1923-04-17

REPORT PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Trade of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922.-Mr. Robb.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) for the second reading of Bill No. 23 respecting a certain convention of commerce between His Majesty and the President of the French republic:
Mr. CLARK:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. * On Wednesday last I spoke to the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) with regard to the resolution that has stood in my name on the order paper since the 15th February, and discussed with him the possibility of bringing that resolution forward by amendment to a motion to go into supply. I spoke to him in order to meet his convenience and that I might give some members on his side of the House two or three days' notice of my intention to move such amendment. The minister advised me that he would see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). On the following day- that is, last Thursday-I wrote the minister the following note:
Have you discussed with the Prime Minister a suitable day for me to move my resolution on a motion to go into Committee of Supply? Could you agree to next Tuesday?

Railway Rates
His reply, endorsed on my note, is in these words:
The government has no objections to your bringing it up on Tuesday next.
Thereupon I advised members in accordance with my undertaking that my understanding was this resolution would have right of way to-day. On Friday I noticed it was stated that the French treaty would probably be taken up to-day, but it was certainly my understanding and the understanding of the other members whom I advised that nothing would come on prior to a motion to go into supply which would prevent my moving an amendment to such motion.
I allowed my resolution to stand on various occasions at the request of the goyemment before the date that government business was given precedence over private members' resolutions, and did so on the faith of undertakings given me by the government that a day would be found for the discussion of the resolution; but each time I have had an opportunity to bring it forward something has intervened to make it impossible for me to proceed. To-day of course it may be said that I can go on after the French treaty is disposed of, but obviously the whole day will probably be taken up with this particular business-my information is to that effect- and consequently consideration of my resolution is again postponed and the convenience of members on both sides is interfered with. I certainly feel that I am entitled to a statement from the government that either a day will be set aside for the discussion of my resolution as a private member's resolution or that on a given date an amendment to a motion to go into supply nothing will be allowed to intervene in the nature of government business.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: I do not know what happened in regard to the motion of my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, but so far as the French treaty being set down for to-day is concerned, there can be no misunderstanding. Several questions were asked as to the time when it 'would be brought forward, and a few evenings ago it was definitely stated that in all probability this treaty would be brought up on Tuesday, and last night it was more precisely stated, so there can be no misunderstanding with regard to the time. If there has been any misunderstanding on the part of my hon. friend with regard to his motion I am very sorry, but it is not within my knowledge.


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has stated the case exactly except for the inference he drew that nothing was
to intervene on a motion to go into supply.
I received a note from him asking if he could go on with his resolution on Tuesday. After consulting with the Prime Minister I informed him that the government had no objection to his bringing it up to-day. As a matter of fact there has been no attempt to shut off his resolution at all. But we ought to do everything possible for the convenience of the House generally. I am of opinion we will have plenty of opportunity to take up my hon. friend's resolution after the French treaty is disposed of. I certainly want to carry out any arrangement made with my hon. friend, for I would not wish him to think that I am attempting to sidetrack him in any way.	.
Hon. Mr. ME1GHEN: Mr. Speaker, an undertaking that this resolution may be gone on with on motion to go into Committee of Supply involves that the government will not put any other motion in between or it involves nothing, because the member has the right to move his amendment on going into Committee on Supply without any concession at all from the government. Now, in view of the fact that he did so understand for to-day, and I think rightly so after the answer given by the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) by note to him, it seems to me the government should undertake that next Monday or Tuesday there will be no government business put ahead of supply in order that the hon. member may go on on an amendment to supply. I do not think there is any chance at all of his getting time for his resolution to-day after this French treaty resolution has been debated.


William Stevens Fielding: Rather than there should be the least misunderstanding in the matter I will withdraw the motion for the second reading of the French treaty and let my hon. friend go on. I will move immediately that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to withdraw his motion? Carried.
Motion withdrawn.



EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING
(Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply:
John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker. . the amendment I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tol-mie) is as follows:
That in the opinion of this House all unfair and
unjust discrimination against British Columbia as
Railway Rates

exemplified in the "Mountain Scale" of freight rates should be rescinded, and the special reduction made by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on the basic production of the prairie provinces be extended to the basic productions of all other provinces of confederation.
In presenting this resolution-


