeed, drastically-elevating the whole level of railway wages in that country. Our railways are, to an extent, international-that is, to the extent that many of them cross the boundary. They are international also in this respect: the organizations of employees that man our roads are of an international character. The situation that confronted the govern-men, then, was this: These increased wages having taken effect in the United States, there naturally arose a demand-indeed, the demand was inevitable-that they similarly take effect on the Canadian portions of the roads and throughout our country. And beyond question-though we need not go back and put ourselves in the same position just now-beyond question, we would have been confronted at that crucial time with a very serious tie-up-yes, paralysis, if not the destruction of our entire transportation work-had not the demand been met. The railways found themselves in the position that they could not meet the demand, largely because of the general level of the rates, but as well because of the rates in force under the Crowsnest pass agreement. The general level could not equitably be raised unless the impediment of that agreement were removed. Consequently, the government of that time- and hon. members will remember the constitution of the government then-in deference to the imperious demand that the war Situation imposed upon us in this country, determined that its duty was courageously to face the situation, to remove the impediment and at all costs bring about conditions under which transportation would move in Canada as it had to move if the war on our part was to be conducted. So that under the powers vested in us by Parliament, certain railway rates recommended to the government unanimously by the Railway Commission of that time were established by Order in Council, P.C. 1863 of the 27th of July, 1918. These rates, let me repeat, were the rates that in the judgment of the Railway Commission were essential if the objects sought were to be gained, namely, the moving of our commerce. They were established, and that they might be, the Crowsnest pass agreement was for the time being 
suspended. In 1919, as hon. gentlemen well know, though the war was over in the sense that the armistice had for some months been signed, the conditions that the war brought about were more marked, more accentuated, more acute, than they had been even the year before. That, indeed, was in part due to further increases of wages made by the Chicago Railway Board, which had precisely the same effect as respects Canadian wages as the McAdoo award of the previous year. The situation was met that year by the introduction to Parliament-indeed, the same had been done in I think, the two preceding years; one, anyway-of a general revision of the Railway Act of this country, The Government came to Parliament with a revision of that act. In the year 1919 the government of the day came first to the Senate-in an effort to distribute more equally the labours of Parliament-and laid before it the Government's proposals as to the revision of that act. Initially there was not included in it any reference whatever to the Crowsnest pass agreement. That bill came to and passed the House of Commons, but during its progress in this assembly the Government, after conferences with the Railway Commission, introduced subsection 5 of section 325 which in effect gave the Railway Commission free and untrammelled control of rates irrespective wholly of any special agreements that might have been entered into, and irrespective among other things, of the Crowsnest pass agreement itself. That was one of the amendments made in the Commons to the bill that came from the Senate, made at the instance of the Government. It was one among forty-three or forty-four amendments made, all of which amendments afterwards passed the Senate save four. Included in these four was this subsection 5 of section 325. In that form with the four clauses rejected the bill came back to the House of Commons. Managers were appointed for the two Houses, in accordance with our constitution. Those managers considered these four rejected amendments, and they adopted, after debate, subsection 5 of section 325. They suggested certain amendments to the other three, and in that form the managers reported to their respective bodies. Notwithstanding that subsection 5 of section 325 was accepted by the managers for the Senate, in the House ol Commons certain objection was then taken to it, chiefly on the part of the present hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. MAY 4, 1922
Crowsnest Agreement
MeQuarrie), who then sat for that constituency. After debate the Prime Minister of the day suggested that it. might be well, because he expected, as all of us did, that conditions would change in a short time, to limit the operation of the suspension to a fixed time, and finally he himself introduced in the Commons an amendment to the clause by which the operation of the suspension was limited to three years and was made to expire on the 7th day of July, 1922.
The bill passed the Commons, was accepted by the Senate, and became the law of the country.
While this suspension was in operation the Railway Commission found themselves able on the 1st of January, 1921, to make some reduction, very small, and to make a subsequent reduction on the first of December of the same year. In the summer of 1921, also, a large reduction was made on live stock rates. Previous to that, there had in the year 1920 been a very substantial increase made by the Railway Commission, an increase of forty per cent in eastern Canada, and an increase of thirty-five per cent in western Canada- these, however, accompanied by most important exceptions applicable to coal, applicable to milk, applicable to stone, gravel and other materials, which had the effect of modifying very considerably the forty per cent and the thirty-five per cent increases respectively.
There was an appeal taken from this decision on the part of many bodies, provincial governments and others, to the Governor in Council against the judgment of the Railway Commission. It may be interpolated here that in the original statute, continued ever since, though control was vested in this judicial tribunal, the Railway Commission, of rates and other matters of railway supervision, there was reserved to the government of the day a review in appeal over what the Railway Commission might do, that review being virtually untrammelled so far as the words of the act were concerned. Historically, such review has not been exercised save to the extent of referring the judgment back where it might appear there had been certain considerations of fact not brought to the attention of the Railway Commission in its consideration of the case, or wrong principles affecting public policy adopted. I think that as a matter of record there has been only one change, that all the other interferences consisted merely of references back.
In the fall of 1920, upon appeal, the government of the day, after hearing counsel for all parties and after fully considering the entire question, referred back the order of the Railway Board because in its belief there had been certain principles followed by the board which were not sound principles in point of public policy. One principle to which exception was taken was this: The Railway Board in its judgment had affirmed that in determining what railway rates should be, how far they should go in the way of fixing rates, regard should under the circumstances be had to the financial requirements of the Canadian National system. The government of the day felt that having regard to the basic purposes for which the various units of that system were constructed, the factors in determining the construction being in part colonization, in part political, at all events not wholly commercial, it was not a sound principle to follow for the Railway Commission to say they must be governed in their decision as to what were fair and equitable rates by the financial requirements of the Canadian National Railway system. Therefore, there was a reference back, in order that that principle might be reviewed and that a decision might be arrived at without regard at all to the needs of the Canadian National. There was a reference back on other matters bearing on the alleged discrimination between the rates prevailing in western Canada and in eastern Canada. On the reference hack the Railway Commission following the instructions, if you call them that, of the government, following the government's definition of what it believed to be true public policy on these matters, affirmed its decision previously arrived at, affirmed the rates therein set out.
It should, of course, be noted that in the original decision the board provided for monthly returns from all the companies, the three principal companies as it named them, and stated that upon those returns, if it appeared possible any month to effect reductions greater than those provided for in the decision itself, those reductions would be made. Anyway, the board affirmed its previous judgment, and since that time there have been made the two reductions of last year, but no more.
I should have said in the reference back made by the government of the decision of the commission in the fall of 1920, the government requested the Railway Board to make a general review of the whole railway rate position, with a view to
Crowsnest Agreement

seeing what reductions could be made from time to time of a general character, but with a view especially to the elimination of all complaints, if possible, as to discrimination. The board addressed itself to the task imposed upon it by the government, and has been since the fall of 1920 mainly employed in investigations throughout the length and breadth of our country in order to put itself in a position to decide definitely this most complicated, and difficult problem. But the board has stated, as read by the Minister of Railways, that it finds itself now confronted with the very same obstacles that, on the reverse journey, it confronted in the year 1918. In determining now upon reductions, just as then in determining upon increases, it finds its hands tied by the revival on the 6th of July of this year of the old Crowsnest pass agreement, and it virtually says to this Parliament: We cannot decide what we ought to do in the way of reductions of the multiplied tariffs that are before us; we cannot decide the question until we know what is going to become of the Crowsnest pass agreement on the 6th day of July next. And they rightly affirm: We have not the power to say "yes" or "no" as to that revival-that is a matter for Parliament, and for Parliament alone. Consequently the Railway Commission are on sound ground in saying: The burden, in so far as it is on us, is suspended until Parliament acts with respect to the Crowsnest pass agreement. Hence it cannot be argued, I think, with any show of success that there is default at the present time on the part of the Railway Commission. That appears to be the judgment of the Government itself, as evidenced in the address to the Minister of Railways. I could not help but reflect as he was speaking on the probable difficulty that he had in bringing his Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to that opinion. I could not help but reflect indeed on some of his own speeches delivered in less responsible days; yes on some of the speeches of his leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), but particularly on those defiant and rebellious utterances of the Minister of Agriculture when he laid the whole indictment of our high railway rates at the door of the Railway Commission, and particularly at the door of its chairman, and when he pronounced himself bound on a crusade to Ottawa to dethrone that iniquitous chief.
That brings us to the position as it meets Parliament now. The Government of the day faced with the responsibility-just as

we were faced with it in 1918 and in 1919- comes down with this resolution. I remarked in opening that we had historically in this country, though the obstacles were great, though the mountains were high, met them courageously and surmounted them in the main successfully-met them with intelligence, met them with practical business grasp. May I ask what is the spirit and the method with which the Government meets this situation now? It comes to Parliament and asks for a special committee of hon. members. To analyze this resolution, it asks for a special committee to inquire into transportation costs. That is the purpose of the resolution if it means what it says. There is nothing else that the committee is asked to do, save to inquire into the question of transportation costs. In the second paragraph, the resolution instructs the committee to listen to evidence on transportation rates, bearing particularly on the effect of the revival of the old Crowsnest pass agreement. Now the minister says this is a resolution asking Parliament to select a committee to consider the wisdom of the revival of the old Crowsnest pass agreement. It is not. If it was, my attitude to it would be just the same as it is now, but it is not that at all. It is for a committee to go into the whole question of transportation rates and to listen to evidence on the question of the revival of the old Crowsnest pass agreement. Very well let us take it to mean what the Minister of Railways says. Undoubtedly, in order to decide on the Crowsnest pass agreement revival, regard must be had to the general question of transportation rates. Intelligence-yes indeed, complete intelligence - must be exercised in relation to the question of general transportation rates. Of 4 p.m. that there is no doubt at all. This committee is going to be a commission, if the Government has its way, to review the whole question of transportation rates and to listen to evidence with a view, I presume, to reporting on the question as to whether it ought to revive the old Crowsnest pass agreement. The resolution recites that this is to be done notwithstanding the fact that the regulation of railway rates is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commission.	Well, I can see that that is
a very good reason why there should not	be a	committee	appointed	to
duplicate the functions of the Railway Commission. That is a very good reason recited by the Government for not

Crowsnest Agreement
doing what it proposes; hut the reason, the only reason, recited by the Government for doing what it proposes has very little more relationship to the conclusion than if it had recited that we have had a late and unsatisfactory spring. Why appoint a committee to go into the whole question of transportation rates? The reason, the minister says, is that the railway companies tell him that they are not favourable to a voluntary reduction because they do not know whether it is intended to revive the Crowsnest pass agreement. Well that would be some reason for the Government telling Parliament what it ought to do, and if the Government did not feel that it was in a position to tell Parliament what it thought it ought to do, it would he reason for the Government getting the necessary information by the best means in its power. Now what date is this? This is the 4th day of May, 1922. This suspension expires on the 6th day of July, 1922-almost two months from to-day. We are half-way through the time between the opening of this session and the expiration of this suspension. What is this committee to accomplish in the meantime? This committee is to accomplish what the best experts this country could secure found themselves unable to accomplish, not in weeks or months, but in years. In 1895 the question of railway rates was reviewed by a body under instructions of this Parliament. Many months were so occupied and really no result was obtained. The effort was renewed. In this connection I commend hon. members to an address delivered 'by Professor MacGibhon, of the University of Alberta, on or about the 19th day of January of this year on this subject-a most illuminating and carefully thought out address. I quote as follows:
The first investigation into railway rate levels in the Canadian northwest occurred about 1895. Since that date rate grievances have been a fairly constant subject of discussion. A second investigation was begun in 1899, continued until 1902 and eventuated in the creation of the board of railway commissioners in 1903. In turn the board of railway commissioners has found a large part of its occupation in adjudicating upon rate disputes in western Canada.
The Commissioners, previous to 1903, deliberated for three years on this question. Finally they came to Parliament and said: It is so complicated, it is so big, that we commend to Parliament the creation of a judicial body that will take it under its permanent and constant charge and review. That was the conclusion after the last investigation. Since the Railway Commission was created, the great body of its
time-as hon. members know, who read the reports of its activities-has been employed through its experts, travelling as it does through the length and 'breadth of Canada, in studying this question of transportation costs, in determining the application of its principles to the multiplied problems that come before it-because if there is one question that is complicated, if there is one question that is Almost endless, if there vis one question as to which experts, and only experts, can apply their minds in even a reasonable time to the solution of with any success, it is this question of the rate structure of our railways. What are equitable transportation costs are affected by fifty, yes a hundred, different considerations. The considerations that affect them at one point have no effect at all at another. Different considerations apply. The considerations that affect them as respects one road do not affect them as respects another road. The considerations that affect them as respects one commodity do not affect them as respects another. The considerations that	affect them
at one time do	not affect them
at another time at all. All sorts of outside influences and pressures, factors that cannot be eliminated, come from time to time. Why, after the Board, a board that, right from its inception, had devoted its time to this problem, was asked, in the fall of 1920, to make again a systematic, concentrated study of the question in order to determine, just as soon as possible, when reductions might be effected, that board has taken until now and is only now able to act, and then only, after we decide what we want done about the Crowsnest pass agreement. In an address delivered by the vice-chairman of that board just a few weeks ago in the city of Montreal, he elaborated at some length on the manysidedness of this great question; and amongst his assertions was this, that there had been submitted to the board last year alone no fewer than 75,000 different tariffs of rates by the various railway companies of this country. I am informed that there are to-day no fewer than 250,000 different tariffs of rates in actual effect. Such is something of the nature of the question; and the Government comes to Parliament and says: "We have to decide whether we will continue the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement or whether we will not, and we are going to ask a committee of Parliament to delve into the whole railway rate question, especially in
Crowsnest Agreement

its bearing on this question, and to give us its recommendation in time to take effect before the 6th day of July." nay, more, in time to take effect much sooner. After the Government comes to Parliament with its judgment and submits it to Parliament, then some time must intervene. The Government's judgment may be: Yes; the Government's judgment may he: No; the Government's judgment, may be: Yes, conditionally; the Government's judgment may be: No, conditionally, and the multiplicity of conditions it might be hard, at this time, to conjecture, conditions that might be possible and right. Whatever the Government's decision may be, one of those two, one of those dozen, the rates that must be formulated, in accordance with the decision of the Government, will be of a different character in the case of one from that of another. All those tariffs of rates must be formulated after the Government decides, after Parliament decides. They must be submitted to the Railway Commission; and the Railway Commission may feel it should hear evidence, indeed, it may feel bound to hear evidence pro and con as to those rates in the light of the decision that the Government arrives at. Consequently, {a reasonable time undoubtedly must intervene between the determination of this problem on the part of Parliament and the 6th day of July when the suspension expires. Whei is that reasonable time? I submit that all this subsequent deliberation will take at least some days or weeks, and we have only about eight weeks left. Yet the appointment of this committee is asked on the 4th day of May, and it is asked to come to such intelligent decision, after review of the whole question of transportation costs, as to be able adequately in the course of three, four or five weeks to advise the Government in this regard.
You ask me what should be done? It seems to me that the course of the Government was quite clear. The late government went into this matter with the body that should have the information in its hands, i The late [government consulted that commission which Parliament created in order that it might have this information in its hands. We consulted that commission in 1918 and, again, in 1920. We acted on the recommendations of that commission. We got the facts from them in order to enable us to say to Parliament, what, in our judgment, ought to be done, and we came to Parliament and, by the [Mr. Meighen. 3
voice of a member of the government, we submitted to Parliament the judgment of the government and .asked that Parliament review that judgment in the regular constitutional way. I submit that that course is the course that ought to be pursued to-day; yes, it is the course that should have been pursued earlier in the session if the Government we have now had been able to decide anything at all. We should have known what the judgment of the Government was long 'before this period of the session, in order that a well deliberated decision might be reached, in regard to this question and all concerned adjust themselves accordingly.
On what ground does the Government seek to evade its responsibility? What is there about the matter that justifies the Government in seeking to evade its responsibility? It is true that on occasion special committees are the proper course. If a new question presents itself as respects which new facts may be divulged, new angles of approach may be disclosed, and as respects which there is no constitutional tribunal competent to advise the Government, then there may be a case for a special committee. Special committees have frequently been appointed under those circumstances. But this is an old subject, not a new question in any sense, a question that has been before us for years and, moreover, a question, in respect of which, as to the facts that we ought to have at hand, to enable the Government to decide, there is a body sitting, prepared to advise, having gathered information thereon during seventeen years of its existence. Why, then, not go to that body? Why seek to evade responsibility for action by asking a new body, wholly unequipped, wholly inexperienced, in a course of time even ludicrously inadequate, to come to a decision to advise the Government? Let the Government go to the Railway Commission and ask them what will be the effect, on the general question of a reduction of rates, of the expiration of the suspension. Let the Government ask the commission what will be the effect on trade throughout the country if the expiration of the suspension is allowed and the old agreement revives. Let them ask the commission what, in their judgment, will be the effect on organized and every other industry if the old agreement does not revive and if the suspension is made permanent. Let them ask the commission what will be the effect on the earning power of roads, on surpluses, on railway

Crowsnest Agreement
credits. Let them inquire what, if either of these courses is followed, will be these effects in the judgment of the commission that has studied this subject for years. That can easily be done; the commission is in a position to advise the Government. It is the duty of the commission, and it is, doubtless, ready to advise the Government. Let the Government take that course which it should have taken long ago, and come to this House and say: "This is our proposal, our best judgment; to this House we submit that judgment, and we ask for approval of the policy of the Government." Is that not the manly, the courageous course? Is that not the course consistent with responsible government- responsible government about which we heard so wearisomely, so inconsistently all through these later years? That is the course I recommend to the administration. Let the administration take that course and it will give earnest of something that the people of this country are waiting very wearily for the administration to show; it will show courage, resolve and capacity to deal with the practical task of governing this country. Does the administration expect, by the passing of this resolution, that a committee of this House can accomplish in two months, nay, in far less than two months, anything comparable with what the Railway Commission has already accomplished and can advise the Government upon at the present time? Does it expect that? It expects nothing of the sort.
Now, I do not like to indulge in expectations, but I should like to give what seems to me the real purpose of the Government. Whether it is a deliberate purpose or not, I submit that the passing of this resolution is going to have the effect of stalling the whole question. It is going in a few short weeks, to land the Government in a cul-de-sac, and the Government may find itself obliged to come to Parliament and say: " Oh, the committee is still at work; we find that is an enormous question. We find that this is a question the most intricate and complicated that a body of men ever addressed itself to, and the committee is not yet through. We dare not in these circumstances take the responsibility of letting the suspension lapse, and so we come to Parliament and, aside from the merits of the question, as to which we have no opinion at all, we ask that under these special and stringent conditions Parliament agree with us to a continuation of the suspension." That is what I expect.
I hope that my words of warning now will have the effect of deflecting the Government from thqt course. But if they have not that in mind, for the life of me I do not know any proper public object they have in view.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask a question on that point? Does my right hon. friend himself support the further suspension of the operation of the agreement?


Arthur Meighen: "My right hon. friend" will come to his decision when it is his constitutional obligation to do so. When I was in office, yes, and when the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) was a colleague of mine in the year 1918, he and I in conjunction with our other colleagues took our courage in our hands and came to Parliament with our decision. We made our decision in 1918; we had to make it in the vital interests of the country; and we came to Parliament in 1919 and took responsibility for that decision. We treated Parliament in 1919 precisely as, I submit, it is the duty of the Government to treat this House. We could with more reason than now applies have adopted these evasive tactics, but we did not do so. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when any facts are adduced to show the conscienceless character of the methods they pursued to obtain power, have adopted a uniform reply. Of all things that they have done, there is one respect in which they have been consistent. When they are charged with dereliction of duty and with misleading the public, when they are charged in a wholesale way with swallowing the convictions and professions of a lifetime, they always answer: "Oh, we won the election. We are here and you are there."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: That is the constant and solitary answer of the Government, and hon. gentlemen opposite, unable to agree with me in serious argument, at all events are at one with me in my statement of their defence. In their desperation it is really the only answer they can give; so to my friends opposite a generous pardon is extended now. But I answer them in their own words on this question. Yes; you are there and we are here; and I submit to you the suggestion that you come before Parliament with a policy and thus demean yourselves in a manner becoming men who have courted and are entrusted with power.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) : If my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) could conclude his ar-
Crowsnest Agreement

guments on any of these questions without making a political attack, it strikes me that his contributions to the debates would have a greater impression on the House. Now, this is a matter which should have no political significance at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I see that hon. members cannot imagine anything being discussed in Parliament except from a party standpoint. Well, Mr, Speaker, I submit to you that while the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) who has had an experience of many years, and who admittedly has read the information gathered by the Board of Railway Commissioners for over twenty years, has not yet been able to make up his own mind,-


Arthur Meighen: I did not say I had read it all.