Hewitt Bostock: When the hon. member a few days ago moved a similar resolution, I felt that under British parliamentary practice matters sub judice could not be brought before the House. The question was discussed by several hon. members on both sides after the hon. gentleman had agreed to postpone the consideration of his resolution. Many representations were made to me as Speaker from both points of view-that the subject matter of the hon. member's resolution should be considered as a question sub judice, and, on the other hand, that it should not be so considered. I invited the opinion of some of the oldest members of the House. I invited the opinion of the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), and of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I asked for the opinion of the present Chairman of the Board of Railway - Commissioners, Hon. Mr. Carvell, and I also had the benefit of the views of two or three of the most experienced members of the House-because it is paramount to determine whether the Privy Council of Canada should be considered as a tribunal. The question has impressed me as sufficiently important to justify a formal ruling, which I give as fol-, lows:
On the motion that I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply, Mr. Clark (Burrard) moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Tolmie (Victoria) :
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out, and the following words be inserted instead thereof:-
"In the opinion of this House all unfair and unjust discrimination against British Columbia as exemplified in the 'mountain scale' of freight rates should be rescinded, and the special reduction made by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on the basic production of the prairie provinces, be extended to the basic productions of all other provinces of confederation."
This question is now before the Governor in Council on an appeal from a decision of the Railway Board which established, by a General Order bearing No. 366, dated 30th of June, 1922, certain scales of rates known as the "mountain scale," in British Columbia, on a higher basis than that charged for the same class of goods moving between points in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, known as the "prairie scale."
tMr. Clark.]
By petition dated the 1st of December, 1922, the Attorney General of British Columbia appealed from the said order to the Governor General in Council, praying that the same rates be charged on goods of like character from and to all points in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario as far east as Port Arthur.
The question was partially heard by the Governor in Council on the 3rd of February last, and it was announced that further hearing was postponed until after the prorogation of the present session of parliament.
My attention has been drawn to the circumstance that whilst this appeal is pending the question must be considered . sub judice and therefore should not be debated in the House. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, No. 234, says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule (our rule 19) it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
"(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending."
May, page 296, says:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.
The precedents cited by May cover instances where individual rights are concerned and relate chiefly to election petitions. I have very fully scrutinized those cases. The point at issue may be briefly stated in the following proposition: Is the Governor in Council, in the exercise of his powers to review the decisions of the Railway Board, vested with a judicial rather than an administrative or executive function?
In the interpretation of the functions of the Governor in Council, one must bear in mind the provisions of the British North America Act, section 9 of which reads as follows:
"The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to be vested in the Queen."
Section 11:
"There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the government of Canada to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
Section 13:
"The provisions of this act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
There seems to be no doubt from the above citations that the Privy Council of Canada is vested with executive powers only and has no judicial authority whatever. We must realize that the Canadian government has no

Railway Rates
other powers than those conferred directly or indirectly by that Imperial statute called the British North America Act.
In England, there is a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but there is no similar institution in Canada. Prior to the year 1903, the Privy Council of Canada had full control over all matters now dealt with by the Railway Board. Section 8 of the Railway Act, 1903, which created the board, says:
1.	The railway committee of the Privy Council is hereby abolished, and, in lieu thereof, there shall be a commission, to be known as the board of railway commissioners for Canada, etc.
2.	Whenever by an act or document the railway committee of the Privy Council is given any power or authority, or any duty is cast upon it, in regard to any company, railway, matter or thing, the power or authority so given, or the duty so cast upon the said committee, may or shall, as the case may be, be exercised by the board.
These provisions have been carried into'sec-ions 9 and 32 of the Railway Act, 1919.
The board itself is a court of record under section 9 of the act, but it has disposed of the case of the freight rates which is now out of its purview and engaging the attention of the Governor in Council.
The Privy Council has specifically reserved to itself the power to revise the board's decisions as to questions of facts. Subsection 2 of section 44 of the Railway Act of 1903, which is now subsection 1 of section 52 of the Railway Act 1919, reads as follows:
Thb Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application, and any order which the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto shall be binding upon the board and upon all parties.
Subsections 2 and 3 of section 52 provide
for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of law or jurisdiction.
It is therefore evident that the powers of the Governor in Council have not been abridged as to questions of facts, and they remained exactly the same after as before the creation of the Railway Board. They are simply administrative or executive as heretofore, just as if the Railway Act had never been passed.
The Ministers of the Crown are seized with the appeal for the purpose of advising His Excellency thereon. Their advice may be rejected and is not in the nature of a final judgment. Todd says, in Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies, p. 40:
In the ordinary exercise of his constitutional discretion the Governor is unquestionably competent to reject the advice of his ministers whenever that advice should seem to him to be adverse to the public welfare, or of an injurious tendency.
The question as it now stands before the cabinet, is not, in my humble judgment, sub judice as this legal term implies. It is being considered by the government under administrative powers which the Governor in Council did not delegate or alienate when the Railway Board was created. The fact that the cabinet hears counsel representing both sides of the issue does not constitute it a tribunal. The ministers are at liberty to take all the information required before arriving at a decision upon which they will base the advice to be tendered to His Excellency the Governor General. They may be guided by considerations of public policy quite foreign to the brief. Their decisions which take the form of orders in council and are signed by His Excellency, when accepted, are not, properly speaking, judgments, the ministers' functions in this regard cannot therefore be said to be in any way judicial. They are purely administrative.
One of the traditional rights of parliament is its expressive power. Any grievance, any complaint, any notion can be aired in parliament. It would be a breach against the ancient privilege of the freedom of speech, so essential to every legislature, for the Speaker to prevent a debate on a matter because it is being considered by the Governor in Council, and particularly in the present case, the hearing of which is being postponed on account of the session and will only be resumed after prorogation.
Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, Vol. 1, page 414, says:
Freedom of speech in parliament is an essential part of the liberties of Englishmen. This privilege was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and it includes a license to discuss all matters affecting the public welfare, whether the same have been commended by the Crown to the consideration of parliament or not. From the time of Edward III to our own day, parliament has freely exercised the right of tending advice to the sovereign, unasked, upon matters the final determination of which appertained to the sovereign alone. . . . The two Houses of Parliament collectively represent the whole community, and are the Great Council of the nation, while ministers are merely the council of the prince. They are, therefore, entitled to approach the sovereign with advice or remonstrance upon all affairs of state, and in regard to every grievance under which any subjects of the realm may be suffering.
I have given this point of order a great deal of attention. I have weighed the views expressed on both sides with care and concern. If there should be a doubt lingering in my mind-but there is none-I would give the benefit of that doubt in favour of the broad principle of the supremacy of parliament in all matters of public policy.
Railway Rates

I have .come to the conclusion that the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Clark) is in order, and I rule that debate thereon is allowed.


John Arthur Clark: In my presentation of
this resolution I hope to be able to show to the House that so far as British Columbia is concerned we are not seeking any sectional advantage, but rather the removal of a sectional disadvantage from which the province of British Columbia has suffered since confederation. I also hope to be able to show that by the elimination of this sectional disadvantage the general trade of the country will be stimulated, and that immigration which we so much need will be thereby encouraged, and made posible by reason of the fact that settlers will be able to market their produce at reasonable rates, and be able also to purchase their necessities at reasonable rates.
I also desire to make it quite clear that my aim is to effect this correction by constitutional means, relying upon the fairness of the people and of rthis House, rather than upon threats that British Columbia will withdraw from confederation.
I also want to make it quite clear that I am not animated by any spirit of unfriendliness towards the Canadian Pacific Railway. I feel that we are fighting for a principle, and that we differ in principle from the Canadian Pacific Railway. I lay no blame upon them for fighting for their principles, but we propose in so far as it is in our power, to bring home to the people of this country that we have been suffering from a sectional disadvantage, the removal of which is in the interests of the whole of Canada, and which the interests of British Columbia absolutely demand if that province is to go forward and succeed.
It may be said that it is a strange thing for a member of this party to move a resolution dealing with freight rates after the stand that we have taken with regard to keeping our railways out of politics, and having regard to the fact that there is a judicial body seized with the power of dealing with the question of freight rates.
At the, last session of parliament the government dealt with freight rates. At the outset I want to say and I say it with all frankness that if the government is prepared to withdraw that legislation I am prepared to withdraw my motion. In other words, I am prepared to go before the Board of Railway Commissioners and argue this case if the board is left free and unhampered by this House. But my point is this: At the last session of parliament this House undertook to fix the freight rates on two specific commodities namely, grain and flour, for three specific

provinces. This House has gone into the ratemaking business. The result of that legislation was' to accentuate the discrimination which already existed against British Columbia. We were already suffering from discrimination by reason of the mountain scale, and the reduction of the rates on these two basic commodities merely served to accentuate that discrimination.
It may be of interest to know that British Columbia is supported in the stand it has taken by no less authority than Sir Henry Thornton who, speaking before the Board of Trade of Vancouver on January 18, of this year, said in regard to freight rates:
If I were in your position I would adopt the same attitude as you have adopted and advance the same arguments. It does seem to me that whatever rates are to be applied on the transportation of grain from the prairies to the West should be based upon sound economic and scientific principles.
And he went on to say that the agreement known as the Crowsnest pass agreement did not embody, in fact, any sound economic or scientific principle, but was merely a matter of expediency based upon the situation which existed in 1897. He characterized that agreement as "a horse-trading proposition between the Dominion government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company."
For the purpose of rate making Canada is divided into three divisions-the East, the prairie, and the Pacific. The East embraces all of Canada as far west as Fort William; the prairie, the country from Fort William to the mountains; and the Pacific that portion of Canada west of the mountains. The eastern rates are the lowest; the prairie rates are the next lowest; the mountain rates are the highest. The eastern rates are the lowest because of the factor that enters into rate making in that portion of Canada, namely water competition. For the principles of rate making I refer to the judgment of the Board of Railway Commisioners of June 30, 1922, the last decision. In that judgment the board says it found "that in the main the rate structure of eastern Canada was justified on the basis of water and rail competition." These are the words of the Commissioners. Now then just what is the exact position of British Columbia in regard to rates? That also I will give you from the board's last judgment. These are the words of the Commissioners :
Under the western rate case-
Which was in 1914-
-a basis of one and a half for one was adopted on the Pacific standard tariff.