George Perry Graham: Then, I stand corrected. My right hon. friend says he has not read it. I understood from his argument that the information on which the old government had acted carried down to the year 1920-21. I had the impression that it was information received from the Board of Railway Commissioners, as gathered during the past twenty years, upon which the late government had acted. Well, it is rather worse to make a decision without having adequate information than it is to arrive at a conclusion after being seized of that information. However, that is just by the way. I want to point out to my right hon. friend that there is a difference between this Government and the late government, and I am glad of the fact. Under the War Measures Act the late government took advantage of its powers, to do everything itself. This Government proposes to let Parliament have something to say in regard to matters in which the whole people are interested.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the whole thing.


Arthur Meighen: It was in 1919 that the question was dealt with.


George Perry Graham: The Order in Council was passed in 1918, and my hon. friends submitted the matter to Parliament in 1919. But I will not waste the time of the House dealing with these questions; I desire to discuss the matter seriously.
The railway situation in Canada is one that requires not the political but the most serious business attention of every member of the House. We have had differences of opinion, and I could take up the time of

this House for hours discussing these differences ; but I take the ground that the people of this country are not so much interested row in what either party has done in the past, as in what Parliament at the present time is going to do. We cannot live in the past if we are to make progress. Conditions in this country have changed; the war has altered the viewpoint of many people on many things. We find ourselves to-day confronted with a condition, and not a theory; and it needs practical suggestions and not a rehash of old political arguments if we are to solve the problems before us. If hon. gentlemen, who perhaps have not carefully read the agreement of 1897, will permit me, I shall place on Hansard the gist of that agreement so far as freight rates are concerned. I will not read the whole of it. The Crowsnest pass agreement, makes this concession with regard to freight rates:
(d)	That a reduction shall be made In the general rates and tolls of the Company as now charged, or as contained in its present freight tariff, whichever rates are now the lowest, for carloads or otherwise, upon the classes of merchandise hereinafter mentioned, westbound, from and including Fort William and all points east of Fort William on the Company's railway to all points west of Fort William on the Company's main line, or on any line of railway throughout Canada owned or leased by or operated on account of the company, whether the shipment is by all rail line or by lake and rail, such reduction to be to the extent of the following percentages respectively, namely:-
Upon all green and fresh fruits, 33% per cent;
Coal oil, 20 per cent;
Cordage and binder twine, 10 per cent;
Agricultural implements of all kinds, set up or in parts, 10 per cent;
Iron, including bar, band, Canada plates, galvanized, sheet, pipe, pipe-fittings, nails, spikes and horse shoes, 10 per cent;
All kinds of wire, 10 per cent;
Window glass, 10 per cent;
Paper for building and roofing purposes, 10 per cent;
Roofing felt, box and packing, 10 per cent;
Paints of all kinds and oils, 10 per cent;
Live stock, 10 per cent;
Wooden ware, 10 per cent;
Household furniture, 10 per cent;
And that no higher rates than such reduced rates or tolls Shall be hereafter charged by the company upon any such merchandise carried by the company between the points aforesaid; such reductions to take effect on or before the first of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight;
(e)	That there shall be a reduction in the company's present rates and tolls on grain and flour from all points on its main line, branches, or connections, west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur and all points east, of *three cents per one hundred pounds, to take effect in the following manner:-One and one-half cent per one hundred pounds on or before the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and an additional one and one-half cent per one hundred pounds on

Crowsnest Agreement
or before the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine ; and that no higher rates than such reduced rates or tolls shall be charged after the dates mentioned on such merchandise from the points aforesaid.
It is no wonder that it was a serious step for any government to relieve the railway from those rates, but as a matter of fact conditions were such at that time that I would not criticize the then government for doing almost anything in reason in order to carry out our part in that great war effort. But now the time has come when, according to the order in council, Parliament is called upon to decide a policy.
Let me point out to my right hon. friend that his remarks about the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners have no bearing whatever on the reference of this question to a committee. The Board of Railway Commissioners as a matter of fact-and I had a good deal to do with the powers given to that board-are in just the position my right hon. friend stated. But he was rather endeavouring to mystify hon. members in dilating on its duties and powers. No one suggests for a moment that this Parliament should deprive the Board of Railway Commissioners of any of its statutory powers. But this question to he decided now is not a question of rates per se as my legal friends would say, it is a question of policy on the part of this Parliament.
Notwithstanding the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners, my right hon. friend says that that Board cannot exercise these powers until it knows fully under what conditions they are to be exercised. If the Crowsnest pass agreement is to be reverted to, then the Board of Railway Commissioners will have no power to go behind that agreement; they will be confined to the rates named therein so far as that agreement is concerned. But if Parliament in its wisdom decides to defer for a further period the restoration of this agreement, them the Board of Railway Commissioners could give their decision as to what these rates ought to be.
This is not a new question; it was up many times during the period I had the ' honour to be at the head of the Railway Department. At its inception the Board of Railway Commissioners was clothed with certain powers, which were enlarged from time to time, until to-day the jurisdiction of the Board is far wider than that of any similar commission in the world; but, of course, as I said before, the statute embodying the Crowsnest pass agreement
is outside the scope of the board's jurisdiction.
At one period after this agreement was made the question of rates came up. It was argued on many sides that at that time, conditions having changed, and the Board of Railway Commissioners having been appointed to deal with rates, some arrangement ought to be made by which the agreement would be abrogated. The government of that day, believing that a contract made under the circumstances was binding, could not see how the agreement could be displaced.
We are not discussing the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners, we are discussing what should be the policy of Parliament with reference to the Crowsnest pass agreement, and to my mind a decision cannot be properly arrived at until we are seized of all the facts. I leave it to the fairness of both sides of the House to say whether I am not right in stating that at the present moment we are not in the position we were in when that agreement was made; we are not even in the position we occupied five years ago. We are here representing people who have a dual capacity, they being both taxpayers and part owners of a great national system of railways, and therefore interested in what is to become of those railways. In years gone by they had no such interest except to a very limited extent, that is, in the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway, comprising less than two thousand miles altogether; whereas our National Railway system to day is twenty-two thousand miles in extent. These same people also have interests as consumers and producers. The management of our National Railway system-the railway system of the people-tell us that if we revert to the Crowsnest pass agreement it will very materially injure their property. We are here representing them as directors of the people's property on the one hand; on the other hand, the producers and consumers say: We are being very materially hurt now by the existing transportation conditions. The railway companies come to us and make representations privately that they believe that they can convince a committee of the House that conditons are such as to warrant some amelioration of the position the railways would be in- their railways and our railways-if this agreement was allowed to come into force again.
Now, this House, as a House, Mr. Speaker, has no power or method of hear-
Croivsnest Agreement

ing every side of this story except through a committee. We cannot sit here and listen to arguments by the railway companies and by our own railways; but a committee of the House could hear those arguments and then report to Parliament what the situation is, when the Government would be able to give a decision. My right hon. friend is altogether mistaken in thinking there is any idea on the part of the Government of evading responsibility. But a government that believes in fairness is of the opinion that this matter should not be decided until all parties are heard. That is British fair play, and that is what the committee is suggested for.
To recapitulate, Mr. Speaker, here is the situation so far as the Government is concerned. Unless some legislation takes place the statute embodying the Crowsnest pass agreement will come into force again on July 6; such legislation will not be passed unless good cause is shown; and the opportunity for presenting that cause can only be had through a committee. That is the only fair way, in fact it is the only way by which we can arrive at a just decision. The Government, I repeat, has no desire to escape its responsibilities, but it does believe in fairness to our own railways as well as to others, and it believes also that the only way in which the various views of the parties interested can be presented to this House is through a committee. Then, upon receiving the report of that committee, Parliament and the Government will decide what course ought to be taken.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion under discussion is not expressed nearly so clearly in the motion itself as in the words that have fallen from my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy) this afternoon, and later from my hon. friend, the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham).
Reduced to its essential meaning, the motion resolves itself into nothing more and nothing less than this, that a committee of this House shall be selected to consider whether or not the Crowsnest pass agreement, respecting railway freight rates in this country and which has been under suspension for almost four years, shall be allowed once more to come into effect, be suspended for a further period, or be indefinitely set aside. That is the purpose of the resolution, and it is from that angle that I propose to discuss it.
I listened with a great deal of interest,

as I always do, to the speech made by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who leads the hon. members to my right. He gave a very interesting historical review of railway conditions in this country during the past twenty-five years. He chided the Government-possibly with some little reason-upon not having a policy on this question, but he sat down without giving any intimation whatever to this House or to the country where he himself stands with regard to this important matter. My right hon. friend is an adept at side-stepping in political debates, and he certainly outshone himself this afternoon, because no one by any stretch of the imagination, could tell from his remarks what his position is on this question.


Arthur Meighen: If the Government will say, and if my hon. friend will say, that my stating what ought to be done is necessary to enable them to decide, I do not think I would object to saying so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Railway Act, then passing through Parliament, suspending the operation of that agreement for a further period of thre<i years. I say of that amendment also, although I had left the government before it was introduced, it was necessary at that time. But the heavy burden of freight rates did not oppress the people of Canada at that time in the way they do to-day. Why? It is true that freight rates had gone up, but the prices that the farmers were receiving for their products had also gone up. Take the prices they were receiving for their grain, for their live-stock, for their dairy products; take the prices the lumbermen were getting for their lumber, and the prices the flour millers were getting for their flour; these had all advanced greatly, and when you take into consideration the prices that were then received for these commodities, the freights as they were fixed at that date were not unduly oppressive. But if they were not onerous then, the rates are certainly onerous now. In my humble judgment there is no one thing to-day that more directly affects the business prosperity of Canada than the excessive freight rates which obtain at the present time. I have stated that before, and I think my statement is supported by the sound business sense of the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have seen resolutions passed by boards of trade, I have seen representations made by provincial governments, I have seen representations made by other bodies, all looking towards a reduction of freight rates and urging in the strongest possible language the need there is for a substantial reduction in transportation costs in this country.
If this motion carries, we admit at once that the question of the Crowsnest pass agreement is open to debate, and as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to place myself in that position. The agreement was made in 1897 for what purpose? The railway company secured a valuable cash subsidy from the Parliament of Canada, and these rates were fixed, and for what purpose? They were fixed not only to benefit western Canada; they were fixed as much to benefit eastern Canada. The railways wanted financial assistance and the government gave it. To assist the factories of eastern Canada, to assist the development of business in this Dominion, these rates were fixed in return, so that commodities might more easily pass from eastern Canada to the great prairies of the West, which were then opening up in

all their vast extent. The arrangement, I submit, was beneficial to western Canada, and it was necessary also for the prosperity of eastern Canada. We have had in Canada for the last forty years a system of protection so far as our fiscal policy is concerned. The net result of that policy of protection has been to drive business east and west to a greater extent than would otherwise have been the case, and if you are going to compel the farmers of western Canada, the labouring people, the business men, the merchants, the professional men and every one else in western Canada, to buy their goods from eastern Canada, the matter of transportation costs from the East to the West must be taken into consideration. Consequently, if it were essential that we should have as low freight rates as possible at that time, I say it is just as essential that we should have them now.
As far a3 the commodities of western Canada are concerned, it is equally essential that these reductions take place. I speak from personal knowledge, Mr. Speaker, when I make this statement: as a result of the increase in freights on lumber, for instance, that took place in 1918, lumber mills, not one or two, but many along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway in northern British Columbia closed their doors and they have not operated since, and the one reason for that is that the increase in freight costs on lumber made it impossible for the lumber manufacturers to sell their products in the markets they had hitherto served. The same is true in respect to the shipment of fish from the Pacific coast to the prairie. In the prairie regions we are dependent for our deep sea fish mainly on the Pacific ocean. Consequently, the very fact of the increase in freight rates affects also the shipment of that commodity.
I will give the House an even more pressing case than those I have mentioned, and that is the effect that these increased freight charges have had on the shipment of grain from the prairies. The provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, speaking on this question in the Saskatchewan legislature a few months ago, when that legislature unanimously passed a resolution asking that the Crowsnest pass agreement come back into effect, made the statement that he knew of cases, not isolated ones, but hundreds of cases, where farmers had not threshed their grain because the price they would get for it when it reached the market at

Crowsnest Agreement
Fort William or Port Arthur would not be sufficient to pay the freight charges after threshing costs had been paid. I have heard, I believe reliably of cases, not isolated ones by any means, where railway agents are insisting on farmers prepaying their freight on grain going to Fort William because they are not going to take any chances of the grain not realizing sufficient when it reaches Fort William to pay the transportation costs. I draw the attention of the House to that fact and I say that this country cannot prosper under those conditions.
What effect has that on eastern Canada?-you ask me. The best market that the factories of eastern Canada have today are the prairie provinces of this Dominion, as every member of this House knows. The great industry of western Canada is the industry of agriculture. That is a truism which needs no argument. If on the one hand these main producers of wealth in western Canada are to be handicapped by the excessive costs of getting their products to market, and if, on the other hand, the merchants, the manufacturers, and business generally is to be handicapped by the high cost of freight going to western Canada, Ihow can we expect the country to prosper? How under those conditions can you expect your factories to open, how can you expect to relieve unemployment in: eastern Canada, how can you expect to bring about a general revival of business in this country? It cannot be done. I say that on that ground also, it is of the first importance that the rates on freight particularly should come down in this country.
There is another argument; my ihon. friend the Minister of Railways made allusion to it to-day. It is to my mind an argument that carries a very great deal of force. You can raise freight rates in this country to a point where you will absolutely destroy business. It is true, also, that you can bring them down to a point where you will destroy the profit of the transportation companies, thereby bringing about inefficiency in transportation. Somewhere between these two points must be found the medium, the basis upon which rates will be fixed. It is absolutely essential, if business is to be revived in this country that freight rates come down. I submit, sir, that when we maintain freight rates at the existing levels of today we are killing the goose that lays the golden egg as far as furnishing business to the railways is concerned, and it is a
short-sighted policy that should not receive the approval of this House.
It has been argued-I have not heard the argument here but I have seen it presented outside, and I wish to make an allusion to it-that if a reduction in freight rates takes place it will have a serious effect on the earnings of our Canadian railways -that it will have a serious effect on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that it will have a very serious effect on the National Railways. I wish to examine that argument very briefly. When the question of freight rates was before the Railway Commission a few years ago-and indeed, I believe throughout the whole history of the last few years in the consideration given to this matter by the Railway Commission -the needs of the National Railways were never taken as the basis upon which the rates would1 be fixed. The basis upon which the Railway Commission fixed rates was the needs of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was recognized that it would be impossible for the Railway Commission t<! fix rates such as would be required to en able the National Railways to pay. Consequently the National Railways, as a factor in the fixing of rates, were left out of the equation, and I think I am quite right in stating that the rates were fixed primarily upon, the needs of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Now, it is argued in some quarters that it is necessary to keep the Canadian Pacific Railway prosperous in order that the credit of Canada may be maintained; that it is necessary that the Canadian Pacific Railway be furnished with rate fixtures to enable it to earn sufficient surplus to pay the dividends on its stock. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that argument is not a sound argument. The credit of Canada, the national financial position of Canada, is not fixed by the balance sheet of the Canadian Pacific Railway; nor is it fixed by the balance sheet of any other corporation. Upon what does national credit rest? It rests on the general prosperity of the country, and it rests equally on the security the country gives in the way of law and order - the security it gives to foreign capital when it invests here, the security that is absolutely essential if prosperity is to be maintained. These are the factors which establish the national credit and not the balance sheets of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the balance sheets of any other business concern in this country. We have sometimes made a very great mistake in our attitude

Crowsnest Agreement

of mind toward that question. I have nothing against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; I want to see it prosper. It has prospered splendidly in Canada, and there is no Canadian but is proud of the record the Canadian Pacific Railway has made; but if we are to argue that the Canadian Pacific Railway must be maintained in the position where it can earn the dividends on its investment irrespective of everything else, then I say we are not on a sound basis in the consideration of the matter.
Let me point out another consideration: If we assume for the moment that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be unable to pay its dividends for the year, would that be a very serious matter from the point of view of the national interest?
There is scarcely a single railway
5 p.m. in the United States that has not, at some period or other in its career, gone through the hands of a receiver. Has that affected the national credit of the United States? Why, until within comparatively recent years the United States was a great borrower of foreign capital-borrowing in Great Britain, borrowing in Prance, in Holland, in the countries of Europe that were prepared to lend capital for development purposes in North America; and the experience of the United States railways in this respect had no effect whatever in fixing the national credit of the republic. Another fact too that should not be overlooked is that Canada has done very well by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think it is improper, or unfair, in any sense to bring that argument up at the present time.
Quoting again from the Drayton-Acworth report we find, according to that report, that the total assistance given by the public of Canada to the Canadian Pacific Railway reached the handsome total of $228,000,000 since that road was brought into existence. But the Canadian Pacific Railway also enjoyed other advantages in the carrying on of its work in Canada. Under the agreement by which it was chartered by the Canadian Parliament it was given exemption from taxation not only on its works, that is on its railway works, but also on the immense land grants it received from the federal government by way of assistance at the time the project was undertaken. At that time I think it was generally understood by Parliament, at any rate it was the general opinion of, the country, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company
[Mr. Crerar.l
was given exemptions from taxation on its lands for a period of twenty years. But it was later held by the courts that that period did not begin from the date the land grants were given but from the time the lands .were selected. What is the result? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company hold their millions of acres of land in (western Canada and have not even yet in many cases, paid any taxes on those lands.
That was the result of the agreement entered into by the Parliament of Canada with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but that agreement imposed serious hardships. In many districts in western Canada it was almost impossible to form school districts because the lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway were exempt from taxation, and the burden was so great on the other ratepayers of the district that they were almost unable to carry on their educational work.
Now that agreement, Mr. Speaker, was made with the company when the railway was undertaken, and the people and the Parliament of Canada have scrupulously lived up to every letter of it from that day to this. I submit that now we are getting back again to normal conditions, when the prices of natural products in Canada have gone down in many cases to below the pre-war figures, it is not too much to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to live up to the agreement it made with the Canadian people when this Crowsnest pass railway was built and when, in return for $4,000,000 cash subsidy, it agreed that the rates on commodities,-on a large list of commodities,-would never go beyond a certain point. I submit, Sir,' it is not too much to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company now to respect the letter of the agreement that was made at that time just as scrupulously, as fully and as faithfully as the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people have observed the agreement they made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company when that great enterprise was undertaken.
There is another fact to be remembered. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not in a difficult position financially. I read, with a great deal of pride as a good Canadian, the balance sheet of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a few days ago -pride in this sense, that we had a great transportation company that was in such a sound position financially. But I have studied the balance sheet of the company

Crowsnest Agreement
and I find that it has reserves not in the tens of thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions, but in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I have no fault to find particularly with that but why, Mr. Speaker, are reserves created by any business concern, why are reserves created by a transportation company just the same as an industrial concern? The reserves are created as a provision against a rainy day when the earning power may go down a little. Then these reserves can be drawn upon to make good the deficiency. I submit that should the Crowsnest pass agreement go back into effect, even should it have the effect temporarily-it would not be for more than a year or so at the very outside-of preventing the company from making the earnings that it has made in the past, that its dividends to its shareholders could very well be cared for out of the handsome reserves which have been created during the course of a long period of time.
We now come to a consideration of National Railway matters. I said a moment ago that the needs of the National Railways were never taken into consideration by the commission when rates were being fixed; and it is of course absurd for any person, either here or outside, to consider the proposition to having railway rates fixed on a basis that will enable the National Railways to pay. That cannot be done. I shall have something to say upon that, I hope, when the estimates of the Minister of Railways come up again. This is not the time, nor the place, nor the occasion to discuss that question. I merely submit that rates cannot be fixed on the basis of enabling the Canadian National lines to pay, and, consequently that factor may be omitted from our consideration of the case. The Canadian National lines are largely colonization lines, they pass through new territory, and I should like to say, just in passing, that I have an abundant faith in the future of our Canadian National railways. As I have said before, as I say now and, as I shall take occasion to say again whenever an opportunity arises, they are a good potential asset for this country and they will eventually prove a great asset. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Minister of Railways in the position in which he finds himself in connection with the National railways. I think, judging from the statement that was submitted to the House the other day, he is tackling the proposition energetically, and 90i
I hope we shall soon get on common ground as regards all political parties, when we shall treat this national undertaking as a business proposition and free it absolutely, continuously and forever from any consideration of party politics in its administration.
Allusion has been made to the difficulties that will face this committee if it undertakes this work. I can see no prospect that such a committee, undertaking the programme that was laid down by the Minister of Railways this afternoon, and that was supported by the Minister of Militia, can reach any intelligent conclusion in this matter in the time at its disposal. We know all the factors that enter into freight rates, all the circumstances surrounding the question; and simply to say: " We can appoint a committee of this House that will hear evidence on this matter and bring in a decision that will enable us to reach an intelligent conclusion upon it," is altogether beyond the possibilities of the case. When we survey conditions in Canada to-day, we know they are difficult, if, indeed, not desperate. Every one, I am sure, is glad to note that there are signs of revival. To bring about a revival of prosperity in this country, a revival of business, to start the wheels of industry going again, to give encouragement to the people on the farms to produce their stuff, to give employment to labour, one of the first and necessary steps is to bring down transportation costs in, this country, and for that reason I am>
opposed to any further suspension of the-Crowsnest pass agreement in this case. It is stated that dire results will follow if this scale of rates again comes into effect. I cannot see that such will be the case; but even if it should prove, by actual experience, an undue handicap upon our railways, why could this Parliament not, a year or two years hence, again consider the matter? Let us get back to the old scale of rates; let us see what effect that will have on business conditions in this country; and then, if it proves unduly burdensome to our railways, it is always open to this Parliament to give further consideration to it. But, in the meantime, this agreement should not be further suspended. This Parliament should allow that legislation to lapse; we should come back under the scale of that agreement; and if we do that, we shall be taking perhaps the longest step we can in the immediate future towards restoring sound business conditions in this country.
Crowsnest Agreement


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like, in a word, to endorse the position taken by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar).
I feel that the industrial sections of the West will agree with the position taken by the agriculturists. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says that it is necessary that freight rates should be reduced in order to ensure the continuance of Confederation. May I suggest that it is necessary that freight rates should be reduced in order that the economic life of the West may be maintained at all? The West occupies somewhat a different position economically from that of the East. The West has been built up entirely on a basis of the railways. Had we not the great transportation systems to the western plains, those plains would still be uninhabited and uninhabitable. The extent to which people can carry on in the West is absolutely dependent upon their transportation facilities, and only those who have lived in the West can quite appreciate the position in which the West has been placed during the last few years because of high freight rates. We are there as producers, we are there as consumers; and we have to pay both as producers and as consumers. That is true not merely of our agriculture, but of our fishing, our lumbering, our mining and other primary interests, we cannot begin to get these things started so long as freight rates remain as they are to-day. I take it that the railroads were built primarily to serve the people. Immense sums were ^granted in order that the Canadian Pacific railway should be built to serve the people; but to-day we find that the people cannot afford to use the railways. There are cases where goods are perishing in the fields because the producers cannot afford to ship them to the towns.
I think the hon. member for Marquette has already called attention to the fact that, in the middle West, we cannot get lumber from the west coast simply because of prohibitively high freight rates. It, therefore, becomes absolutely essential that these freight rates should be reduced. I do not know that a great deal of consideration need be given to the exact position of the Canadian Pacific in this regard. We all recognise that that railway has enjoyed a period of great success in the past. We recognise that subsidiary companies have been built up. Why should that railway not take its share, with other industries
[Mr. Crerar. 1
or with other concerns, at a time when there is more or less depression?
The suggestion to appoint a committee evidently looks to a discussion of the whole question. Supposing that this committee brings in a recommendation that the Crowsnest pass agreement should be still further suspended, where would we be then? I would just like to say that, in my best judgment, the West, at least, simply would not tolerate such a recommendation as that. We could rfbt do so with the tens of thousands of unemployed throughout the West to-day, and with conditions stagnant as they are to-day. We simply must have some relief, and it seems to me that this question ought not to be referred to some committee to talk over for weeks; but rather that since the question is one of principle, the discussion should go on i* this House and the principle should be decided here.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating a good deal of what has been said this afternoon, I desire to say a few words upon the resolution now before the House for consideration. I agree with the hon. member who leads the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) that the essential and vital question involved in this resolution relates to the Crowsnest pass agreement, which came into effect in 1897. I admit that that is a very important question. It is an important question to hon. gentlemen who sit directly opposite me and who represent constituencies in the prairie provinces. I wish to remind them, however, that it is not entirely a western question; it is as much an eastern question. And, more than that, I say that by a concurrence of events of r ecent years, and by reason of the economic and financial conditions of the country, it is a national problem and must be viewed in that light; if it is not so considered, we cannot reach a fair and sound conclusion. I admit that potentially a very great principle is involved in this matter, and a very difficult question is before hon. gentlemen of this House to determine. And we must settle it. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) deemed it prudent on his part to submit these matters to a committee, and the issue before us this afternoon is whether or not that request, in all the circumstances, is a fair one, a reasonable one, a practical one, and one which should be conceded by the House. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) did not, I think, give a very fair rendition of the resolution now before us. It may be quite true that

Crowsnest Agreement
the introductory section of the resolution is expressed in too general terms. The important part of the resolution, however, is the enacting clause, which contains the submission which the minister asks us to put before the committee. Let me read it:
That, in the circumstances, it is advisable to afford opportunity to all interested parties to submit their views upon the subject matter of the inquiry to the said committee with particular regard to the effect of the rates established by the Crowsnest pass agreement upon Canadian National railways and other lines, as well as upon agricultural development and Canadian industry generally;


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend referred to the previous part of the resolution as being merely introductory. May I call his attention to the fact that it is not? The previous part of the resolution is an enacting clause. It says that, notwithstanding, and so forth, it is advisable that a Select Special Committee should be appointed to make inquiry into the question of railway transportation costs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And still I adhere to my statement that the language used in the first section is very general. It refers to conferences between the Government and the heads of the railways; it refers to the Crowsnest pass agreement; but it is in the second part of the resolution that we find the enacting clause. Now, having read that clause, I would point out that this resolution does not call for an investigation into railway rates generally. That would be an impossible task to impose on a committee or, indeed, upon Parliament; for few hon. gentlemen in this House, if any, are competent to express an opinion upon the structure of railway rates. We have not had the experience or the training to enable us to do so, and with the exception perhaps of the last Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), hardly any hon. gentleman in this House would venture to give an opinion upon railway rates in detail.
In essence this resolution asks that a committee inquire into the effect of the Crowsnest agreement upon the Canadian National Railways. Thus the matter becomes a national problem. It is not sectional; it affects the whole of the country; it affects every citizen of Canada. And if it increases taxation the question is one upon which all interests must be heard. The leader of the Opposition objects to the creation of a parliamentary committee. He states that the Government should itself initiate a policy and present it to Parliament for consideration. Let me point out that this is a political question. It is not altogether a railway rate question though, that, of course, is involved. The Crowsnest pass agreement is one that was validated by Parliament; it was made effective by an act of Parliament. It was considered by the Parliament of Canada, and if the suspension is to be continued, or if we are to go back to the agreement, surely Parliament has a right to express an opinion upon the subject. In that case, it has a right to secure such evidence and facts as it deems necessary, from any source, and for that purpose a select committee is considered essential.
I would refer to the remarks made by the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). He was disposed, I thought, to consider this question largely from the standpoint of the conditions that prevailed in Canada when the agreement was entered into. He disregarded new factors that have come into the situation. He disregarded the fact that a few years ago we passed through a great war which has seriously affected many things we considered long ago settled, and affected, particularly, the economic interests not only of Canada but, as well, of the whole world. That fact must not be disregarded. Another factor has entered the situation. Since 1897, the people of Canada, through their Government, have become the owners of a vast railway system, and this ownership was not among the conditions that existed when the agreement was made. Let me say here that I am not taking a stand one way or the other in respect of the rate agreement referred to as the Crowsnest pass agreement. I confess frankly that I have never had an opportunity of studying it carefully. Living as 1 do in eastern Canada, there was no very great reason why I should take as much interest in the matter as would hon. gentlemen who live in the West. I am merely indicating the importance of the issue that is before us in the resolution now under consideration. The average member of Parliament is not, and cannot be, informed as to the facts; and I go further and say that it is quite probable that the country as a whole is not well informed of those facts. Before we undertake to make a decision in this matter, surely it is not an unfair request to ask, at least, that a committee be appointed to secure such facts as) are relevant to the issue and as will assist the House in coming to a determination thereon.
Before I refer to some other matters I might consider one or two further re-
Crowsnest Agreement

marks made by the leader of the Progressive party.
There was a time, possibly, when the Crowsnest pass rate agreement, as I have already stated, was purely a western question-when it affected largely the Canadian Pacific Railway and the people living in the territories served by that railway. It is a bigger question to-day. It does not affect the Canadian Pacific Railway and western interests solely; other railways and other interests are involved. My hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) said that if the revival of this rate agreement caused the Canadian Pacific Railway to pass its dividend, that perhaps would not be against the national interest. Well, of course if that occurred it would be bad for the shareholders. But I fear wider interests are involved. What would it indicate if that railway were unable to earn the dividend upon its stock held by the investing public? Would it not mean that there had been a recession in railway business, which in turn would indicate that there was a decline of activity in the commerce of the country? And if that condition affected the Canadian Pacific Railway disastrously, would it not of necessity affect adversely all other interests in the country? Therefore, I say it is a bigger question than the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway alone.
But I admit for the moment that I am not interested as to whether or not the Crowsnest pass agreement, if again put into effect, would cause such a diminution in the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway that the company would have to pass its dividends. We need not be concerned at the moment about that phase of the question. A railway never of itself originates or creates traffic. All commodities that are exchanged are produced by some section of our people, and a business transaction represents a sale and purchase on the part of two people; the sale and purchase must be an accomplished fact and must occur before transportation service is requisitioned at all. In other words, a railway only functions after individuals have consummated business and commercial transactions.
I am sure no Canadian is pleased with the fact that the Canadian National Railways during the past year operated at a deficit of considerably over fifty million dollars-a deficit which must be made up by taxation. And to what is it due? It is due, of course, to the fact that the coun-trv is not normal in its commercial and
industrial processes. Therefore we have this tremendous deficit, which is a severe burden upon the people. I am confident that everyone is interested in having these deficits ended and the railways brought to such a condition that they can at least pay their operating expenses. And the cases are similar. If our railways are prosperous to the extent even of paying only their operating expenses, it means that the country is prosperous to that degree at least; and I wish to protest against the view which I understood my hon. friend from Marquette to impress upon this House, that it was not an important question, viewed from the national standpoint, whether or not our railways earned operating expenses or paid dividends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is involved in this resolution? The history of the Crowsnest pass agreement has already been given to the House by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham). That agreement was first entered into in 1897, and under it the Canadian Pacific Railway Company undertook the construction of certain railway mileage in British Columbia, primarily for the purpose of developing mining in a certain region of that province; that was the reason given to Parliament at the time. The Canadian Pacific Railway, or other interests, asked the government of the day to pay a subsidy of $11,000 per mile, and they received something like $3,000,000 for the construction of that road and the carrying out of the contract. As a consideration for that assistance, the railway company on their part undertook to fix maximum rates on fifteen commodities, these commodities moving from east of Port Arthur to western points; they also agreed upon maximum rates for wheat and other grain moving from the West to the East as far as Port Arthur. This agreement, I have no doubt, was designed to meet particularly the conditions then prevailing in the West. The agreement continued in force, without variation, until August, 1918, when under the War Measures Act the 25 per cent rate increase was granted and superseded those fixed maximum rates. In 1919, as has already been stated by several hon. members, clause 325 of the Railway Act was passed with a view of legislatively suspending the operation of the agreement. That suspension comes to an end next July, unless this Parliament further continues it.
Now, in order that the Government might be in a position to determine whether the suspension should be continued, or whether

Crowsnest Agreement
the agreement should be allowed to go into effect again with some variations, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) has asked the House for leave to submit to a committee the whole question, with the purpose I assume

I can imagine no other purpose-of obtaining all the facts relating to this particular matter. I think the issue is important enough to warrant the establishment of this committee for that purpose, and I intend to support the resolution on that ground.
What facts do we need to be seized of? It is stated that if this agreement is allowed to go into effect again next July the Canadian Pacific Railway will operate at a deficit. I do not know whether that is true or not. That has been stated to me by some persons who are not railway experts and know very little of the actual situation, and I would not like to be guided to my conclusions by such statements. Are there many hon. members who really feel they are sufficiently conversant with all the facts involved, to be in a position to pass judgment upon the issue at once? I can hardly understand any hon. gentleman taking that position, unless he has been intimately associated in his life work with the structure of railway rates and operation. If, however, there is such an hon. member he might well be willing to pass judgment upon the whole issue without hearing any further evidence. I say we should be informed, so far as information can be obtained with any degree of exactness, what will be the effect upon, say, the Canadian Pacific Railway if the Crowsnest pass agreement is revived? That is a big factor in the issue, and speaking for myself at least, I should like to have it authoritatively from some person. I do not know how we can get that except through the avenue of a committee. If it comes directly from the railway, its reliability will be at once Challenged; if it comes from the Railway Board, the allegation may be made that some members of the board are prejudiced1 in the matter and that the information given cannot be relied upon. As I have said, this issue has changed very considerably in the last two years. It has changed since section 325 of the act was put into legislative form. It did not require very much courage to pass that section at that time. Nobody objected to it. The condition of western interests then was very different from what it is to-d'ay. The great wheat production of that section of Canada was being officially bought and sold and the cuestion of railway rates was not a Very important one, because they were not then, I think, borne by the producer of wheat. At any rate, the sentiment of the country was such that at that time it did not require much courage on the part of the government or of Parliament to suspend the Crowsnest pass agreement, or to enact section 325 of the Railway Act.
We have become recently the owners of a great system of railways, and it is proposed that the country continue that ownership-a tremendous experiment, indeed, which we all hope will result in success. A few years ago in the West the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific were competing for western traffic,.. With a situation like that prevailing to-day, competition might very well regulate the rates. But that is not the situation to-day. These railways, so far as they have come under Government ownership, have been consolidated-or practically consolidated-I may say for the purposes of my argument, even though I be not literally correct. The Canadian National Railways are operating at a very large annual deficit, to say nothing of failure to pay the interest on the moneys which they owe to the public. Any deficit incurred by reason of the operations of the Canadian National railways must be paid by the people of this country; the people of the west and1 the people of the east must pay their proportion as well as the people of Central Canad!a. If we have annual large railway deficits made up by taxation from the pockets of the people, we cannot hope for a revival in business or industry.


Mr. SPENCER:: My hon. friend says
that the deficits come out of the pockets of the people. Where do the railway rates come from?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The railway rates ultimately come from the consumer, the man who buys the thing that is produced and transported. The more money that is taken from the people to make up railway deficits, the less money they will have to buy the commodities which the country produces. Whatever way you look at this question, you find it is one which affects all the people of Canada, all sections and all interests. If the Crowsnest pass agreement be again put into operation and the result is an addition of from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 to the deficits of the Canadian National Railway system then that is a verv serious national problem to
Croivsnest Agreement

consider. It is bigger than a western question; it is national, not sectional. We must sit down and review the whole situation as Canadians, regardless of sectional interests.
I have heard it said-not perhaps by very competent people, I admit,-that if the Crowsnest pass agreement comes again into effect the deficits of the Canadian National Railway system will be increased by the amounts I have mentioned. Personally I should like to know whether or not that statement is well founded. My view of the whole issue would be changed if I were satisfied upon that point, and the people whom I represent would, I am sure, be inclined to view it in a different light. But who is going to inform me; who is going to inform hon. gentlemen around me and Parliament as a whole whether or not that statement is well founded? It would be better to have the facts reach Parliament through the avenue of a committee than through the Minister of Railways, for the Canadian National Railway system is still operated by directors who are supposed to be absolutely independent. What objection can there be to having such matters as these made clear to Parliament and to the country? How else can we obtain the facts? What objection can there be to the constitution of a committee to make these things clear prior to our venturing upon the determination of such an important issue?
The leader of the Opposition states that the Government should declare its policy in this respect, announce it to Parliament, and, whatever it be, seek to make it effective by legislation. Well, that is one way of dealing with the question. Sometimes that can be done; sometimes it is not wise or prudent to do that. It was either the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Progressive party who admitted this afternoon that the facts relating to this issue were intricate and involved. After all, Parliament has responsibilities in respect to this matter:	Parliament made
this agreement in 1897. Parliament alone can vary it or substitute another for it, and Parliament should not shrink from its obligations in the matter. Indeed, it cannot escape them; it must deliberate upon this issue and in due course exercise its judgment. But, as I have already said more than once, I am not quite clear how Parliament can place itself in that position without having more knowledge of the facts than I think most hon. members

have regarding it. Ultimately, I admit, the Government must state its policy upon this question. It cannot escape it. But the Government says it should state its policy after this committee has reported. There is nothing unreasonable about that position,. It is in harmony with past practice. It is not out of harmony with sound constitutional parliamentary practice. I fail to see any objection whatever to the request of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) for the creation of this committee.
This committee is not asked in specific terms to report or to make a finding as to whether or not clause 325 should be further suspended. It is not in specific terms asked to make that finding. I do not know whether the Minister of Railways intended that it should. It is simply asked to make inquiry as to what effect the Crowsnest pass agreement shall have upon the Canadian National railways and other lines, as well as upon agricultural development and Canadian industry generally. It would appear from a careful reading of the resolution that the minister deliberately had in mind the acquisition of facts relevant to this issue through the avenue of a committee and by it to be placed before this House. I do not think it would take the committee a great number of days to have placed before it the facts and the evidence contemplated by this resolution.


Mr. FORKK:: Have you ever taken into consideration the fact that the people who are opposing the abrogation of the Crowsnest pass agreement realize that they cannot go on producing and paying the present freight rates? They know their side of the question absolutely. They do not need any investigation or to hear anything that may be said from the other side; it would make no difference to them. They cannot carry on business under these conditions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not disposed to argue with my hon. friend the effect of the present railway rates upon producers in any section of Canada. I think we are all agreed there should be a reduction of freight rates on the primary commodities. The people in my section of the country feel the effect of the present high freight rates upon primary commodities just as other people do. Many of them tell me they have been unable to carry on their business during the past year or two by reason of these rates. That problem exists in every section of the

Croiosnest Agreement
country. I hope that there is coming soon a reduction in rates upon heavy primary commodities in this country, upon the product of wheat, for instance, which is of so much interest to my hon. friends directly opposite me. The continuance of clause 325 would not, I hope, mean that we are not going to have a reduction in railway rates. As I said a moment ago, the people of all Canada are all very much interested in a reduction in railway rates. The only reason why railway rates have not been reduced on the Canadian National Railway system, I presume, is because the roads have been operating under a very heavy deficit. If this deficit is going to be increased, how can we look forward to the future with very much hope of a reduction in railway rates? Does not my hon. friend see that this is an important question? We cannot have heavy railway deficits and low freight rates, or something will suffer in this country.
It has been suggested that it would not necessarily affect the nation if the Canadian Pacific railway's operations this present year turned out disastrously and they had a deficit instead of the usual surplus. I am not a shareholder in the Canadian Pacific, and I am not personally much interested in it any more than is any other hon. member of this House, except in wishing that all the big institutions in our country should be fairly prosperous; for if they are not, it reacts upon us all. A deficit in the operations of the Canadian Pacific in Canada would, I think, be an unfortunate thing for all of us. One cannot foresee just what its effect might be. It perhaps might not be so bad as some people think, but I do venture the opinion that if such a thing occurred we would face a condition of affairs full of possible danger to our economic welfare.