Railway Rates
That meant that one and a half miles on the prairie would equal one mile in British Columbia. In other words, for the same money you could haul the same commodity on the prairies three hundred miles and in British Columbia only two hundred miles. That was the situation. The judgment of the board last June corrected that to some extent in these words:
The rates on the new "Pacific" standard mileage tariff are to be constructed by applying to the "Prairie" standard tariff, li miles for one mile.
In other words we can to-day haul a commodity in British Columbia one hundred and fifty miles as against two hundred miles on the prairie for the same rate. That is the situation to-day, and that is the discrimination of which we complain-a discrimination that we say is unfair and unjust and should be eliminated.
I do not propose to quote figures giving the details of rates for the very good reason that I would be wasting the time of the House by so doing. I could quote rates which would show this discrimination, but nothing can be clearer than the general principle laid down in that judgment. I do not think it needs elaboration but I will say this: I could give you illustrations-and I have no doubt that members of this House in reply to me "will use illustrations to the effect-that British Columbia has rates from Vancouver, and other coastal points, to the far East-and when I say "the far East" I mean Montreal and Toronto-a distance of 2,800 miles which are very favourable, which are more favourable than rates on similar products from the Maritime provinces for an equal distance. For instance, I can quote you rates on canned goods and fish from Vancouver to Toronto which are less than the rates from the Maritime provinces upon the same products for an equal distance which appear favourable to us. The fact remains, however, that it costs us more money to ship those very commodities on which the rates would appear so favourable from Vancouver to Winnipeg than from Vancouver to Toronto or Montreal-it also costs us as much, or more, to ship those commodities from Vancouver to Calgary as it costs us to ship them from Vancouver to Montreal. That is what we say is not scientific. That is what we say is preventing us from getting into those provinces which arc our markets, namely Alberta and Saskatchewan. We have in Vancouver to-day six or seven hundred manufacturers who are clamouring for a market. Their only market is an export market; we are unable to get into the prairie market of Alberta and Saskatchewan by reason of that mountain scale, of that discrimination which exists against us. And yet the Canadian Pacific Railway Company tells us that we are being treated fairly; not only that but that other parts of Canada are being discriminated against by reason of the favourable rates given to us.
Another instance of that might be given in the case of rice. We can Ship rice to Toronto cheaper than we can ship it to Winnipeg or prairie points. The reason for that is to enable the rice mills to meet the competition from New Orleans. All these things, I maintain, have no application to the general principle defined in the judgment referred to. That one and a quarter miles on the prairie is the same as one mile in British Columbia is the thing we complain of.
Mr. Carvell, Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, in a recent letter to the Associated Boards of British Columbia points out-and he also points it out in this judgment-that from 80 to 85 per cent of British Columbia traffic was carried at commodity rates, and that in the movement of the staples of British Columbia at commodity rates, the effect of the mountain scale is not apparent in many cases. I have given the House some illustrations of where, on some of our basic commodities, this discrimination is not apparent, but in every instance that discrimination is not apparent where the shipment extends over a long distance, it becomes apparent the very moment you examine shipments of our commodities into the prairie provinces where we want a market, and where we insist that we are entitled to a market, if trade is to flow in its proper and natural channel. I wish to quote from that letter which I referred to and I may say that it is difficult for me really to bring up such a letter in the House, because I am absolutely opposed to the principle of criticizing the members of any judicial body, but I think it is only fair to our province that I should quote from this letter, because it has been published broadcast throughout the country. In this letter Mr. Carvell says:
Mr. Oliver fails to realize that in the class rate schedule for all points from the coast, east of the boundary, 134 miles are eliminated from the actual mileage across the mountain, and if these are counted it would then bring the class rates practically down to the prairie level.
I point out that is true so far as it goes, but he does not mention that the same condition exists between Fort William and Winnipeg, and has existed for many years, and that it has nothing to do with this question whatsoever. It is based on an entirely differ-
Railway Rates