Mr. MORRISON:: If the railways had been unable to pay any dividends during the last two years, do you think it would have had the disastrous effect on Canadians generally that the present situation has had, where the masses, no matter in what industry they were engaged, have lost money?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Let me say to my hon. friend that whenever any organized commercial activity fails, it immediately affects everybody. My hon. friend would not say that the recent failure of many commercial institutions in this country has not had a bad effect, in the first place, on the community in which the
business was carried on, and secondly, on all other sections of the country.


John Morrison: You are evading the question. I asked you a straight question, and you have not answered it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will my
hon. friend put the question again?


John Morrison: I asked you if you thought it was more disastrous for the railways to fail to pay dividends during the past two years than the present situation, where the masses have failed to earn dividends no matter in what industry they were interested. You apparently consider the railways as of first importance, as compared with the masses of the people.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I doubt, in the first place, if any good would be accomplished by answering my hon. friend's question, because I do not think it is important at all. Of course, it is an unfortunate thing for the country if people produce commodities at a loss, and it is an unfortunate thing if the railways sell their services at a loss. I would not undertake to say which is the worst. They are both bad enough, dear knows. It is not the kind of question one is interested at the moment in discussing. We should rather be concerned in avoiding the causes which bring about these conditions.
I am not speaking on behalf of the railways. All I was attempting to say was this. It is not a desirable thing to take from the pockets of the people of this country ;by taxation, moneys to pay the operating deficits of the Canadian National Railway System, or to pay the dividends of private enterprises either, but the situation would be surely aggravated if last year's deficits on the Canadian National Railway System were increased. It surely would be aggravated if the same misfortune befell other great railway interests in this country. It would all mean that the people would not only have to pay for necessary transportation but also to bear the burden of increased taxation as well.
The issue involved in this resolution is important to the Canadian National Railway System and to the other railway systems of the country. It is of interest to all classes; it is not a provincial or a sectional issue, it is national in its character and we must look at it in that light. Undoubtedly the taxpayer is interested in the question. If this agreement involves increased taxation, then we as representatives of the people must consider the issue before us in that light; if we do not we are not perform-
Crowsnest Agreement

ing our duty. There are many intricate and involved facts in connection with the whole question. We should familiarise ourselves with these facts and master them as thoroughly as we can. It would not take very long, in my judgment, to have all the facts placed before a committee, and by the committee sent to Parliament for action. There would be justification for the adoption of this resolution even if the committee confines itself to simply procuring the relevant facts and present no finding-and it is just possible that that would be quite a proper course for the committee to pursue. What objection could there be to that suggestion? Will any hon. member, outside of perhaps one or two gentlemen, state that he is so fully acquainted with the history of this question that he is willing to pass judgment upon the matter at once? If there are a few members who entertain that opinion, surely they will be fair and generous enough to concede to others, who feel that they wish to know more about the subject, the privilege of securing additional information through the avenue of a committee. It is for that reason I propose to support the resolution of the minister.
I say the question is eminently one for a committee. But while I have spoken strongly for the appointment of a committee I do not wish it to be understood that I am committing myself to the principle of suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not feel myself in a position to pass judgment on the matter at the present time and for that reason I support the Minister of Railways in urging that the resolution be accepted by the House.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would ask the hon. member if he has taken into consideration the sacredness of a written contract?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I had intended referring to that matter and in answer to my hon. friend's question I would say this: Many written contracts regarded as sacred-as between men, and between companies-have been violated or varied during the past two or three years. That is one of the incidents of the post-war period. Agreements between nations, governments, corporations, and individuals, have been suspended, varied, or abrogated, these last few years. Post-war conditions have changed the course of events, and have forced governments and men to adopt unexpected courses in relation to many affairs and transactions.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state my views but briefly on this question to-night, as the ground has been pretty well covered. I desire to say, at the outset, that I am not antagonistic to our railroads, either privately-owned or publicly-owned. I realize fully how dependent we are upon the prosperity of our railways, and that if Canada is to prosper, our railways must necesarily be prosperous. I feel it is the duty of this House so to adjust conditions in this country that all classes, railway companies, manufacturers, farmers, all employers of labour, and labour, shall have an equitable deal, and my purpose is to present the views of the people whom I represent in this House.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) stated that the consumer pays the freight. I do not think that is correct in every instance. The freight rate on grain per 100 pounds from Brandon to Fort William is 21 cents. I am quoting central points in the three provinces. From Regina, the rate is 29 cents cents, and from Calgary, 36 cents. If the consumer pays the freight, how is it that the farmers do not receive the same net price? The Brandon farmer receives the Fort William price minus 21 cents; the Regina farmer the Fort William price minus 29 cents, and the Calgary farmer, the Fort William price minus 36 cents. The farmers have to sell their products on the world's market; the world's market fixes the price.. Could we set the price, then the consumer would pay the freight rate. Farmers in Manitoba get their farm machinery from the East more cheaply than do farmers in Saskatchewan, while we Saskatchewan farmers get ours a little more cheaply than Alberta farmers do. That shows that we, as consumers, pay the freight rate on machinery. We pay the freight rate both ways, and, therefore, we are very much interested in seeing that there is a more equitable adjustment of the railway rates.
Rates on lumber and, indeed, on all building materials are to day prohibitive. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) drew a gloomy picture of what the state of affairs in Canada would be if railways were not earning dividends, but he assumes that railways can earn dividends only. by excessively high rates. I contend that rates have been so high of recent years

Crowsnest Agreement
that they have actually killed much of the business. We believe that a larger business at a lower rate would be more profitable to the railways and vastly more profitable to Canada as a whole. I know farmers and business men who want to put up buildings, but who are saying: "No, I will not build just now; I think materials will get cheaper as time goes on and railway rates colme down." It is very necessary that they should have better buildings; but they are deferring building, because they know their money will go much further when railway rates come down. I am quoting these instances just to show that exceedingly high railway rates are not the most desirable thing for all classes.
I meet quite a few railwaymen, and this phase of the question has been put up to me by them. One man said to me: "I worked only four months last year. I get high pay while I am working, but I can barely live on the high wages I get for working four months a year." If there was more business, these men would be willing to accept a lower wage if they had continuous work; but if a man works only four or six months in a year, he has to get exceedingly high pay for the days he does work. We contend that it would be much better for employees of the railways as well as for the mass of the Canadian people generally if rates were lowered. Last summer I met a gentleman who put up this phase of the question to me. He was travelling from Edmonton east, and he was on the train but one night. He went to get a state-room, and they wanted $33 for one night. He said to the conductor: "Are those rooms all taken?" The conductor replied: "No, not one of them." He said: "Is that usual?" "For the last two weeks," said the conductor, "not one state-room or compartment on this train has been occupied." The man said: "How was it before the increase in rates" The conductor said: "It was a rare thing for one of them to be empty." The man was telling me this as evidence of the fact that railways had raised prices so high as to be prohibitive, and the railways were thus killing their own business.
Now, Sir, the West was partly settled as a result of the protection afforded by the Crowsnest pass agreement, and we contend that there should not be any further delay in bringing the Crowsnest agreement into operation. Nothing else will satisfy the people of the country, who are exceedingly anxious that the agreement shall
come into force again on the 6th day of July.
Hon. JOHN A. STEWART (Lanark): This afternoon the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) and the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) stressed the point that the war had worked tremendous changes in Canada. The senior member for Halifax stressed particularly the effect upon economic conditions. If the Minister of Militia had stated to the House that one of the most remarkable changes brought about in Canada since the war was in the policy of government, I think possibly the House would have agreed with him. It has 'been the past parliamentary practice in Canada, for as long as we have any record, that a government in power takes the responsibility for its action upon important questions; and I think that upon a matter of the importance of that involved in the resolution now before the House, it will be the opinion of hon. members and the view of the people of Canada that the Government should give to Parliament a lead. I followed the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy), and I listened closely to those of the Minister of Militia, and I believe it is a fair criticism of what they both had to say that there was no indication, in their speeches, as to what the policy of the Government was on the really important matter that is involved in the resolution. I think I might even go further and say that in the remarks that have come from the government benches so far in this discussion, not only has there been no indication as to what the policy of the Government is, but there has been no attempt on the part of those who have spoken even to chart out the probable course of the Government and indicate in what direction they are attempting to move. The onus in this matter is clearly upon the Government. Under Order 308 of the Board of Railway Commissioners, passed on the 15th day of September 1920, the following view is expressed:
As our jurisdiction for granting increases on certain lines of railway in western Canada depends entirely upon the amendment to section 325 of the Railway Aot, 1919, which expires on the 6 th day of July, 1922, the rates hereby established cannot continue beyond that date unless Parliament, in its wisdom, sees fit to exttend the provisions of that section. Therefore, the rates heroin provided for shall not extend beyond the first day of July 1922.
In view of what Order 308 states the onus is clearly on the Government to
Crowsnest Agreement

determine its policy; the final consideration and decision of the matter by the Railway Commission is blocked. If the Government decides its course the Railway Commission will be able to act on the result of its investigations carried on since 1920 for the purpose of recommending and deciding as to what would be an equitable adjustment of rates, having regard to the general conditions throughout Canada. And if the Government defines its policy and Parliament declares its decision, there would be nothing left that would obstruct the final decision of the matter by the Railway Commission.
Now, what is proposed in the resolution before the House? What is the scope of the inquiry which the Government proposes should be made by the special committee? I read from the resolution:
That notwithstanding that the regulation of railway rates is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board.of Railway Commissioners, it is advisable that a Select Special Committee be appointed to make inquiry-
Inquiry into what?
-into the question of railway transportation costs.
These are the only words in the whole resolution that define and limit the scope of the inquiry that will be held. When this committee meets, supposing this resolution goes through, it will be limited by the four corners of the resolution as to what it shall inquire into and within the four corners of the resolution there is no provision for any investigation by the committee further than to inquire into the question of railway transportation costs. There is not a word in the resolution as to the general question of rates. The committee is to inquire into the question of railway transportation costs,-in what connection? Let us see what the second paragraph says:
That, in the circumstances, it is advisable to afford opportunity to all interested parties to submit their views-
Upon what are they to submit their views?
-to submit their views upon the subject matter of the inquiry.
Well, what is the subject matter of the inquiry? The subject matter of the inquiry is limited absolutely to what is stated in the previous paragraph, and that is an inquiry into the question of railway transportation costs. Once the investigation into the matter of railway transportation costs has been disposed of, the committee

will have exhausted the whole authority granted to it under the resolution. There is not a single question in the resolution as to the necessity for the revival of the Crowsnest pass agreement, and if the special committee sought to deal with that matter it would be exceeding its jurisdiction and the authority given by the resolution under which it would act. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) dealt at very great length and in a most interesting way with the effect that the continued suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement would have upon the people who live in the West, particularly in the Prairie provinces; and the Crowsnest pass agreement was pictured as a panacea for all the ills to which the West is heir. I wonder if the member for Marquette has considered the effect a revision of the Crowsnest pass agreement might have for the benefit of the very people for whom it was originally enacted. The first classification in the agreement provides that there shall be a reduction, upon all green and all fresh fruits, of 33J per cent moving from points east of Port William to certain defined points in the West. I doubt very much whether that would be of any benefit to the people in the middle West to-day.
If I am correctly informed, the movement of fruit to-day is from British Columbia east to the (prairie provinces; in 1897 the movement was from the eastern provinces to the west. Under the Crowsnest pass agreement there is absolutely no provision made for fruit that moves from the west to the east, so that this commodity when shipped from British Columbia east would be penalized in favour of fruit grown in the East. Let me also refer my hon. friend for Marquette to the second classification,-coal oil. I wonder how much coal oil moves to-day from Fort William and the east into the West? I would refer him also to the provision that there shall be a reduction of 10 per cent upon the movement of live stock from the east of Fort William to the West; that being the direction of the movement in 1897. I think hon. members who know western conditions will agree with me that the movement of live stock to-day is from the west to the east. Under the Crowsnest pass agreement there is absolutely no provision affecting transportation charges upon live stock moving from the West to the east.
I refer to these classifications for the reason that my hon. friend from Marquette, it seemed to me, left the impression upon

Crowsnest Agreement
the House that the revival of the Crowsnest pass agreement in its present form would effect the relief which this country needs. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while the Crowsnest pass agreement should not be scrapped, in the general interests of Canada it should not be revived. The classifications under that agreement were adopted having regard to the requirements of western Canada in 1897. I think the hon. gentleman will admit that in the particulars to which I have referred the West would be better served by a revision ' of this agreement rather than by its revival in its original form.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will permit me, the subjects to which he has alluded are, with the exception of live stock, of comparatively little importance. Grain, lumber and fruit from British Columbia are also of importance.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark) :: My hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) stated this afternoon that as a result of the present conditions the lumber mills in British Columbia were closed, and that the transportation of lumber from that province to eastern Canada was adversely affected by the present rates. Let me refer him to the fact that under the Crowsnest pass agreement fhere is provision for a comparatively low rate upon lumber moving from points east of Fort William to points west of Fort William; but there is absolutely no rate provided for the transportation ofi lumber from western Canada to eastern Canada.


Mr. WARNER:: Does my hon. friend know that the Railway Commission already has power to fix rates which are not included in the Crowsnest pass agreement?


John Alexander Stewart: Yes; and I have absolute faith in the good judgment of the Railway Commission, but I am discussing the provisions of the Crowsnest pass agreement. The only provision governing rates of transportation from points west of Port Arthur to eastern Canada is that contained in subsection (e) :
That there shall be a reduction in the company's present rates and tolls on grain and flour from all points on its main line, branches or connections west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur and all points east of three cents per one hundred pounds.
That is the very limited provision governing the transportation of any commodity from western Canada to the east, and that is why it does seem to me the revival of the Crowsnest pass agreement, by the failure of this Parliament to take action between now and July 6, will not provide for my hon. friend for Marquette and those associated with him that relief which they feel they ought to have.


Mr. SHAW:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he has considered the significance of clause nine of the agreement itself, when he states that no provision is made for the transfer of goods from the west easterly except on the two articles, grain and flour?


John Alexander Stewart: I am speaking now of the provision for specific rates. The whole question as to rates upon other commodities goes to the Railway Commission.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Quite right.


John Alexander Stewart: But under the classifications expressly set out I say there is a definite limitation as to the commodities covered by the agreement, and the point I desire to make is that having regard to general conditions not only in western Canada but over the whole Dominion, surely an agreement based upon conditions existing in 1922 would be much more likely to provide the relief and the remedy which the people require in the form of a reduction of freight rates, rather than an agreement based upon conditions as they existed twenty-five years ago.
This Parliament is asked to-day to appoint a special committee, with certain powers as defined in the resolution, and I again submit that the four corners of the resolution limit the subjects that this committee will be empowered to inquire into to the single subject of transportation costs.
We know that the Government ha vie studied this question for some considerable time. We know that the Government has conferred with the chief executives of all the railway companies; we know this because the Government itself says so. The resolution contains this statement:
That notwithstanding that the regulation of raiHway rates is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, it is advisable that a Select Special Committee be appointed to make inquiry into the question of railway transportation costs,-
Now what?
-it having been disclosed by recent conferences held between the Government and the chief executives of the various railways with respect to the reduction of freight rates that the representatives of the railways deem it inadvisable immediately to reduce rates on basic commodities because of the expiration, on July 6th, 1922, of the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement;
Crowsnest Agreement

In view of that should not the Government state in detail to the House what the result of those conferences was, rather than content itself with that general statement? Has the Government no faith in the ability of the chief railway executives in Canada to advise it on the question of transportation costs? Does the Government believe that a special committee of this House would in four or five weeks be better qualified to advise it on the question of transportation costs than the chief executives of the railway companies? The Government has under its jurisdiction, managing 22,000 miles of railway lines, two boards, the Canadian National board and the Grand Trunk board. The Government knew four months ago, when they came into power, that the Crowsnest pass agreement would expire on the 6th of July if some action was not taken by Parliament; so it is a fair assumption that since the 29th of December last they have studied this question and obtained the advice of the two boards which control the government railways. There are available also the records of the Department of Railways and Canals and the statistics filed in the Bureau of Statistics, which is connected with the Department of Trade and Commerce. And in addition to all that, the Government has access to the records and the findings of the Railway Commission itself.
As far back as 1920 the Railway Commission was asked to carry on an investigation for the purpose of determining this very question of rates. Since then that investigation has been carried on by the commission with all the organization and facilities at its command, and I am advised that in that connection 250 exhibits have been filed. Since it started to function in 1904, the Railway Commission has been building up records which are invaluable in the consideration of the difficulties in which the Government finds itself. If, therefore, the Government, having called into conference the chief executives of the railway lines in Canada and the operating officers of the lines under government control, were still unable to determine upon a policy, they might very well have called into consultation the Railway Commission itself. The Railway Commission is a very valuable organization composed of experts in the very matters which it is necessary to consider in order to determine what are fair and equitable rates, what are rates that will serve all the people, having re-

gard to present conditions, not to conditions that existed in 1897. I do not think any hon. member will question the necessity for reduced freight rates or the benefit that they would confer upon trade in Canada. These reduced rates ought to become effective, having regard to present conditions in the West and all over Canada. So that I urge, Mr. Speaker, that this is a question upon which the Government should make its decision. I urge, as it has already been urged in this discussion, that the time between now and the 6th of December-the 6th of July-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Alexander Stewart: Possibly, Mr. Speaker, I had in mind that this matter was to go to a committee, and if it does I fancy my first statement might be good. But my point is that the time between now and the 6th of July is wholly inadequate for a proper consideration of these matters. Last year the special committee on transportation sat for over six weeks inquiring into matters not by any means as involved as difficult and as intricate as the questions which it is now sought to refer to a special committee.
If this matter is to go to a special committee, why has there been delay from the 8th of March to the 4th of May? Hon. members opposite have known how difficult and intricate this investigation would be; will they suggest that the business that has been before the House for the last eight weeks has been sufficiently important to interfere in any way with the sittings of a special committee? If it was the deliberate policy of the Government to have a fair investigation of this matter by a special committee of the House, it should have been referred to us in the first week of the session. Had that been done, we could have given to the matter during the past eight weeks that consideration which will be impossible if it goes to a special committee now.
It may be argued that this is a matter arising out of the report to the House of the Minister of Railways. While the matter did come to us in that report, the introduction of it weeks before would in no way have interfered with the report itself. The Government could quite consistently have said in the first week of the session: "Here is a matter that we have considered since the 29th of December. Here is a matter with respect to which we have conferred with the chief executives of the different

Crowsnest Agreement
railway lines. Here is a matter upon which it is impossible for us to arrive at a conclusion, and we desire that it be investigated by a committee of the House." But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what has occurred. After the session has been in progress for nine weeks, the Government tells the House that it cannot come to any conclusion on this matter. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) said this afternoon that he did not think a statement to the House on the part of the Government following a conference with the chief executives of the railways and the Railway Commission would be wholly believed by hon. members; that the members of the House would prefer to hear the statement direct from the lips of the officials themselves. But, after all, that is not what the resolution provides for and the senior member for Halifax should have directed the attention of the House to that fact. The resolution does not provide that there shall come before that committee the chief executives of the railways and of the Railway Commission and tell us the results of their investigations and give us the statistics they have gathered, but the resolution itself expressly provides for what is going to happen, and what is going to happen is this:
That, in the circumstances, it is advisable to afford opportunity to all interested parties to submit their views upon the subject matter of the inquiry to the said committee with particular regard to the effect of the rates established by the Crowsnest pass agreement upon Canadian National railways and other lines, as well as upon agricultural development and Canadian industry generally;
That second clause of the resolution provides that these four interests shall be represented before the committee. The four interests that are to be represented before the committee, under the resolution itself, mind you, are the Canadian railways, and other lines, interests concerned with agricultural development, and Canadian industry generally. If these interests are to be represented before the committee I wonder what the extent of that representation will be? Take, for instance, the investigation that has been carried on by the Railway Commission. The argument alone before the commission on behalf of those who were represented there, and had the right to be represented there, occupied three weeks. It took three weeks of the time of the Railway Commission to hear the argument, and they sat morning and afternoon. Their sittings were not limited to certain hours, as would be the case with a special committee of this House; they
sat every morning and every afternoon, and it took them three weeks to hear the argument, after all the evidence was in. I ask hon. gentlemen what chance there would be between now and the 6th of July to carry on an investigation by a parliamentary committee covering the interests referred to in this resolution.
It would be an easy matter to determine upon the representation of the National Railways. It would be a comparatively easy matter to consider and dispose of the representation of other lines of railways, but I wonder how long-hon. gentlemen to my left will know-it would take to get before the special committee all those who would be interested in the agricultural development of Canada, and all those people would be entitled to be heard because this is an investigation of transportation costs having regard to the agricultural development of Canada. Who is going to determine that, and how is it going to be determined in time to allow this special committee to get down to work within a reasonable time?
Take the last interest that is to be heard before this committee, Canadian industry generally, extending from Halifax to Vancouver. I wonder how that representation will be determined? I wonder how long it would take to have a proper representation of those who would have a right to be heard with regard to Canadian industry generally. Yet these are the matters which in the short space of five or six weeks a special committee of this House is to investigate in the hope that it will get results which it would be impossible for the Government to secure from the Board of Railway Commissioners who have had these matters in hand. If the Government want information in any other direction, it is surely a comparatively easy matter to get it from their own railway executives, from the men who are associated with them in the management and control of 22,000 miles of government roads. Has the Government no faith in its own executives? Has it no faith in the records that are in its own offices as to transportation costs? Will it have more faith more confidence in the findings of a special committee of this House? At best, Mr. Speaker, I urge that such a finding would be a half-baked affair simply because there is no time, no opportunity, to go into these matters, even if such a committee had the ability to do so.
Under the law as it stands to-day the whole question of railway rates is in the hands of the railway commissioners. If

Crowsnest Agreement
it is the intention of the Government that the Crowsnest pass agreement shall not be revived, surely we have a right to know whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer wholly or in part the power of fixing rates from the Railway Commission to Parliament itself. That such is the intention is a natural deduction from the resolution. The whole question seems to be whether there shall be a further suspension of the provisions of that agreement, or whether, by failure to act in any direction, it shall automatically revive on the 6th of July. What I submit is this, that the House has a right to expect a lead from the Government. The House has a right to know what the Government policy is. The House has a right to expect that if the Government is going to function, it should come into this House upon a matter of such far-reaching importance as that involved in the resolution we are now considering with a clean cut, definite policy and tell the House what it recommends. This agreement was framed, confirmed by act of Parliament, and became law in 1897. It sets out a special list of the commodities which shall receive special treatment under the agreement. I do not fancy that any hon. gentleman has any idea that that list of commodities was based upon transportation costs. The rates fixed by that agreement had no relation to transportation costs as they existed at that time. The list of commodities, according to the debates of the House of that time, was based upon political considerations, based upon the necessities of western Canada at that time as the Government deemed them to be. Surely the original drafting of that agreement was as much a matter for consideration by a committee as the question whether the agreement should now be revived or further suspended.
Let me draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite that in 1897 when that agreement was framed and these commodities listed for special treatment, the Government of the day did not find it necessary to appoint a special committee for the purpose of inquiring into transportation costs or for any other purpose. The Minister of Railways of that day brought into the House a resolution providing for the terms of the agreement. It was introduced as a government measure and the government stood by it. They stood by it and passed it, and that is precisely what this Government should do now.

I simply repeat that the Opposition claim now that this Government is acting contrary to the whole parliamentary practice of the x^ast. The' Government comes before us with a matter which the members of the ministry themselves state to be far-reaching in its effect upon the Canadian National Railway system. It has been stated by other hon. gentlemen that the question is far-reaching with regard to business generally. The senior member for Halifax referred to it with particular regard to its effect upon the dividends of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) dealt with it in the same connection but possibly in an opposite direction. I am not urging any objection to the Crowsnest pass agreement having regard to its effect upon the earning powers either of the National Railways or of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But I do urge that having regard to general conditions in Canada, and to the altered conditions since 1897, there is a real question as to whether the express terms of the Crowsnest pass agreement operate fairly and equitably to all Canadian interests.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the real purpose of the resolution before the House can hardly have been fully appreciated or this debate would not have run on to the length it has; and certainly some of the arguments we have heard would have been rendered wholly unnecessary. The question is not one of whether the Crowsnest pass agreement suspension shall be continued after July 6, as I think my hon. friend from Marquette assumed; nor is it as to whether the Government should have gone to the Railway Commission for information before coming to Parliament as the right hon. leader of the opposition has asserted. The question is the fundamentally important one of whether, on a great national question, the Government should endeavour to become as fully informed, and have Parliament as fully informed, of all essential facts, circumstances and consequences as possible before reaching a final decision. That is the question involved in the resolution-nothing more and nothing less. It is a matter of giving the members cf this House the fullest information on one phase of a question which every hon. member who has spoken on the subject of railways in this Parliament has described as the most important problem before the people of Canada at the present

Crowsnest Agreement
time. Far from the Government not having a policy on this matter, the Government is following what in this House and in the country has all along been the policy of the Liberal party with respect to railway matters-namely, that on this all important question there should be given to Parliament the fullest information possible.
I am not surprised that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition or indeed my hon. friend for Marquette, should at first blush have expressed themselves as opposed to this resolution, because if I recollect aright at the last session of Parliament when we of the Liberal party, who were then in Opposition, took the position that Parliament should be given the fullest information on matters relating to our Canadian National railways, both these hon. members voted against that resolution. On the 22nd March, 1921, I moved the following amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply:
Subject to the reservation that in exceptional cases there may be idocuments of a confidential character which, in the public interest, may properly be withheld from publication, the House declares that it is the undoubted right of Parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service, including the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, whether operating directly under the control of the department or under corporate form.
That was a declaration of the policy of the Liberal party with respect to matter pertaining to railway problems, namely, that Parliament should have the right to the fullest information on these all-important questions. But I find the names of both the leader of the Opposition and my hon. friend for Marquette recorded in the division list as opposed to that resolution. They are therefore consistent in the attitude they are taking to-day in criticizing the Government for seeking to gain the fullest information possible on this all-important railway matter before coming to a final decision.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sure the Prime Minister will permit me to say that my objection to the motion is not at all based upon the considerations which he has just stated, and I think I made that very plain this afternoon.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then I shall repeat it. I wish to say to the Prime Minister that my objection to the motion
9 p.m. now before the House was not based upon the considerations which he has just stated, but upon other considerations altogether.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I. will deal with that in a moment. I think my hon. friend objected this afternoon on the ground that this resolution was deciding the question as to whether the Crowsnest pass agreement suspension should be continued after the 6th July or not. That, I think, was the ground upon which he objected to the resolution this afternoon.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am very sorry that I failed to make my meaning clear to my horn, friend. I found no objection to the principle of the Government consulting Parliament on matters of this kind; hut the ground upon which I rest my objection at this moment is that this agreement should not be permitted to lapse further, that it should come hack into effect; and taking that position I could not very well consistently support a motion to refer it to a committee that would give consideration to the fact as to whether or not it should be restored.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then all 1
have to say to my hon. friend is this-that we have yet to see whether that agreement will come before Parliament for further consideration by way of amending legis-tion. That question is not involved in the resolution before the House at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps my hon.
friend would not object to my making a similar statement. My objection to the resolution to which the hon member refers was not based on any desire, or expression of desire that Parliament should be refused any information but-similar to that of the hon. member for Marquette -only because we desired that the management of the road should not become a subject of political discussion such as to interfere with its proper business operation, but that in due time Parliament should have all information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall that statement by my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not Mr. MEIGHEN: I will show it to my catch the force of my hon. friend's remark. }lon- frjend in Hansard.

Crowsnest Agreement


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We can all read Hansard for ourselves. Perhaps both my hon. friends will permit me to refer to one other resolution which was passed last year, in regard to which they took a like position.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says " hear, hear." I hope he will say " hear, hear," after I have read the resolution which he himself moved in this House on the 8th April; and, by the way, may I interpose that the wording is all-important as immediately bearing on the very matter w;e are discussing, namely, the propriety of having certain questions referred to a select committee of this House before the Government reaches a final decision. On April 8th, 1921, the present leader of the Opposition, then the Prime Minister, moved, seconded by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton):
That a Select (Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping be appointed for the present session, and be instructed to inquire into the following questions:-
(1) What information as to operation of Canadian National railways and shipping as conducted by the Board of Directors and Management should, in the public interest, be brought down in Parliament on question, motion for production of Papers, or otherwise.
2. When, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given, regard being had for the necessity of securing to Parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy (including finance), and to the Board of Directors the best possible conditions and efficiency of management.
Mark those words, that this committee, which my right hon. friend wished to have appointed, was to give Parliament information when certain investigations should be made having regard for what?
For the necessity of securing to Parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy.
That is exactly the reason why the Government is proposing to have this question referred to a special committee now.


Arthur Meighen: There is such a body now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is because of the necessity of bringing to the attention of Parliament, in regard to this allimportant question, all the essential facts in order that the Government itself may have possession of these facts and that hon. members of the House may be in full possession of these facts before a final
[Mr. Meighen.I
decision on this question and all that it involves is given.
I have, I think, directed the attention of the House to the fact that that resolution of my right hon. friend was supported both by the present leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar).


Arthur Meighen: How did my hon. friend
vote?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not draft the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: How did he vote?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I voted
against the resolution, not because of the phrasing of it, which was that of my right hon. friend, not because of this particular clause-
For the necessity of securing to Parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy.
*-which might have been omitted altogether if it had not been regarded as so important by my right hon. friend, but because the intent and purport of his resolution was to side-track altogether the obtaining of information by Parliament on matters concerning the Canadian National railways. If there is any doubt about the wisdom of the vote, I would ask my right hon. friend what report this committee has made.


Arthur Meighen: The report is unanimous and is in the records of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does it say?


Arthur Meighen: It speaks for itself.
If the hon. member so desires, I will get it and read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It speaks for itself and also for my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: And for my hon. friend, because members of his party were on it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have
said before, one can always tell when my right hon. friend is hit by an argument- he jumps immediately to his feet every time.	*


Arthur Meighen: I was stating the fact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Take another jump.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I moved the resolution; I spoke in favour of it; I supported it, asking for a committee on that subject for the reasons that I gave. There was

Crowsnest Agreement
no body constituted to furnish Parliament or the Government with that information. The question was a new one because of the acquirement of the National Railways. I supported and voted for the resolution for those reasons. In this case, there is a body constituted for this purpose with the information at hand. Why does not the hon. member not go to it? I stand by my position on that resolution. May I ask the Prime Minister-How long does he expect to abide by his decision on that resolution?


Ernest Lapointe: That was not worth
the jump.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend is unduly sensitive. If he can keep his seat until I get through, then he may speak again.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member told me to jump.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did my right hon. friend suggest as the course which the Government should have taken? He said that we should have gone to the Railway Commission for information. I think I am right in that.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yet, what
was the burden of his whole say with respect to the Railway Commission? It was that a few years ago the Railway Commission was, in the public mind, regarded as a body which was protecting the interest of the public, but that to-day and of recent years, it had come to be looked upon by the public,-he did not say whether rightly or wrongly-as a body that was supporting, not the public, but the railways. That is the body which my right hon. friend says that we should have gone to for information, and, then brought down to the House our decision on the basis of the information so supplied. What would have been the first charge my right hon. friend would .have made if we had come to Parliament and said: "We have certain information from the Railway Commission; we have taken our stand on that ground". He would have said that the Railway Commission was looked upon, throughout this country, as caring more for the interests of the railways rather than those of the public.
May I ask my hon. friends from the West this question? Would their confidence in the Government's position have been greater if. the Government had come be-
91 i
fore the House and stated that a certain policy which it had adopted was based upon information given by the Railway Commission? It was out of deference to western opinion on this very matter of securing reliable information that the Government felt it a special obligation that western members should have the right and power to discover for themselves, by representation on a committee of this House, what was the truth and what was not the truth in regard to the essential facts on a question in which they are so vitally interested. That is the reason why the Government has taken the position it has. I am surprised at the hon. member for Marquette taking the position he did to-day. It is not a position he would usually take; I mean it does not display the measure of caution he generally exercises before he takes a definite stand. He says, in effect, that he does not care what the consequences are of. the Crowsnest pass agreement; that it must go into effect, willy-nilly, regardless altogether of how it may affect any other parts of the country. That does not express, I am sure, the real feeling of my hon. friend. I have heard him repeatedly in this House, whilst referring to matters of special interest to one part of the country, advocating that we should take into account the interest of all other parts of Canada. He will agree with me, I am sure, when I say that, if it is going to help to make for national unity to divest discussion in this Parliament of sectional prejudice, if it is going to help to give people in all parts of this Dominion a greater sense of security as regards the desire of Parliament to act in the interest, not of any one part, but of the whole, then that that particular course should be taken. If he has time to reflect further on the matter, he will, I am sure, agree that there is a great deal of force to be attached to that particular consideration.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is fond of saying that the Government has not a policy on this or that. Of course we expect him to say that; but let me make it very clear that, not only is the Government in this matter acting in accordance with the broad policy which it has always taken with respect to matters of great national interest, namely, that there should be the fullest information available before final decisions are reached; but, with respect to the Crowsnest pass agreement and the time of the expiration of its suspension the Government has a
Crowsnest Agreement

decided, clear and very definite policy. In order that there may be no mistake as to the Government's position on this matter, I have reduced to writing the exact statement of the Government's position towards the expiration of the Crowsnest pass agreement, and I hope my hon. friends opposite, after hearing it, will feel, as I think they ought to feel, that, as regards this particular resolution, there is no reason why it should not have their whole-hearted support., In a word, the Government's policy is this:
Unless It can be shown that in the public interest there are good and sufficient reasons why, what is termed the Crowsnest pass agreement of 1897, should not again become operative in July next, the existing Statute Will not be interfered with.
In other words, the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement will then have expired.
Now, is there any hon. member of this House who will rise to his feet and say that he is not in favour of such a policy as that? If it is shown that it is not in the public interest that a certain step shall be taken, is there any member who will rise in his place and defend such a course? All that the Government is asking is that there shall be an opportunity, not alone to the Government itself, but to the members of Parliament and to the country, to understand all that is involved in the coming into effect of that agreement on July 6th of this year, or in the continued suspension of it after that date? As has been pointed out in the debate this afternoon, the Government, far from seeking to evade responsibility, is fully conscious of the magnitude of its responsibility as representing the public in its three capacities, as consumers, as investors, as taxpayers. The Government cannot afford to decide any question on the ground simply of the way in which, and the degree to which, with respect to one particular aspect it will affect one particular part of the country. The Government has to take into account the Dominion as a whole, and all classes therein, and take the course that seems most in the public interest. If it is shown that it is in the public interest that this agreement shall be permitted to be revived on the 6th day of July, certainly the Government will see that it is revived. But if it is shown that such a course is not in the public interest -and remember that this aspect of the matter before it can be finally determined has to be decided on the floor of Parliament, not to-night but at a later date,- and that the suspension of the agreement

should be continued longer, legislation will be necessary. When such legislation comes into the House, then will be the time for hon. gentlemen opposite to east their votes in making a final decision. Let hon. gentlemen clearly understand that sooner or later the whole matter will come back to them again for consideration, and in the meantime that all they are deciding is whether or not they will allow a committee of Parliament to get all the information it can on a matter of great national importance. To-day, in the minds of my hon. friends opposite, it is a question of railroad rates affecting one part of Canada. I have been through the Canadian West on two or three occasions of late, and 1 may say frankly that I have been impressed with the absolute necessity for a reduction in freight rates if that part of our Dominion is to develop as it should. Hon. members on this side of the House are in entire sympathy with hon. gentlemen opposite in their desire for a reduction of rates. But that is not the question involved. The Government is anxious to see that, in seeking to do justice by hon. gentlemen opposite, they do not do injustice in another part of the Dominion in a manner which might lose to those hon. gentlemen the support that they may look to on future occasions in other matters in which they are also vitally interested. To-day it is a question of railway rates; to-morrow it may be a question of some trust or combine which hon. gentlemen opposite may think should be investigated. Are they, then, now going to take the stand that they will not permit a committee of Parliament to get all the information it can on any question? My Labour friend (Mr. Woodsworth) who spoke this afternoon argued eloquently the other evening on the desirability for the fullest information in regard to social conditions in the coal mining fields of Nova Scotia. Is he going to ask Parliament to allow an investigation into the matter of the coal miners and their rights, and deny to this Parliament the right of having an investigation into this question of railway rates which affects all classes of the community? That is the point from which I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will view the matter. Realize that all the Government is asking is that there shall be the fullest inquiry into this all-important matter; because, as my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Stewart) rightly said to-night, the Government has been negotiating with the railway executives to see if they cannot effect an immediate re-

Crovjanest Agreement
duction on the basic commodities of the country, and the Government has learned that the railway executives are prepared to make an immediate reduction on those commodities, although to what extent they are prepared to go depends upon the view that is to he taken of this Crowsnest pass agreement. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says that when the Government was raising railway rates in 1918 the Crowsnest pass agreement was the impediment that stood in the way. To-day the position is just reversed. The executives of the railways are prepared to make an immediate reduction on basic commodities, but this agreement stands as an impediment in the way; and until they know definitely what attitude is going to be taken towards the agreement they are not prepared to make the reductions which otherwise they would be inclined to concede.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Do I understand from the Prime Minister's remarks that the reason why the reduction has not taken place is because the Government have not decided as to what they will do in regard to the Crowsnes. pass agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not quite see the force of my hon. friend's remarks, unless they are intended to imply something which cannot be inferred from what I have stated. The Government, as I have said, has been conferring with the railway executives on this matter. I need not point out to the House that such conferences as the Government has had, through the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), have of necessity been in the nature of informal interviews. The Government have had to accept at their face value the statements which have been made; there has been no opportunity to investigate these statements. That was impossible in informal conference; but that step can be taken before a Select Committee of the House; and if there is right, and justice, and truth, and wisdom in the course which my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) suggests, namely, that the agreement shall come into force, why be afraid of publicity? Why be afraid of an investigation? That is the whole point at issue. It is not a matter of responsible government, as my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) said this afternoon. He declares that the Government should have a policy, should come to Parliament with it, declare it, and drive it through the House. Well, he has his views on responsible government and I have mine. If I am to judge him by his acts of the past, his theory of responsible government is that a Prime Minister and his colleagues should regard themselves as a body of supermen who can come to a decision in secret conclave, bring that decision into Parliament, and by sheer force of their following, regardless of how it may have been obtained, drive that decision through the House, irrespective of the will of the people at large. Now, I desire to say, and to say more particularly to my western friends,-who have been saying a good deal in their public speeches-that in my view of responsible government, the House of Commons, the rights of members of Parliament and the rights of the people should be regarded as all-important, and that the Cabinet should consider itself as a committee of Parliament and not as a body of supermen-I have taken the position that this Government would so regard itself, and that on these controversial questions, so far as it was possible to do so, the Gov-vernment would seek to ascertain the will and wish of Parliament in a reasonable way and give expression to it in legislation. That is what we are seeking to do at the present time; that is the whole purpose of the present legislation. The whole purpose is to form, out of the different groups that compose Parliament, a committee which shall have full powers of investigation under oath, permit them to summons the different classes and interests concerned, and give to them the right to get all the information they can before this matter is finally decided.
In the last analysis-and with this let me conclude-if it decides to ask for a futher suspension of this Crowsnest pass agreement, the Government will have to come before this House, and persuade the House that that course is in the public interest. There can be no change in the statute as it stands, and the agreement will automatically go into effect on the 6th July, unless prior to that date this Government comes before Parliament and secures from Parliament further legislation.
Now, all we ask at present is, having regard to what is involved, having regard to the fact that we have railway deficits to consider; having regard to the fact that we have British Columbia's interests, the interests of the maritime provinces, of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the interests of the prairie provinces to consider; having regard to the