ent principle, and does not deal with and has no relation to this question of discrimination. The letter continues:
As I view it, the whole question is one of whether the coast wholesaler who can bring his good3 in by water will be able to send them further east and thus . displace the business which has heretofore been done via Winnipeg.
I do not know what he means by that, unless he stands on the principle that he is not going to see anything done which will interfere with the flow of trade to Winnipeg and the business now handled by the wholesaler of Winnipeg. That is an extraordinary principle on which to make rates, if that is the principle. Then he says:
So far as the present programme of the province of British Columbia is concerned in freight rates, it is much more political than real.
That statement I object to most emphatically, because, irrespective of party in British Columbia, the whole public-100 per cent-stands for the removal of this discrimination, and we have fought as hard as we know how, ever since the board was constituted to remove that discrimination. We fought before that board in 1906, again in 1910, again in 1914, we have been fighting since 1920 till to-day, and we are still fighting before the Privy Council and this House for the removal of the discrimination.
The first contention of the province of British Columbia is that by the terms of union Canada undertook to build a railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, and there was nothing in that agreement upon which British Columbia came into confederation which would indicate that there was going to be any discrimination in rates over that road. I would refer members of this House to the original negotiations between Earl Granville and Governor Musgrave, in which it was stated:
That the establishment of a British line of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is far more feasible by the operation of a single government responsible for the progress of both shores of the continent than by a bargain negotiated between separate, perhaps in some respects, rival governments and legislatures.
And the extracts from the terms of the union itself reads as follows:
Whereas the construction of a line of railway through British territory across the continent of North America, which, in conjunction with existing railways would afford uninterrupted railway communication between the Atlantic and Pacific seaports of the Dominion of Canada is a work of vast importance, not only to the political and commercial interests of Canada, as tending to the closer union of its several provinces, but also to the British Empire at large, as affording rapid and direct communication through British territory, Australian and Asiatic possessions and opening up for colonization an almost unlimited extent of fertile country.
,
Hon. members should note that this was for the closer union of the provinces. I ask you, do you expect closer union with British Columbia if you discriminate against that province? I also draw your attention to the fact that it is an Imperial project. Are we in British Columbia to pay additional rates by reason of the fact that this project was Imperial in its nature and for the closer union of the provinces of confederation? I merely draw attention to these terms. I think, perhaps, others will elaborate the point, but I draw attention to it for this specific reason: the Board of Railway Commissioners in their judgment of June 30, 1922, refused to consider that argument. They said that-
In the present application, various additional contentions were advanced. Emphasis was laid upon the implications alleged to arise from the steps culminating in confederation.
They say that this case is analogous to a case of Attorney General for British Columbia vs. C.P.R. in which it was held that under the terms of the contract with the Dominion government for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway dated October 21, 1880, the only party who could make any complaint as to the non-observance of the terms of union was the government of Canada. I present that argument because the Board of Railway Commissioners have refused to consider it, and here I have an opportunity of presenting it to the government of Canada for it? consideration.


Mr. CARROLL:: Do I understand the hon. member now to be criticizing the judgment of the railway commissioners?


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friend can draw his own inference.


William F. Carroll: Does he know an appeal has been taken to the Privy Council on that question?


John Arthur Clark: The judgment of the Speaker indicated that I did.


William F. Carroll: Would the hon. member suggest that it would be a fair proposition in this House that the Privy Council should vote on this question before they have taken the whole evidence into consideration.


John Arthur Clark: The Privy Council can take care of itself, I have no doubt.


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend think it is fair to ask the Privy Council to vote on this question before they have concluded their judgment on the appeal?


John Arthur Clark: I am not advising the Privy Council. I am submitting the case for the consideration of the House.

Railway Rates


Mr. SHAW:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member in his argument, but before he leaves that point, will he indicate whether or not the particular subject matter of his argument to date was under consideration by the Board of Railway Commissioners, I think in the year 1908, and if so would he be good enough to indicate to us the judgment of the board at that time?


John Arthur Clark: 1908?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think the case was brought by the Attorney General of British Columbia.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think I followed my hon. friend.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I wanted ro ask, simply for information, if the argument he has thus far addressed to the House with regard to the constitutional question was not involved in the question before the railway commission in 1908, and I think, if my recollection is right, the railway commission of that date refused to entertain the question.


John Arthur Clark: I cannot definitely answer that question, because according to the dates which I have, the applications were made in 1906, 1910, 1914, and the last two years. What I think, however, is that if the Board of Railway Commissioners had listened to that argument in 1908, they certainly would have listened to it last year, because it would have been considered a precedent. So I assume, because it appeared in the judgment of last year, that they did not consider it then, that they did not consider it even if advanced in 1908 or any later year.
The next point I wish to advance is regarding the guarantee given by the province of British Columbia upon bonds of the Canadian Northern through that province. In 1911, Sir Richard McBride, then premier of British Columbia, appealed to the electors of that province for endorsation of his railway policy. He asked that the government be authorized to guarantee the bonds of that railway company up to $35,000 per mile, and he was returned to power on that plea. Let me read this brief statement of Sir Richard McBride's, just one sentence, indicating the lines on which that election was fought:
We believe that through the introduction of the Canadian Northern railway into this province with the control of freight and passenger rates in the hands of the government, there will be such an adjustment of railway freight and passenger rates throughout the province generally that if will place travel within the reach of the financial ability of the whole Canadian people.
The agreement between British Columbia and the Canadian Northern railway, which agreement was consummated after that election, gave control to freight rates to the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that province. In other words the control of rates within that province on that particular line was not in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and for that privilege British Columbia guaranteed those bonds to the extent of $35,000 a mile. That was the consideration we got for that guarantee-the right of making rates and the right of counteracting this discrimination about which we have been complaining ever since the Canadian Pacific railway was built. We lost out even on that, because in 1914 this House passed an act which declared the Canadian Northern railway to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. That immediately cancelled the main consideration 4 p.m. which we got, and which we were relying upon for our guarantee, and it gave to the Board of Railway Commissioners the right to make rates upon that railway. It has often been stated that British Columbia has been relieved from the guarantee of those bonds. Not at all. We are liable to-day upon those bonds just as we were when we gave the guarantee. Further, let this be noted that if British Columbia under its guarantee had been bound to take over the Canadian Northern railway in British Columbia, that would not have perturbed us. It might have caused us some temporary embarrassment; but there we have the most wonderful piece of mountain railway construction in North America, and possibly through any mountainous country in the world. I have no hesitation in suggesting that if the Canadian Pacific at any time since 1914 had had opportunity of taking over that piece of the Canadian Northern railway, between Edmonton and Vancouver, they would have jumped at the opportunity, especially of taking it over at the full value of those bonds. It would have been for them the cheapest investment in the world, and furthermore it would have disrupted and destroyed absolutely our Canadian National railways, because this is the most vital and important part of that line to-day. In that connection, I should like to point out two or three facts of interest as regards the grades of that railway. This is a comparison between that portion of the Canadian National railway, that I have been speaking of, and six or seven other transcontinental railways. The Canadian National railway crossing British Columbia has a maximum grade of * 7 per cent, but that is only for about twenty-eight miles. Practically throughout