Crowsnest Agreement
fact that we wish in all things to maintain a spirit of unity and goodwill between all classes and all parts of this Dominion- that hon. members let us have this matter fully investigated by a committee, leaving to us full responsibility as to the course to be ultimately pursued, which we are not shirking for one moment, but which we wish to exercise in the light of full information, and in the light of what we believe to be just and right for the people of this Dominion.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I do not propose to add anything to the merits of the debate on this question, it having been so thoroughly threshed out. I merely wish to allude to some matters of local or provincial importance in connection with it.
In the first instance, I am sorry that I find myself in disagreement with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. iCrerar), and with his followers, of course, more especially when I have in mind their gallant support of me when I had some little railway troubles of my own. I was heartily in accord, strange to say, with everything that the hon. member for Marquette said this afternoon, and I endorse every word of his remarks, but unfortunately there are matters of provincial or British Columbian character in connection with this subject which compel me to take a different point of view. The interest of my own riding and province must prove superior to the bonds of friendship or of esteem for the honourable gentlemen.
If the Crowsnest pass agreement is abrogated without further amendment, a very gross injustice will be done to British Columbia. It was partly alluded to by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart), and I should like to add something to his remarks. This agreement was embodied in legislation passed in 1898 and, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) read out this afternoon, its two vital sections are sections (d) and (e). Section (d) imposed upon the company a reduction of rates from 33J to 10 per cent according to the various articles, some twelve in number, on all traffic westbound from Fort William to points west of Fort William. Fruit is one of tho articles covered. But that is only on the rate westbound, so that our British Columbia fruit would suffer a tremendous setback by this additional 33J per cent reduction given to the presumed fruit grower in the East, and a very gross injustice 
would be perpetrated in that regard. I can give you an example, Mr. Speaker.
Apples originating at Okanagan Landing, which is about the centre of the fruitgrowing industry in British Columbia, would pay a freight rate of $1.43 per hundred pounds to Barstow in Alberta, a distance of 405 miles. From Fort William to Hazelton, the same distance, going west the rate would be 84 cents, a difference of 59 cents, or a percentage difference of 71.4 per cent. The reduction on the Fort William rate would be about 55 per cent. Can any hon. member say that it would be a reasonable thing under the present conditions of fruit growing in British Columbia, where we already have a high railway tariff to contend with, that another additional 331 per cent should be added, or that that was ever contemplated in 1898, when fruit growing in British Columbia, for export at least, was entirely unknown.
Take the other side of the question, shipping east. The reduction promised in subsection (d) is on grain and flour from all points west of Fort William to Fort William and all points east. But there is no reduction proposed on wheat and flour coming from the prairie provinces to British Columbia. When the Crowsnest pass agreement act was passed there was no export of wheat or flour from British Columbia, there was no elevator in that province, there was no orient trade, there was no Panama canal; all those things have grown up since. We have a large elevator, we are agitating for another, and one will be put up this summer by private enterprise. All these things are intended to promote the interprovincial export of flour and wheat from the prairies, more particularly from Alberta, to the Pacific coast, and in that way build up an interprovincial trade.
I will quote an instance of the rate in that regard also. The rate from Morley, Alberta, to Vancouver, 601 miles, is 30 cents; while the rate from Virden, Manitoba, to Fort William, 600 miles, is 23i cents, a difference of 27 per cent. A reduction on the grain rate from Virden to Fort William will reduce that rate by seven cents, which will bring it down to 16i cents, or a difference as compared with the charge on wheat for the same distance from Morley to Vancouver, of almost 100 per cent. That is a practical illustration of what would happen if this change is made without some consideration of the conditions which have grown up in British

Crowsnest Agreement
Columbia since this agreement was entered into.	.
It may be claimed that we have what is called the Mountain rate in British Columbia, and that that affects us adversely. It does affect us adversely already, and naturally we do not need to make it any worse. Moreover, there has been a very strong agitation in British Columbia against the Mountain rate, and the province had a most searching investigation, retaining an expert to appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and there is every prospect that that Mountain rate will be somewhat reduced at any rate. But it does not materially enter into the subject of this agreement just now.
I wish, however, to put myself on record squarely and unequivocally as being in favour of a reduction of freight rates to the greatest possible limit. I have no hesitation in making my position plain on that point. I will stand for any reduction almost, however great, in freight rates.
When the hon. member for Marquette was talking of the lumber camps of British Columbia being closed and the fish caught on the Pacific coast not coming east, he was only echoing the remarks I made in the House a few months ago. I gave instances of those camps shutting down on account of the existing high freight rates, and there is no need to make them worse under the Crowsnest pass agreement.
The remedy I suggest is more traffic. Reduce the rates and let the farmers on the prairies have something left over after they have paid for the transportation of their wheat. Let them ship their wheat to British Columbia and bring back the much needed lumber that we are just as anxious to sell as they are to buy, and the increased traffic will make up the deficiency caused by a reduction of freight rates.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Marquette stand in his place and apparently unabashed and unashamed make the statement that he was quite indifferent, in fact, he practically said that he did not care whether the Canadian Pacific Railway paid a dividend next year or not. I gazed at him awestruck, expecting the floor to open up underneath him for such sacrilege, and hoping that the hole would not be big enough to swallow up also us wretched members who sit in the back seats. But he made his remarks with a nonchalance and recklessness that I certainly admire but cannot imitate. It reminded me of the small boy who
was told by his brother that he had not said his prayers that night. " No, Bill," he replied, "I didn't say them last night either, and I am not going to say them to-morrow, and if nothing happens to me I am never going to say them dny more."
I shall watch with an anxious eye during the next few days to see if something bad does not happen to my hon. friend. When I heard him make that statement, hope almost awoke in my breast; I thought perhaps I might yet get my amendment through on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway bill. He spoke of the reserve of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I think he mentioned something about trillions. Now, I am not familar with trillions; I count my money only in millions, and beyond that basis of calculation I cannot go. But the hon. gentleman must be mistaken, for it is not forty-eight hours since we in this House heard an exmember of the late government, the member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) solemnly assure the House that if the Canadian Pacific were required to build that line of railway in British Columbia thirty-six miles long he would deplore their having to do it, because, he said, along that route the stumps were such that it would require a whole box of powder to blow them up. Now, a railway that will be turned aside by a stump or daunted by the necessity for using a box of powder cannot possibly have a reserve amounting to trillions, or anything like it.
There is just one other thing I want to mention, and I hope the Government ani the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) who represents British Columbia in the Government, will take particular notice of it. As the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has said the Crowsnest pass agreement does not mention rates on lumber, so that if we in British Columbia are to get any redress at all in respect to the lumber situation, it will have to be through compromise or negotiation in connection with the advocacy or otherwise of the Crowsnest pass agreement. I also wish to express the hope that on that committee there will be found a representative from British Columbia and that arrangements will be made to hear expert testimony with regard to rates as affecting the industries of that province.


Mr. E. J. McMURRAY (North Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I am a representative of the city of Winnipeg, a city which, probably more than any other in Canada, depends for its existence and its prosperity

Crowsnest Agreement

upon the railroad rates. I am a western man, as my hon. friends opposite are, and I am at one with them in the demand for a reduction of freight rates. I believe, Sir, that our economic regeneration in this country depends primarily upon the bringing about of a considerable reduction in freight rates. I am confident that prosperity will not come to us until such a reduction has been effected.
It struck me this afternoon that the question was purely one of education. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, the matter must be finally settled by debate upon the floor of this House, and I have never known of a case where the gathering of full information and full data before a decision on any question was reached, worked an injury. With the full determination that, come what may, I will at the proper time, stand for a marked reduction of freight rates, I for one shall be glad to have an opportunity of voting intelligently on this question, on the basis of information received through or from a special committee. On that ground, therefore, I will support the resolution now before the House.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: Mr. Speaker, those of us who come from the eastern part of Canada feel just as keenly as hon. members from any other part of the country the necessity for the revision of freight rates if there is to be a revival of business throughout the land. The rates on the Intercolonial railway are fixed by the directors of the Canadian National Railways without any reference whatever to the Railway Commission presided over by Mr. Carvell, and the resolution which has been proposed by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy) gives us the first opportunity we have had of ascertaining at first hand exactly what the transportation costs of the railway systems of this country are.
We heard1 this afternoon of the great amount of labour that was being expended on this matter by experts connected with the Railway Commission. But do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that in accordance with the practice that has always been followed in the past, we can summon these gentlemen before the special committee and there obtain the benefit of their knowledge and experience in connection with these matters? Having dtone that, we can proceed to discuss these and1 other questions, and, if necessary, legislate with regard to them.
My hon. friends opposite speak about the onerous freight charges made against 
the products of the West. But their complaints, well founded as they are, are no more justifiable than those which we make in the maritime provinces. There we have had no Crowsnest pass agreement, but under the solemn pact on the basis of which the maritime provinces entered Confederation, we were to have the benefit of such rates as would promote interprovincial trade.|	But these have been taken from
us, and our trade is consequently disappearing. The conditions of which we complain are quite as serious as those prevailing in any other part of Canada. Are we, then, to be denied an opportunity, through the medium of this special committee, of ascertaining what is the basis of transportation costs?
My right hon. friend who leads the Opposition tells us how boldly he proceeded under th.e War Measures Act to announce a policy in 1918. But not much boldness was necessary, in view of the powers that were given to him under that act. He proceeded to create in this country a system of wages following the McAdoo award, and then he abrogated the Crowsnest pass agreement and imposed these higher rates. That is what was done in 1918, and that is what was confirmed by the amendment of the Railway Act known as section 325. On every other subject of importance that is presented to us for consideration we proceed through committees in order to ascertain the facts; is it to be said that in respect to this vital subject, upon which we must have information before a decision is reached, we should not have a committee? We are all glad to see the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in the House after his illness. I may say to him in all kindness, however, that I do not think he has given due consideration to the provisions of this Crowsnest pass agreement. The Minister of Railways earlier in the evening emphasized the condition that prevailed with regard to fruit, and that point was accentuated a few moments ago by the remarks of my hon. friend from British Columbia (Mr. Neill). So also in regard to live stock; so also in regard to coal oil. Apparently it was not clear to some hon. members that the rates on lumber would not be affected in any way by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement, because in it there is no reference whatever to that commodity.
The interpretation which I place upon this statute is that the rates fixed under the Crowsnest pass agreement would1 affect only the lines belonging to the Canadian

Crowsnest Agreement
Pacific Railway Company which were in existence in 1897. It has no reference or ap-lication to a single mile of railway built by the Canadian Pacific since that time. I venture to offer that opinion, Mr. Speaker, based on my reading of the statute and on whatever legal experience I may have. If I am correct in my assumption, and assuming we have no committee to investigate the matter and the agreement, being continued, has no application whatever to railways lines built by the Canadian Pacific since 1897, would not that be a peculiar condition of things?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my hon. friend is wrong in the statement that he has made. I cannot at the moment quote my authority, but I am under the impression that the Railway Commission have held in the past that the Crowsnest pass agreement covered all lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway west of the Great Lakes. '


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Railway Commission is not a judicial body in legal matters, and its decisions in matters of that kind do not absolutely control, but would be affected by the decisions of the courts of this country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend's state-rhent now is correct the Canadian Pacific have the option of challenging the decisions in the courts, but that option they have never exercised.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have made some inquiry and I understand the situation to be this: The Canadian Pacific never raised the point. They permitted these rates to go into effect on the lines which have been constructed since 1897, and they never raised the question legally. I am simply offering my opinion upon this subject as a lawyer of some experience, and I say I cannot find in this statute any provision that these rates were to apply to the lines of railway thereafter to be built, and according to my understanding of the law, for the rates to apply, the statute must contain words to this effect: "these provisions shall apply to lines hereafter to be built". Such words are not to be found in this statute.
Not only that, but the reduction of rates was made in regard to rates then existing. How could these rates apply to lines which were not in existence, so far as traffic was concerned, in 1897? I venture to say that the position of the Government in this matter is exactly the same as they took when the question of the Wheat Board came up at the beginning of the session. I ventured
at that time to point out that a favourable decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in regard to the creation of a compulsory Wheat Board was a matter of very grave doubt, and that suggestion, which was not a very new one so far as I was concerned, was confirmed by the law officers of the Crown. Do not hon. gentlemen think it was a very wise policy for this Government to adopt instead of proceeding to formulate a hard-and-fast line of action in regard to handling the wheat crop of the West? Was it not a wise course to submit that question to a special committee of the House where hon. members had the greatest possible opportunity of discussing this very important question? In regard to this vital question of freight rates, ought not an equally wise course to be pursued? If the suggestion I have made to the House to-night that this agreement would not apply to railways built since 1897 should be correct, I submit that hon. gentlemen from the West would not be true to the interests of the people they were sent here to represent if they refused to permit a special committee of this House to investigate just what is the meaning of this Crowsnest pass agreement, and what its effect is to-ijay. Suppose section 325 of the Railway Act is amended by the Senate-there is no reason why the Senate could not pass a bill cutting out the limiting clause at the end-and that bill comes here to be dealt with. We would want to be in position to deal with it. I want to say, having had a very slight acquaintance with the subject of railway rates, because I once represented a client in a freight rate case, that I know of no other subject so abstruse and complicated and difficult to deal with. I am quite sure, as my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) said this afternoon, that outside of the wide experience which my hon. friend the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has had as chairman of the Railway Board, there are very few men in this House competent to deal with so abstruse a subject as the proper adjustment of freight rates in this country. There never was a subject with regard to which there was more necessity for this House to insist upon a special committee being appointed to get the proper information under oath from experts who have given their lives to unravelling freight rate problems, as well as hearing from the responsible executives administering the railways of this country. Animated as we all are by the desire to reduce transportation charges in this country, so that we
Crowsnest Agreement

may have a business revival in Canada, if this special committee is appointed we shall then be able to approach intelligently a settlement of this question, but if we do not have that committee and this whole subject is left up in the air, the settlement that will be made will be one lacking that clearness of vision and that proper exercise of judgment which this House ought to have in considering a question of such vital importance as this.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York) :: I confess I was at a little difficulty in my effort to follow the reasoning of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). He did me an honour that I do not think I am at all entitled to when he said that I probably was the only man in the House who could understand the freight tariffs or understand this question at all. Then he pointed out that he had been engaged in a rate case and had found it the most horribly complicated thing he had ever run up against. Then he said that this horribly complicated subject instead of being decided by people whose business it has been to decide such questions should be decided by a body that he had previously said could not decide it. I really could not follow my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I cannot follow my hon. friend now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I regret it but 1 really think I am right this time. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the House feels under n deep debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for writing cut a declaration of the policy of his party. Here is another great document to be preserved for all time, and it is one he need never tear to pieces like the others have been torn, because I am sure it will never be able to hurt one way or the other. It commits him of course so definitely to just what he is going to do in connection with the matter under discussion. One of his formulae under which policies are to be interpreted and treated will not apply. It is his formula to the effect that "the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." He will not be able to say that in this case because there is no letter. There is nothing in this particular thing at any rate that he need get away from. Then we have another r.ew doctrine and that is that before anything is done by the Government which amounts to anything, it must first be sent to a special committee of this House. I wonder how it would be possible to carry on business in this country if my hon. friend

seriously intended to carry out that idea?
I am sure he will find a great deal of difficulty in getting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to subscribe to this new doctrine and to sending on the budget to a special committee of this House before we consider it here. The budget of course gets to a committee finally but it gets there with the imprimatur of the Minister of Finance. He takes his stand upon it just as the Government ought to take its stand upon this question here to-day.
There is one thing that puzzles me about the whole of this debate and that is why this question is raised at all by the Government unless it be of course for the purposes that have already been suggested. How can there be any room for debate upon the question that more information can be got? We have had months and months of evidence being taken. It is all available to the Government. Then we have had three weeks of argument. That too is all available to the Government. What is more, the people of this country paid an awful lot to get that evidence and have that argument made before the commission. ' I remember that one of the chief complaints made against the Railway Commission in connection with the judgment of 1920 was that the board had not gone west but had stayed in Ottawa, had received the evidence and had come to a conclusion here. The West was very cross about it and so were other districts of the country. Well, since then we have had this investigation and a complete investigation. We have had the board sitting,
I think, in eight of the provinces. The people of Canada have incurred an expense in getting experts and lawyers for the purpose of submitting their cases that may run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and yet notwithstanding this all these people are invited to come back to Ottawa again-to do what? Simply to repeat what they have already said, simply to repeat everything that is now down in black and white, and, which the Minister of Railways must be thoroughly familiar with. And why? In order that this matter may be stalled just so much the longer.
Now we are interested, and very much interested, in the railway rates question;
I entirely agree with everything that has been said on that point. But we are interested in the reduction of rates on basic commodities in the whole rather than in any particular part of Canada; and we are interested in a fair treatment of com-' modifies as a whole, and not of commodities

Crowsnest Agreement
within a small class. I may be wrong but I think there are approximately fifteen different commodities which eastern Canada is interested in having regard to the movement west-I do not think there are more covered by the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not know exactly why they were selected. Of course the gentlemen that are interested in those few items would be deeply interested in the maintenance of that low rate. Now just to give the House some idea of what it means I hold in my hand a freight classification with hundreds of pages. That affords some idea of the manifold activities of commerce. Why should fifteen articles-or fifteen classes of articles-out of the whole of that mass get a preferential treatment? We have had a lot of trouble-every country has had the same experience-in trying to get something like fairness in connection with railway administration. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish. In the old days you had special agreements here, there and everywhere. The bigger manufacturer, the man who was in the position owing to the volume of his business and the traffic he could offer, was always getting advantages over his less favoured competitors. Not only that but you had the same thing in connection with certain municipalities, districts, and the like; and as far back as 1873-the year that England appointed her railway commission- this Parliament set to work to try and remedy those grievances. Nothing was done; nothing could be done until you had a special rate regulating commission which was not created until 1904.
Now what was the underlying principle of all that legislation? It was that there should not be under discrimination; that is unfair discrimination, not only as between traders, shippers, but also as between different localities and different places; they were all to be treated the same way. When this agreement was put into effect there was no enforcement of that law; but I cannot imagine anything which is much more discriminatory than that very agreement. What is wanted in Canada is a reduction,-just as drastic a reduction as can be made-in freight rates on basic commodities which have to move in mass and to the extent that special privileges and discriminatory rates are given here, in so far as all basic materials not covered by that contract are concerned, you may say goodbye to any reduction of rates.
I do not exactly know what is involved in this particular issue having regard to
money. From my recollection I would take it that since I left the railway board there have been increases in western territory amounting to something like thirty-five per cent. I would imagine that the decreases made since would probably leave in the West a net increase over the 191.) standard of twenty per cent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A little more than that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that be the case I would be within the mark in saying that this agreement would involve a difference in railway rates of approximately something like $18,000,000; and it is quite clear that if that amount of railway revenues was taken away to-day, with the deficits which we already have, there would not be very much left for us to work on for the purpose of getting overdue reductions on other basic commodities.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The sum my hon. friend has mentioned would cover all railways and not merely the National lines alone.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite right. I think it would cover all railways. As I say, the amount would be approximately correct.
Then, in connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) as to the manner in which the agreement operates, it is quite true, and 1 think I was responsible for it, that when that agreement was before me for consideration the attitude I always took was that the board could not think that Parliament intended absolutely widespread discrimination in connection with that contract and we always invited the companies to put in tariffs which applied Crowsnest pass rates to new lines, but I am perfectly free to admit, in view of more recent authority, that there is very grave doubt as to the legality of that position. The contract, after all, was a contract having to do with the company's lines as then owned, leased or operated and projected through the Kootenay district, and the basis of rates was also fixed having regard to the then scale of rates applying on the different lines cf railway which were under operation. I would say that the chances are that the agreement would probably be confined by the courts to the situation which was covered by the agreement when the agreement was made. At the time the agreement was made there were some
10 p.m. 7,400 miles of railway in operation by the Canadian Pacific, and I think to-day there are some 14,000 miles.
Cro'osnest Agreement