Railway Rates
its length the maximum grade is *		4 per cent.
Tlie comparison	is as follows:	
	Maximum	Maximum
	grade	elevation
Railway	Per cent	FeetCanadian Northern.	7	3.706Canadian Pacific..	
2.2	5,321Northern Pacific..	
1.6	5,500Union Pacific.. ..	
1.8	8.200Great Northern.. ..	
2	5,202Chicago, Milwaukee & St.	Paul	
2.5	6,322Sante Fe	
2.6	7,421The situation is most remarkable.	. We havethere a railway	which, with one	engine can
haul fifty loaded cars of grain from Edmonton to Vancouver throughout the length of that road, whereas these other roads have difficulty in hauling twenty-two loaded cars over their mountain grades, and in so doing the roads are obliged in many instances to use two engines, whereas on the Canadian National railway one will do for the whole route. So there is the road on which British Columbia has lost the right to fix rates by reason of the action of parliament. In view of what this House has done in the past, I think it is perfectly fair that immediate action should be taken to restore that agreement-if the Crowsnest pass agreement should be restored- or any part thereof. The latter agreement was made between the Dominion government and the railway company. Why should not an agreement such as I have described be restored, an agreement to which the Dominion government was not a party, but yet undertook to interfere with and thus take away from the province of British Columbia rights which existed thereunder and for which we paid in guaranties to the extent of $35,000 per mile?
Now, the stock arguments which are advanced against the removal of this discrimination are-cost of construction, cost of operation, density of traffic. I want to face every one of these arguments squarely. As to cost of construction, I would refer the House to Volume 12 of the report of the special committee on rates of last session, in which at page 475 the evidence of Mr. Lanigan will be found to the effect that the original cost of construction of the Canadian Pacific railway has long since been lost and is no longer a factor in rate-making. I would also refer to the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway was not built through British Columbia entirely at the expense of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. There is a very considerable portion of this line, namely, that between Emery Junction and Boston Bar on the North Thompson which was built at the cost of the treasury of 
Canada and handed over complete to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Why should we pay any extra rates because of the cost of construction? I would also refer hon. members to the evidence of the Hon. Mr. Oliver, the Premier of British Columbia, on the same point. At page 170 of Volume 6 he says:
I want to deal with another phase of this matter: British Columbia was the only province from which a huge land subsidy was exacted in aid of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. That land subsidy given by British Columbia in connection with the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway amounted to approximately 12,000,000 acres. I want to submit to this committee the view that if there is any merit at all in the plea of the cost of construction, that has been entirely offset so far as British Columbia is concerned by the huge land grant which was given in aid of the construction of that road. That land grant was a strip of land 40 miles wide through the entire width of British Columbia, and any deficiencies were made up out of the prairie lands of the Peace River district of British Columbia,-3,500,000 acres.
I also draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the cost of construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway from Winnipeg to Moncton was approximately $100,000 per mile. The cost of construction of the Canadian National railway through British Columbia was approximately $65,000 per mile, or considerably less. Yet we do not find any discrimination against the people who live along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific between Winnipeg and Moncton. Their rates are the same as the rates on the other roads in those provinces. I would also direct attention to the fact that there is no special discrimination against localities by reason of the expense of construction of the Quebec bridge or the $9,000,000 Montreal tunnel. These great expenditures are not considered, and I agree entirely with Mr. Lanigan that the cost of construction has nothing to do with the fixing of freight rates.
Now, with regard to the cost of operation, I would point this out to those who suggest that any definite figures can be given as to excessive cost of operation on the Canadian Pacific railway through the mountains, that since 1914 operating costs and operating revenues have been kept by divisions of lines east and lines west, and therefore it is impossible to analyze and determine the relative cost in any particular province. In other words, it is impossible for the railways to meet the onus which is placed upon them by the Railway Act to show that any special discrimination against a particular locality is not undue or unjust. In any case it is admitted by the same Mr. Lanigan, the general traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway. that the cost of operation is no longer