But the main trouble has nothing to do with that; the main trouble is that we have high freight rates in all parts of Canada, and we think, in connection with basic commodities, any reductions made ought to be so made as to give the whole country some benefit of them. For example, we have tremendously high rates on coal in Ontario, and I am afraid it would never do to allow everything which could be made available for a reduction in rates to go in one particular direction on a comparatively small mileage, unless we are to say that, for all time, we agree on the principle of creating and continuing discrimination. But this all serves merely to emphasize the fact of the necessity of something being done one way or the other, of some action being taken by the Government to-day, of their saying: "yes" or "no". The question was put to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), whether the fact was that high rates were being maintained in this country because the Government was not able to make up its mind as to what it was going to do with the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not think that question was answered, and it certainly was a question rightly put if we have regard to what was said by the Prime Minister. The House has most assuredly been told that the Government has gone into conference with the railway executives and that they have said: "We cannot make, in these basic rates, those reductions which are so much required until we know what you are going to do with the Crowsnest pass agreement." We need to do more than talk about reducing rates and reducing expenses; we need to do something towards bringing about that reduction at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, in view of what the Minister of Railways has said, in view of what the Prime Minister has said, I now beg to move, seconded by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen):
That all the words after the first word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor.
A general reduction in railway rates so essential to the welfare of Canadian production and trade cannot, as declared by the Government, be made until Parliament decides whether or not the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement which expires on July 6th be renewed; that it is the immediate duty of the Government-already too long deferred-to acquire the necessary information gathered and in their disposal at the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners and to submit its policy, to this house.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House, it seems to me, is not altered or advanced by the amendment which my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) has just moved, and 1 think the whole question has been so fully discussed that it is not necessary for _ me to enter into any of the various phases of the matter to any great extent. The question, however, of a reduction of freight rates is of such vital importance that I feel 1 should state my position briefly before this resolution or the amendment is put to a vote. The position which is taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, so far as I can make out, is that hon. members of the official Opposition do not want the Crowsnest pass agreement to come into effect, and hon. members of the Progressive party do want the Crowsnest pass agreement to come into effect.
With much that my hon. friends of the Progressive party have said in regard to this agreement,, I agree. If the question before the House at the present moment was whether or not the Crowsnest pass agreement should be restored to its full effect, I would be bound to vote in favour of that position. But the question is not that; the question is whether or not an opportunity should be given to members of this House to make a further inquiry, to inform themselves as to all the facts which have a bearing on the situation, and then, after that, somebody will have to make some substantive move before the question of the Crowsnest pass agreement can come up for discussion. For that reason, for the reason that I believe all members of the House, including myself, should supply themselves with the fullest information that is available before the time for action comes, I propose to support the resolution and to oppose the amendment.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I trust that, perhaps, I may be pardoned for intervening in this debate, in view of the importance of the matters involved, not only to the West, but to all parts of Canada. There is one gratifying fact, and that is that, apparently, all parts of the House are agreed as to the necessity for an immediate and drastic reduction in freight rates. That is not common only to members of this House; it represents to an almost unanimous degree, the attitude of the people of this country, and to some extent, perhaps, the attitude of even the railway companies themselves. Now, in order to place on Hansard the views of the

Crowsnest Agreement
provincial government of Saskatchewan, to which reference has already been made in this debate, I would direct the attention of the House to a resolution passed unanimously on the motion of the former provincial treasurer, now premier of that province, on this particular question. The resolution reads:
Whereas the burden of existing freight rates, especially on the products of agriculture, is so great as to be more than the traffic can bear, and
Whereas in many [parts of the province the result of this condition is that grain is standing in the fields unthreshed because, at the present prices, threshing costs and freight charges would absorb the whole of the price realised;
Therefore be it Resolved that in the opinion of this Assembly the Government of Saskatchewan should continue to press its application for the reduction of freight rates now before the Railway Commission of Canada and further

And I direct the attention of hon. members on all sides to this part of the resolution-
That in the opinion of this Assembly the Parliament of Canada should under no circumstances re-enact subsection five of section 325 of The Railway Act of Canada which expires in July 1922 and which, if allowed to lapse, will again bring into force the Crowsnest agreement.
Now, in support of. that resolution the then provincial treasurer made this statement:
It may seen an extreme statement to make that at the present time existing freight rates are killing the traffic, but anyone who travels through the province, and particularly the northern part of the province, cannot fail to be impressed by the large number of fields in which stooks of oats are still standing unthreshed for the reason stated in the resolution, namely, that the present price will not bear the threshing costs and the freight charges.
What the present Premier of Saskatchewan says in that regard I am quite sure can be substantiated by many members of this House. Let me also quote the statement of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which, I believe, appeared in the newspapers either this morning or last evening. In that part of his speech dealing with freight rates, he says:
It is the view of the directors, and it has been their view for some time, that the scaling downwards of freight rates should be begun with reductions on basic commodities, especially in those industries which have felt the general depression most severely. Notwithstanding the willingness of the companies to make sacrifices in their revenues in the hope that a lower scale of rates on basic commodities would give an impetus to business activity, they have been precluded from agreeing on a definite policy because of the approaching expiration on July
7 next of the provisions of the Railway Act allowing the Railway Commission to make rates irrespective of agreements, statutory or other.
Now, I take it from that statement that the Canadian Pacific Railway company will object, as an org-anization, to the reviving of the Crowsnest pass agreement. In view of the various statements made with regard to the resolution before the House, one perhaps finds himself in some difficulty in determining exactly what is the particular issue. It seems to me, however, regardless of how it may be put, that the question fundamentally is simply this: Are we going to appoint a committee to determine whether or not, after all the facts have been ascertained, the Crowsnest pass agreement shall be further suspended, shall be abrogated, or shall be revived in its present form? Let me say at the outset that I for one at least am in favour of the agreement being revived on July 7th next, and I am perfectly clear on that. I have no objection to an investigation into railway rates as they affect any other commodities not covered by the Crowsnest pass agreement, but as regards that agreement I believe without question that it should come into effect again on July 7th next.
Realising the necessity for a reduction in freight rates, let us for a moment consider the contract which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has with the Government in the agreement described as the Crowsnest pass agreement. It is unnecessary for me to point out that this is not the only contract which the government of Canada has made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and I think that everyone will agree with me when I say that the people of Canada have scrupulously and faithfully carried out every provision of any contract that they ever entered into with that company. They have not asked for the abrogation or the suspension of any of those agreements many of which undoubtedly have borne very heavily on the country, and more especially on the people of western Canada. We have hewed to the line and carried out the terms of each and every contract which our governments have at various times made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Is it proposed now that this committee shall consider only the Crowsnest pass agreement because the Canadian Pacific Railway asks for the abrogation or the suspension of that agreement? Would it not be just as fair, considering this as a solemn agreement made
Crowsnest Agreement

in consideration of a cash subsidy of $3,630,000, for the Parliament of Canada to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway company to consider the suspension or the alteration of their charter regarding, for instance, tax exemption? I think that the Canadian Pacific Railway company, when they entered into this solemn and binding contract, must have realised the possibilities of the situation. They may not perhaps have realised them all, but in that regard they must take their chances just as the people of Canada took their chances when they entered into the agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway in the matter of their charter. Would the Canadian Pacific railway, in consideration of the abrogation or suspension of this particular agreement, undertake to return to the people of Canada the sum of $3,630,000 which was given them as a cash subsidy? Do they propose to give us any consideration for the privileges which we have accorded them? So far as I can observe, I presume they will not. The Crowsnest pass agreement of 1897 represents nothing less and nothing more than a charter so far as freight rates are concerned, and I think we should be very careful indeed before we consent to a further suspension or to an abrogation of that agreement. I may say frankly that I, for one, am not prepared to consent to anything of that kind.
Considering the agreement for a moment, I may point out that the bill incorporating the Crowsnest pass agreement itself was introduced by the then Minister of Railways, the Hon. A. G. Blair. Mr. Blair had apparently no misconception as to the value to the people of Canada of this particular provision regarding freight rates. He said:
The committee will have noted that we have sought to ensure the country a large measure of relief from the rates which have obtained since the Canadian Pacific railway was started. We have imposed conditions upon the company which are very largely restrictive of their present powers. We have embraced in one of the sub-clauses of these resolutions, a considerable list of articles which go into very large consumption among the people of the western provinces and we have secured an agreement on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that very substantial reductions will be made upon existing rates.
Now, the commodities have already been referred to, a few items at a time, but I think, it will be found upon a close examination that so far as the westbound commodities are concerned they cover fruit, agricultural implements, building materi-

als, household furniture, iron and wire, cordage and binder twine; those are substantially the commodities concerned in the westbound traffic referred to in this agreement. It is true that at that time these particular commodities did constitute the basic commodities of the West. It is also true, despite what the late Minister of Railways (Mr. Stewart) has stated, that with one or two possible exceptions-live stock, fruit and one or two other commodities- they still constitute the basic requirements of the western country. Looking at the eastbound traffic, we find two items, grain and flour. Surely no one will suggest that these articles do not still constitute the basic products of the West. But it seems to me that the members of the House in those days when considering these various commodities endeavoured to give favourable rates to eastern manufacturers so far as westbound freight was Concerned, and favourable tolls to eastbound products of the western country.
It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement applies to the Canadian Pacific railway only as it then existed. But I would point out to the hon. gentleman responsible for that view that the Railway Commission, which is a judicial body, decided in December, 1917, and its decision has not been questioned, that the Crowsnest pass agreement:-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the date of the decision?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: December 26, 1917. It
deals with the 15 per cent increase then granted by the Railway Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Drayton. In deciding the question as to whether or not the agreement applied to the Canadian Pacific Railway as it then existed, the chairman said in the operative part of his judgment:
I am of opinion that the discrimination should be avoided, and that the effect of the Crowsnest pass agreement must be extended to the system of the company as now operated.
If that interpretation of the law is correct, the situation is simply this, that not only did the agreement apply to the Canadian Pacific Railway of that particular date and to the lines leased and operated by it, but it likewise applies to the Canadian Pacific Railway as it exists to-day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question I raised is purely a legal question and not a matter of rates. The quotation from Sir Henry Drayton's judgment does not

Crowsnest Agreement
purport to decide, as a matter of law, that the Crowsnest pass agreement extended beyond any lines other than those then existing. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me in that.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not wish to mislead any one, certainly not the hon. member for Pictou, but it does seem to me that that particular point is perfectly clear in the judgment of the Railway Commission as given by Sir Henry Drayton, and I quote it for what it is worth.
Hon. members may recollect that a case involving a somewhat similar point came before the Privy Council in connection with the application of a gas company in one of our western cities for a declaration that they were entitled to franchise rights in property which had not been included in the area of the municipality at the time the franchise was granted. The Privy Council held that the franchise rights extended beyond the original corporate limits of that particular city at the time, and covered the increased area subsequently taken into the municipality.
Another point referred to was as to whether or not the Crowsnest pass agree-men applied only to the Canadian Pacific Railway and not to other lines of railway -the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Of course, in the agreement there is no reference to these two additional railways, they not being then in existence, but in the same judgment from which I have already quoted the chairman of the Railway Commission said:
It is quite true that neither the Canadian Northern nor the Grand Trunk Pacific are bound by provisions of the Crowsnest pass agreement or act. On the other hand, while it would be open for the Board to permit an increase of 15 per cent in their rates over a very large part of the territory served by one or other of these systems, grain could undoubtedly be hauled to the Canadian Pacific. The result would be that both these companies in order to protect their traffic would reduce their rates at all points where their traffic would suffer from Canadian Pacific competition. The element of unequal rates would be again introduced into the western territory, and I am convinced that this is no better for the railways than it is for the districts.
So the chairman held that the agreement applies not only to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but in addition to the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railways.
Suppose the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has to abide by the provisions of the Crowsnest pass agreement, it will undoubtedly suffer considerable loss. The
National Railways will substantially have to comply with the same provisions, and consequently they too will suffer considerable loss, the total of all losses being estimated at some $18,000,000. Now, would the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be permitted to raise existing rates on other commodities for the purpose of meeting this deficit? I suggest not, because of course it has got to meet the competition of the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific.
I have every respect for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is a large and businesslike corporation. I have heard it suggested that it is the financial barometer of this country. It is true that during 1921 the company paid its dividend and had a substantial surplus, something like three-quartetrs of a million dollars, but if on last year's operation the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does constitute the financial barometer of this country, then I certainly am very much mistaken, because I fear that very few corporations indeed, unless specially favoured in some particular way, made anything like that showing. Therefore if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is a barometer of the financial condition of this country, it is not a true barometer of that condition during the past year. On that ground alone I have no hesitation in saying that barometers of that character are not going to fool anyone who is endeavouring to truly ascertain the financial credit of this country.
It is also urged against the coming into force of this agreement that the National Railways might suffer. Now, everyone knows that the National Railways, or a great part of them, were speculatively built; as suggested by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) they were colonization roads. I think, however, we have every reason to expect that with the aggressive attitude assumed by the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) in the co-ordination of these two now separate ^ and distinct railway services, a great saving will be effected, and also, I think, a great increase in efficiency.
I suggest also that we at least on this side of the House are hopeful that the Minister of Railways will not be unmindful of the recommendation of the former chairman of the National Railway Board that the very large capitalization of the National Railways should be reduced in order that the earnings might represent a fair return on the capital involved.
Crowsnest Agreement

Now, my suggestion, Mr. Speaker is this: that the Crowsnest pass agreement, which is simply a charter of our rights respecting freight charges, not only in this part of the country, but in western Canada as well-that the Crowsnest pass agreement should be given a try-out for such period of time as Parliament may decide. If after it has been tried out it is found that the railway companies have suffered unduly or that the efficiency of our transportation systems has been injured, it will then be time enough for Parliament to determine whether the Crowsnest pass agreement should be suspended for a further degree of time, or abrogated altogether. I do think that an opportunity should at least be given for such a trial as I have suggested.
If Parliament decides to have an investigation into transportation costs as asked for in the resolution, I think perhaps that might be desirable, so long as our rights reserved under the Crowsnest pass agreement are protected, and so long as it is definitely understood now that that agreement is to go into effect on the 7th of July, 1922.
I am sure it must be common ground in this House that an immediate reduction of railroad rates would go a long way toward remedying- the business paralysis which now prevails everywhere. I think that we, assembled here as the representatives of the people, should be the last to interfere with the going into effect of the Crowsnest pass agreement, that solemn contract between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific (Railway Company.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that even at this late hour it would be out of place for a member from British Columbia to say just a word on this extremely important question. I must say, as I have said on previous occasions, that hon. members on my left have a tendency to take a more or less sectional view with regard' to some great national questions. It may be said that the Government is dilatory in its conduct, but so far as our friends on my left are concerned, they tell the House and the country that they want the Crowsnest pass agreement enforced because it means, primarily, cheaper rates on wheat. But I would ask hon. members to raise their vision from the tops of the wheat growing on the prairies to the tops of, the forest growing on the hillsides of British Columbia

and remember that when they return to the agreement and thus improve their own position, they deal a far worse blow to the lumber industry in British Columbia than it has ever before received. The rates on wheat would be out of proportion altogether to the rates on lumber, fruits and fish.
We in British Columbia have for years been working under a great handicap. The extremely high freight rates on lumber have closed many of our mills, with resulting unemployment and stagnation of industry, which includes the business of supplying lumber to the farmers who require it on the prairies. If in no other way, I suggest that the farmers of the prairies could profitably use that lumber to cover the immense quantities of agricultural machinery that we see scattered across the plains from the Rocky mountains to Fort William.
The point I rose particularly to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we expect from a party which calls himself Progressive a larger and broader outlook on great 'national questions of this kind. Hon. gentlemen come here and in many of their speeches emphasize the desirability of foresight and breadth of vision on the part of public men. During the debate on the Address we heard many splendid speeches, idealistic in their character, from my friends to my left. Now, here is an opportunity for my hon. friends to put those principles into practice, but instead of doing that they say to the people of Canada: No matter what happens to the industries of the rest of the country, we are going to have the restoration of that agreement; we are going to have cheap ra'es on our goods, and that finishes it so far as we are concerned.
But it may be that hon. members to my left are, as a whole, in accord with a general reduction of freight rates. I believe they are, Mr. Speaker, because the people of the country demand such a revision. The heads of the railway corporations have assented to it, and the Government have expressed their own concurrence in that view. Surely the speeches which we have heard from our friends of the Progressive party represent the views of only a portion of them; surely they would not take a course which would have the effect of deciding a great question like this without regard to the needs of the other provinces. British Columbia has laboured under greater difficulties in regard to freight rates

Crowsnest Agreement
and greater handicaps than any other province, particularly as regards the immense sawmills there, the great salmon canneries and other fishing industries, and the fruit industry. Those who have spoken from the ranks of the 'Progressive party have not said that when they get the rates reduced on Wheat they will, in the national interest, extend their policy so that the various economic factors throughout the whole country, industry, commerce and agriculture, may receive fair and equitable treatment. I think the course proposed is one which is inimical to the best interests of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put I desire to make a few remarks, not in relation to my own position on the question, which undoubtedly I made clear to all hon. members of the House when I spoke on the motion itself, but to say something by way of reply to assertions, if I cannot call them arguments, advanced on behalf of the Administration. I submit there has been very much introduced into the debate that has had a tendency to confuse the issue and to divert the minds of hon. members from what we really decide in voting yea or nay on the amendment and on the motion.
In the first place it iis not a question of the justice or wisdom of the present scale of rates that is in issue. As the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Shaw) has stated, summing up the purport of the debate, there is only one opinion that has been expressed in the debate on that question. There is only one, I think, that can be expressed. I agree with him that any far-seeing, intelligent railway executive would concur with the purport of the discussion this afternoon, that it is in the interests of all concerned, the railways included, that substantial and, as nearly as may be, immediate reductions be made in the general level of freights in this country. I would not object even to the application of the term drastic. The time comes when big things of this kind must be grappled with, and grappled with resolutely, and hands forced on the question. Otherwise, one waits on the other and the other on the one, and the country waits on both. But that is not the question that is in issue at all.
Nor is the question of whether or not the Crowsnest pass agreement as such should be made permanent in issue. I can understand, however, the attitude of hon.
members who say, "Inasmuch as I have already studied out this question, read the evidence, thoroughly informed myself on the question, and am irrevocably opposed to the renewal of the agreement, consequently, I cannot admit a yea vote on this question." I think that is quite consistent. If hon. members are able to firmly decide and turn their backs finally on the evidence, if they have read it all and come to a conclusion, then, of course, they are in a position to say "The matter does not admit of debate. I do not need any policy to be submitted to me. My mind is made up." That position is consistent.
I must say I was not able to comprehend the position of the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson). He has reached the conclusion evidently of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Well, if he has, why does he want to delay decision? Is his purpose to try to educate others? If so, let it be done m debate in this House. Why submit to a committee on what in his judgment is not debatable any longer?


Mr. CAHILL:: Why was this submitted to a committee when parliamentary legislation was initiated in the first place?


Arthur Meighen: This will be submitted to a committee again. The Government of that day came down with its policy, moved a resolution in this House, stated where it stood. The resolution was moved by the Minister of Railways.


Frank S. Cahill: No, exactly the opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly it was.
The Minister of Railways came before the House and moved a resolution. He stated that was the best judgment of the Railway Commission, that was the Government's policy, and that policy went to a committee of this House, the same as all Government policies do.


Frank S. Cahill: A special committee.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, a special committee dealing with the revision of the whole Railway Act, but the Government first came to the House with its policy. If the Government did not move that, who moved it? Does the hon. gentleman know?