Railway Rates
a basic factor in the making of freight rates. As to this I refer the House to the report of the committee on Railway Transportation Costs of last year. At page 573 the following examination of Mr. Lanigan by Mr. Mc-Murray is found:
Q. Mr. McGeer during his evidence this morning said that rates had nothing to do with the operating costs on the prairie. I gathered that was a statement made by the Board of Railway Commissioners at some time or other. Do you agree with that statement?
A. I think there are three things that make rates, and those are what Mr. George Olds, a very old traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific railway, used to call the "Three C's": Conditions, circumstances and competition.
Nothing much to do with the cost of operation.
You cannot segregate the cost of carrying a certain class of traffic for one year as compared with the cost another year and build up any kind of a tariff under which these people are interested.
Q. I was not asking you for the argument, but whether you agreed with that statement?
A. I do not agree with that statement. That is, that the rates are built on the cost?
Q. No, that the rates are not built on the costs on the prairies?-A. They are not and cannot be built on the costs. The whole rate system has to furnish a certain amount of revenue to meet the cost of operation.
Q. Are they furnished on the costs in British Columbia?-A. No.
Thus we have the admission of the very man chiefly concerned with rates on the Canadian Pacific railway that rates are not built on the cost of operation.
Now, I think I can show this House that the basic factor in fixing freight rates in this country is the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I am forced to that conclusion by the judgment delivered by the Board of Railway Commissioners on June 30, 1922, We have in that judgment a statement filed by Mr. Lanigan of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with respect to basic commodities. It was stated in the judgment:
At a hearing of the special committee on the 20th day of June instant, Mr. Lanigan, freight traffic manager for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, filed a statement showing what would be the reduction in the revenues of that company if the offer above referred to had been accepted.
It will be recalled that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company offered certain rate reductions and showed what they would mean in the way of loss of revenue. Then followed the statement filed by Mr. Lanigan showing what that loss of revenue would be'. I shall not give the details, but the total, including international and interstate traffic, is $10,558,469, Now, the board goes on to say:
This showed a total, not including reductions on international traffic, of $8,338,469, and, of this amount S5.354.139 was the estimated reduction on grain. Taking
this from the total reduction leaves a balance of $2,984,330 to be distributed among the other commodities. By the legislation hereinbefore referred to granting the Crowsnest pass rates on grain as therein provided, according to the evidence of Mr. Beatty as recorded on page 46 of the reports of the special committee, assuming the grain traffic of the Canadian Pacific railway to be the same as in 1921, the adoption of the Crowsnest rates would reduce their revenue by $7,159,537, which, taken from the sum of $8,338,469 would leave $1,178,932 is still available for reduction in rates on the above list of basic commodities, and the board, after very careful investigation, has concluded that this would be represented by a reduction of 7$ per cent on the rates now in existence on those basic commodities, less than the increases authorized by general order No. 308, not, however, including therein any reductions heretofore made upon any of the said commodities upon domestic rates in Canada.
Then they go on to say:
The Canadian Pacific railway figures are given above, as this company is taken as the standard in rate discussions.
What can be clearer than that the rates today prevailing are fixed on the basis of the revenue of the Canadian Pacific Railway, not on the basis of operating costs? I leave it to hon. members to draw their own inferences as to whether or not that is a sound method of fixing railway rates. I am drawing attention to it with a view to proving conclusively that the basic factor in rate making is not the cost of operation, but, as I have pointed out, the revenues of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Now, we come back to the operating costs of the Canadian National Railways. It is admitted-in fact, prominent officials of the Canadian National Railways have boasted that operating costs on their line through British Columbia are no greater than those in any other part of Canada. In that connection also I wish to refer to one brief sentence of Sir Henry Thornton's evidence ber fore the Senate committee on the fuel supply of Canada, given on the 21st of March of this year. This appears to me to be very important as bearing upon a comparison of the cost of operation on the prairies and in British Columbia, or in British Columbia and in eastern Canada. He says:
I can move coal much cheaper in the month of May in the West than I can in the month of February, because on account of the cold weather, the snow, our train-load is cut in half. It costs, I should think, easily twice as much to move a ton of freight in the western country in winter time as it does in the spring or summer.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the climate of British Columbia is much more temperate than that of any other part of Canada. No part of that country, or at least very small portions of it, are subject to the extreme climatic conditions that prevail in the prairies and in cen-
Railway Ratei

tral and eastern Canada. Therefore, according to Sir Henry Thornton's reasoning, the cost of operation in British Columbia should be about half the cost on the prairies over a great portion of the year.
Another factor which might be taken into consideration is the question of the earnings of these roads-western earnings and eastern earnings. I would refer the House on this question to volume 14 of the report of that special committee, page 554, where certain statements are filed in the evidence of Mr. McGeer, who was counsel for British Columbia in connection with this matter. In those statements he showed that the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway in British Columbia up to 1913-14 were very much greater than its earnings in eastern Canada. I will not trouble the House with the details, but the evidence is there and can be seen. I would point out also that at present this situation as between the East and the West, we can only compare the earnings of the railway companies on lines west of Fort William with those on lines east of Fort William. The accounts of the railways show that the net earnings per mile of line and per train mile are higher on these western lines than they are in the east. For instance, in 1920 the net earnings of lines east were $10,723,868 as compared with $28,311,645 on lines west. In other words, the net earnings per mile of line on lines east were 82,221 and on lines west $3,466, the earnings per train mile being 46 cents on lines east and $1.19 on lines west. So that the question of earnings does not operate against us in the fixing of rates.
Then we come to the question of the density of traffic, the other argument advanced against us. I ask hon. members to compare the density of traffic on lines through British Columbia with the density of traffic on lines from Winnipeg to Moncton. There is not a shadow of a doubt that the density of traffic on lines in British Columbia is infinitely greater than that on lines between Winnipeg and Moncton yet there is no discrimination against the people in this latter section. Now is there any discrimination against the people living between Fort William and Sudbury on the Canadian Pacific Railway, where the same condition exists. Furthermore, I would point out that the traffic in British Columbia is growing day by day; it is infinitely greater now than it was a few years ago. There are 700 manufacturers in Vancouver awaiting an opportunity to ship their goods into the prairies, and they will take advantage of that opportunity the very moment that equitable freight rates are given to British Columbia.

I come now to what I think concerns more particularly our friends in the East. I think beyond all question of doubt that the removal of this discrimination will react to the general advantage of Canada and more particularly the East, and more particularly still the cities of Montreal and Toronto. Our railways in this country have been clinging to the long haul instead of assisting in colonization and relying upon the increase in population to increase their general traffic and consequently, increase the prosperity of the country. The Panama canal since 1919 has become a great factor in the situation, and we see the railway companies to-day as a result of that Panama canal competition doing the most extraordinary things with regard to rates. For instance, on bar iron they have given a rate from Montreal to Vancouver of $13 sc ton-not to help British Columbia, but to enable the eastern manufacturer to compete with the manufacturers in the United States and Great Br ain, who enjoy rates infinitely lower than S13 per ton. They ship by steamship through the Panama canal and get their products' into Vancouver for about $6 per ton.
I might give another instance. The rates on chemicals going to Vancouver have been reduced for the same purpose of enabling the eastern manufacturer to meet the competition of the American and the British manufacturer. There, is a freight rate of approximately $20 per ton on chemicals going to Vancouver, whereas the freight rate on the very same commodity to Calgary is $30 per ton. Remember, that is not designed to benefit British Columbia. It is designed for the purpose of enabling our eastern manufacturer to compete with the American and the Britisher. I do not object to that. We in British Columbia want to do business with eastern Canada. We want to buy your manufactured articles, but we cannot buy them if you will insist on denying us the right of bringing them through the natural trade channels, and we are being denied that right to-day.
The other day the Minister of Customs was asked in the House whether he proposed to put a customs officer at the port of New York. He did not because it would take business away from the transportation companies. Now the fact is that that business is not travelling over the railways to-day, and that fact is evidenced by the figures of trade passing through the Panama canal. Just let me illustrate the effect of having a customs officer at the port of New York on the British Columbia purchaser of manufactured articles, particularly heavy machinery and such like. For instance I have heard our pulp manufacturers say: We are forced to buy in the markets of the United

Railway Rates
States because though we could buy as cheaply in eastern Canada markets, we cannot buy there because we cannot pay the freight rates; and they are denied the right of bring-nig those goods through the Panama canal- denied that by the government of this country. But if we had a customs officer at New York we could buy those goods, ship them to New York, tranship them there into American or British bottoms, and bring them around to Vancouver via the Panama canal at rates which would compete with the rates we pay for the American and the British article. But the situation at present is that if we ship these goods to New York and then tranship them having no customs officer at New York we have to pay duty on our own Canadian manufactured goods, just as if they were manufactured in the United States. What I want to impress upon the House is this, that our transportation companies are not getting that business now. You are losing it here in the East, and losing it fast, and the following figures are the best proof of that.
In 1913 we had 132 deep-sea going vessels coming into Vancouver; in 1920, 333; in 1921, 496; and in 1922, 717-increasing at a tremendous rate.
Now what about the imports through the Panama canal? In the short period of one year these imports increased by 700 per cent. The imports in 1921 through the Panama canal amounted to 20,416 tons; in 1922 the imports amounted to 149,553 tons; our total imports through the Panama canal being greater than through the port of Montreal. That is what the eastern manufacturers have got to waken up to if they are going to retain the western market. They have to waken up to the fact that they have to allow freight to flow through the natural trade channels. The Americans have wakened up to that fact. They have their regular established steamship lines going through the Panama canal. Their railway companies are spending millions of dollars to-day on developing the short haul as opposed to the transcontinental haul, because they realize that they cannot haul a commodity across the continent in competition with a steamship travelling through the Panama canal. That is obvious and the sooner we waken up to it the better.
There is also the 'greatest opportunity here for the colonization and settlement of that huge western