Frank S. Cahill: It was moved in committee.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly, in Committee of the Whole, moved by the Government, moved by the Hon. Dr. Redd, who at that time was Minister of Railways, and the hon. member knows it.

Crowsnest Agreement


Frank S. Cahill: A special committee.


Arthur Meighen: No, this was moved by the Government in the House. Does that get into his head?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I have been discourteous to the hon. member.


Mr. McMASTER:: Not very polite.


Arthur Meighen: I am not reflecting at all on the hon. member's head. I am reflecting on his obstinacy. Very well. The Government took its position.


Frank S. Cahill: Why did not the Government take its position on the floor of the House instead of through a committee?


Arthur Meighen: The Government did.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the difference between one special committee and another?


Arthur Meighen: The Government submitted the whole revision of the Railway Act to the committee. The Government did not submit this point at all. It was not up at that time. Immediately it came up the Government-


Frank S. Cahill: It was by Order in Council.


Arthur Meighen: Let me finish my sentence. The Government got its information from the Railway Commission, got a memorandum, and on the basis of that submitted to the committee of the whole its opinion upon the question-


Frank S. Cahill: It did not come direct.


Arthur Meighen: -and that will suit me if this Government will do that. Let the Government announce its course, announce it anywhere. VeTy well. The point my hon. friend sought to divert me from was this, that the question of the extension or non-extension of the suspension is not the question we are discussing, though it is quite true if hon. members have finally and conclusively and irrevocably made up their minds on that in the negative-in the negative, I repeat -then they are consistent on that ground in opposing the resolution. But I oppose the resolution on the grounds I stated before, and once more I submit to the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the interests of this House and in the interests of the proper conduct of affairs in this country that we take up

our position on the grounds I submitted to this House before.
What is the resolution before us? The resolution before us is this, that a special committee of this House go into the whole question of transportation costs and hear especially witnesses on the subject of the wisdom of the extension of the Crowsnest pass suspension. That is a statement of it that I know will suit the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy). That is what we are asked to do. Now why are we asked to do it? What will be gained by doing it? The Prime Minister dilates at great length and in very loud voice on the wisdom of having all possible information. He is a preacher of the doctrine of information, and he says that those are not of his faith who would deny any information to this House.
The Government, he intimates, would be autocratic if it dared to come down to Parliament with its policy until all inform ation had been adduced before a special committee, or some committee, of this House. Why, the government of this country day in and day out for years, all governments, this Government since it came into power has come into Parliament with its policy,-such as it was-invariably the policy it said it would not follow, but nevertheless its policy-without having anything submitted to a committee of this House. There are cases, of course, when the contrary course may be taken, cases such as I sought to explain when I was on my feet before. But to say that anybody who declines to vote for this resolution is against information is to talk what I submit, in all respect, is nonsense. Is the information not available now? If it is, why have the evidence all heard again? May I submit that to hon. members once more? If the evidence has been heard and is on record, if all that cost has been gone to, all the trouble and the time taken, why do it all over again? Let hon. members think of that question. Is it not true that the evidence has been taken, yea, all the evidence, that ten times the evidence has been taken, twenty times the evidence that can by any possibility be submitted to this committee? Is that not true? Is it not true that the Railway Commission has sat almost successively for a year and a half, that it has heard the evidence pro and con, from every angle and from every class and every industry of this Dominion, that it has weighed that evidence, that it has had the exhibits' filed and studied, that it has had every-

Crowsnest Agreement
thing studied from the standpoint this committee has been charged to study it from? Has not that all been done, and is not the evidence so taken at the disposal of every member of this House? Is it not at the disposal of the Government? Why, it has been at their disposal for days, for weeks; and the men who heard it, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses in front of them and weighing their testimony, those men who have heard similar evidence for seventeen years-at least for the years they have been in office-and their experts for seventeen years, those men stand in front of the Government ready to submit the evidence, ready to give their judgment on that evidence, and submit that judgment to the Government.
Now is not that true? Let me ask again what more do we want in the way of information? Is it solemnly suggested, seriously suggested, that this committee to be appointed by the House is to hear all the classes of evidence of various interests that have already been heard before the Railway Commission? If it is not who are to be eliminated? Who are those who have the right to be heard before the Railway Commission that will not have the right to be heard before this committee? Can any hon. member answer me that? Let me repeat: Is it seriously suggested that a committee of this House to whose membership not one member-or at least not more than one-can possibly be appointed that has ever studied, or given more than a day's consideration to this question- one of the most intricate that ever the mind of man addressed itself to-that such a committee of this House is to settle what the Railway Commission has sat for a year and a half almost continuously to consider, and considered for seventeen years before. Is it suggested that we go again to the expense that the commission has gone to; put the provinces and Canada to the same expense, put the various classes of industry in this country to a like expense; consume a like time, and that the decision of this issue is to wait until the committee brings in its report? If that is not the suggestion, what really is the suggestion? What is the purpose of this committee? What can it do that it can do well? I know of nothing whatsoever.
Now furthermore: When the Railway Commission considered the question that is to be submitted to this committee-without which consideration this committee can never make a report-when the Rail-
92*
way Commision considered the same question in the summer of 1920, the complaint arose from all corners of the Dominion because they had not pursued the usual course of making it easy for people to give testimony and present its case before it-that is to say, the course of going where the evidence was and could be conveniently brought before the commission. That was the main complaint, and bitter the complaints were. The commission cured that complaint. After the re-submission of the issue to them by the governments in the fall of 1920 they went to seven provinces of this Dominion; they went to British Columbia, to Alberta, to Saskatchewan, to Manitoba-they sat in every one of these provinces. They sat also in Ontario, in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia They sat in every province except two of this Dominion; they heard the evidence or the ground, and they viewed the problem from the viewpoint of these localities. Can this committee duplicate that performance? Is it suggested that it should duplicate it? If not, how can it come to a conclusion anything like as intelligent as the Railway Commision is in a position to present right to-day?
Consequently I say those that argue that we need to appoint this committee because we require more information are presenting an argument that upon serious, honest reflection I do not think any hon. member of this House can entertain. The information is all down; the information is all sifted; the evidence has been all given; the evidence is all printed. The information has been gathered and sifted before a body competent to gather it and competent to sift it. That information is there, that body is there. That body is there ready with its advice and its conclusion. This Government should go to that body, read the evidence, get the conclusion of that commission, reflect on it, and come to this Parliament and present its policy. Now is not that a good practice? Oh, but the Prime Minister says that we have appointed a committee already to consider the Wheat Board suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never spoke of the Wheat Board.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend referred to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I never spoke of it.
Crowsnest Agreement


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry if I mistook his reference, but I must take the hon. member's word. It would be more appropriate if he had done so than anything else he has said relative to this issue.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the committee appointed by the late government to consider the National Railway operations ?


Arthur Meighen: It is true that we did submit that question to a standing committee but does not the House see the difference? Had there been any body considering that question through these years? Had there been any body constituted to study that question and hear evidence upon it? None at all. That was a fit and proper question to submit to a special committee so that evidence could be heard and that evidence sifted; but in this case the evidence has been all heard, the evidence has all been sifted-there has been a special body appointed to do it. There it sits, there it has sat, there it is right ready with its advice. Last session we did refer this question to which allusion has been made to a committee. I moved for the appointment of that committee to consider a wholly new question as respects which there was no body in this Dominion in a position to advise the government of the day. We asked for a committee of this House to investigate this question: How far the daily operations of our National Railway system-how far, and when, those operations could be brought down and fully disclosed to Parliament without hindering the, work of the Board of Directors itself. Now even though we did appoint a committee to do this, it was a question as to which the government had no body to resort to, and no evidence had been already compiled, and as respects which information could be adduced that at least had not been adduced before; but even though we did ask for that committee the government already had unmistakably declared its own opinion on the question and had followed that opinion consistently in the House. We did not seek to hide behind any commission-not at all. We were ready to have the whole thing studied and evidence adduced; but we were
11 p.m. not afraid to declare our own belief after the study we had been privileged to give it. So where is my hon. friend when he calls upon this reference able to make anything that has even the appearance of an argument? Nowhere at all. You do not get anywhere in dis-

cussing this issue merely by emphasis of sound. Let the Prime Minister say what there is that can be adduced before this committee that has not already been adduced and that any hon. member can read.
Now let me pass from that. On the other hand what is to be lost by the appointment of this committee? That is worth inquiring into. This committee if it sits day and night, and Sundays, will not have but a small fraction of the time required to study the subject that is committed to it by the terms of this resolution. But presuming that it has, it will require it all-it will require weeks. Then I do not think this report will be of much value. But look at the time that is lost, and where is the Government going to be then? Why it will be about the end of the session, and then the Prime Minister will be in that most frightful position that he will lament it himself in tears, as he did many a time in times gone by of bringing down important legislation in the dying days of the session. Would it not be humiliating for the Prime Minister to find himself in a position where he had to perpetrate such an awful mistake as that? Why he has been declaiming against such a course session after session. It should not be done but it is not always possible to avoid it- I know that. In this case we are going to lose weeks. We are going to get into the position where, I submit, the committee will have to say to Parliament, if it speaks its honest mind, that it has not had the opportunity or the time adequately to study this problem, and consequently where the Government will have the excuse, as I fear it, of coming to Parliament and saying " The whole issue is not finished out yet and we present this position to the House of Commons: We cannot get the judgment of this special committee, and it will probably be next session before we can. The special committee, to the extent it has gone, has not anything like traversed the whole ramifications that it must traverse, and consequently, we must ask Parliament for at least a temporary extension of the suspension." When I spoke first, I said that that was the cul-de-sac into which the Gvoernment was going to get. It looks, because I have not heard any reference to the matter, as if that is the cul-de-sac the Government seeks to get into. At all events, nothing but valuable time can be lost; nothing in the world can be gained; great expense can be heaped up, and all for the sake of the administration to avoid taking upon its back the responsi-

Crowsnest Agreement
bility which it for so many years, courted, but which now it does not seem able to discharge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I wondered, when I heard the amendment read, just what exactly was the intention and purpose in the mind of the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton) who moved it. It is perfectly apparent now that the intention was to give the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) an opportunity to make a second speech and to go over the same ground he went over at great length this afternoon. Let me say to my right hon. friend that his case must be an extremely weak one, or he would not have taken an hour this afternoon and another hour to-night-


Arthur Meighen: Twenty minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -in a loud as well as at times a modulated voice, to cover the ground which he has found it necessary to cover in support of his case. I think the amendment only gives the House an added reason why it should support the original resolution. The first paragraph of the amendment reads:
A general reduction in railway rates so essential to the welfare of Canadian production and trade cannot, as declared by the Government, be made until Parliament decides whether or not the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement which expires on July 6th, be renewed.
This clause is to the effect that Parliament must decide whether or not it is advisable for the Crowsnest pass agreement to be renewed. May I ask hon. members of the House-How are they to reach a wise and sound decision on this question unless they have ample opportunity of satisfying their minds as regards all the bearings of the situation? The purpose the Government has had in mind in suggesting this committee, is that every hon. member should have opportunity of getting such information as may be necessary or desirable to enable a decision, that will be in the national interest, to be reached. I contend it is impossible for hon. members, without any knowledge whatever of the arguments pro and con with respect to this agreement, to register in this House an intelligent and fair vote upon the matter.
May I draw attention to the next clause, and see what it implies?
That it is the immediate duty of the Government-already too long deferred-to acquire the necessary information gathered and in their disposal at the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners and to submit its policy to this House.
Is that not simply repeating what was said by my right hon. friend this afternoon, namely, that the Government should come into this House and suggest a certain course of action in connection with freight rates, based solely on information obtained from the Railway Commission or upon information received in conference, but, as I remarked this afternoon, in purely informal conference without any opportunity whatever of the Government ascertaining, by further inquiry, whether the representations that have been made are, to all intents and purposes, fair and accurate. In a matter of this importance, the Government would not be justified in taking, at their face value, the representations that have been made to them by the railway executives. They have heard only one side from the railway executives. They desire an opportunity of bringing the railway executives before a committee of this House and of enabling every hon. member to question the railway executives and to get true and accurate information in regard to the situation. The Government wants that for its own protection as well as for the protection of the people of this country. If we are going to decide this matter, it being of the magnitude it is, in a way that is unmistakably in the national interest, there should be opportunity for the fullest investigation. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says: " Take the information you have already at its face value; take it from the railway executives and from no one else excepting the Railway Commission." What did my right hon. friend have to say about the Railway Commission this afternoon? As I pointed out, he said that, in the minds of the people of this country to-day, the Railway Commission is standing for the protection of the railways.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that. The hon. gentleman had better look up Hansard. I stated that the duty of the Railway Commission, as it appeared from the outside for a time, owing to the natural conditions, was to stand between the railways and the people for the protection of the people, but owing to conditions brought about by the war, the reverse appeared now to be the case. But I expressed no reflection whatever upon the Railway Commission, and never have I, in any way in this debate, expressed the slightest lack of confidence in the Railway Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not imputing to my right hon. friend any lack
Crowsnest Agreement

of confidence in the Railway Commission. I know he has every confidence in that commission; but I am taking the statement he has just made in saying that the reverse is now the case as regards the attitude the public takes towards the Railway Commission. If his words have any meaning, it is this, that, before the war, the Railway Commission was regarded as protecting the interests of the public where controversies arose between the public and the railways; that since the war, without his indicating whether the impression is just or unjust-I think my .right hon. friend would say that the impression was unjust-the impression nevertheless exists, that the Railway Commission to-day is primarily protecting the interest of the railways. Yet he asks us, as a Government, to base our policy on information given by that body and that body only. All the information that the Railway Commission has in its possession will be at the disposal of the Committee which will be asked to investigate this matter. Hon. members of the House will then have the same information as the Government has. Are we taking a retrograde step when we seek to put into the possession of every hon. member the information that we ourselves have? Surely, if there ever was reason for a course of action such as is being taken that reason is present when the question being dealt with is that of railway rates and of the consequences that are involved in proposed changes.
Let me say, in conclusion, that the Government's motive in this, has been to inspire public confidence in whatever action is taken. We are led to believe that certain consequences will follow a failure to continue the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement. I am unable to say whether those consequences are well founded, whether the reasoning is sound or not. It may well be that, in the course of a thorough investigation, it will be discovered that there should not be placed on the possible consequences of a failure to continue the suspension of that agreement the emphasis that is being placed upon them in certain quarters at the present time. But what the Government feels is this, that, if certain consequences are likely to follow, the country has a right to know what they are. The people of this country will have to bear the effect of those consequences; the Government are the trustees of the people, trustees for them as taxpayers, as the owners of large railway systems. When hon. gentlemen opposite

speak about giving public ownership a fair trial, they ought to be prepared to support whatever will work towards that end. Our contention is: While this agreement applies to the Canadian Pacific, it is well known that the effect of competition will occasion similar rates to be put into effect on the Government roads. We are not saying that that should not be done. All that we say is this. Government ownership is on trial at the present time; hon. gentlemen opposite want to give it a fair trial; we propose to give it a fair trial, and one of the ways in which we propose to do that, is to take the public into our confidence to the fullest extent possible. While it is important that the Government should have the confidence of its own following, and while it is desirable that they should have the confidence of hon. members of this House to as large an extent as possible, it is still more important that they should have the confidence of the people of this country whose trustees they are at the present time. It is looking to that larger confidence that we take the stand we do, when we say that before we plunge the country further into debt as a consequence of railway liabilities one way or the other, before we take any stand in the way of Government policy which may or may not prove injurious to large sections of the country, we intend to have the fullest possible publicity in order that the public may be completely informed in a matter that so vitally affects the public interest.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I
take the opportunity for a few moments only of speaking on the amendment. I am not going to do as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has done, and as my hon. friend the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) has also done, namely, make two speeches of precisely the same character and on the same material. I am going to oppose the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), and I am going to oppose it for this reason: My hon. friend from West York argues, and the leader of the Opposition supports the argument, that the Government should consult the Railway Commission and those who possess information in respect of this matter and bripg down a policy to Parliament in connection therewith. In respect to the amendment, I take the position I took this afternoon as regards the motion, and that is, that we have sufficient information before us now to enable this House to come to a judgment

Crowsnest Agreement
as to whether or not the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement should he further continued. We have had discussions before the Railway Commission for months. The public, I think, are pretty well informed as to the evidence that was submitted to that commission. The newspapers have contained very full reports of it, and we have had an opportunity of studying the subject, while members of the House have listened to the arguments upon the matter. I therefore cannot see why it is necessary to give the further consideration to the matter which my hon. friend the Prime Minister suggests; and for the reason which I have just stated I am going to oppose the amendment that has been submitted.
Now, the Prime Minister argues with a great deal of force that he desires to take the public and the House into his full confidence in this matter. I have no objection whatever to that principle. I do not support the view of the leader of the Opposition as enunciated this afternoon, that it is not the part of the Government, when it sees fit, to seek the views of Parliament by means of a special committee on questions of this kind. I do not take that view, although the Prime Minister, I am sure quite inadvertently, ascribed it to me in his earlier speech this evening. But we have the facts before us pretty well on this question. I take the ground that the reference of the matter to a committee will be inconclusive. It will get us nowhere, and consequently, recognizing the need of a reduction in freight rates in this country, and in view of the fact that we have a definite, set agreement in the matter of rates under the Crowsnest pass agreement, I can see no reason why the House should not now be able to make up its mind on the question. There is no doubt whatever, if I interpret rightly the speeches made by members of the Government, that the whole purpose in submitting the question to the committee is to ascertain whether or not this agreement should be further set aside. That is the essential part of the motion we are considering. I do not think it is necessary to consult a committee to determine that question; and holding that view I cannot consistently support the motion to refer the matter to a committee, nor can I support the amendment of my hon. friend from West York, that the Government seek further information that might result in bringing down a proposal to set the agreement further aside.


Donald Sutherland: I have given as close attention as possible to the resolution and have endeavoured to arrive at the object of the Government in submitting it to the House. I have listened to the two addresses delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I recall the fact that in the speech from the Throne reference was made to the matter; and nearly a month ago the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), in dealing with the railway situation, stated that it was to be referred to a committee of the House. Some time before that it was intimated by the Railway Commission that a reduction in transportation rates was to take place. It has since been made known that the reason why no action was taken was because of the uncertainty as to the course the Government would pursue. It is a somewhat remarkable thing that nearly two months of the session have elapsed before we have reached the present stage when this resolution is submitted to the House with a view to appointing a committee to ascertain certain facts which the Prime Minister has just told us the Government have at their disposal and are already satisfied about. A special select committee is to be appointed, named by the Government, to carry out the Government's wishes. The Government will have a majority on that committee and we may rest assured that that majority will carry out the conclusions which they have arrived at. Did not the Prime Minister in his address on the main motion inform the House that, after numerous conferences with the executive of the railways, the executive had concluded to reduce the rates on basic commodities, but had deferred doing so pending the action of the Government with regard to the renewal of the Crowsnest pass agreement? I think the Prime Minister made that clear. Is it possible that the Government are a party to deferring a reduction in railway rates in this country? Is that the object they have in view in holding up the matter for months when every one knows that the business of the country is absolutely paralyzed owing to the excessive rates that are being charged at this time? As the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) points out, the demand is being made in western Canada that railway charges shall be prepaid for fear that the cargoes will not bear the expense to which they are subjected in the matter of railway rates. During the past few weeks I have experi-
Crowsnest Agreement

The list of pairs as furnished by the Chief Whips is as follows:
Messrs.
Malcolm,
McMurray,
Kay,
Blackadder,
Clifford,
Power,
Jacobs,
Maclean (Halifax), Low,
Kyte,
Walsh,
Chew,
Forrester,
Fielding,
Hatfield,
German,
Delisle,
Laflamme,
Duncan,
Ryckman,
Wilson,
LeSueur,
Stansell,
Mewburn,
Bristol,
Guthrie,
Stewart (Lanark), Boys,
Clark,
Manion,
Porter,
Hocken,
Hanson,
McLaren,
Chaplin,
Sheard.
Crowsnest Agreement

The House divided on the main motion (Mr. Kennedy) which was carried on the following division: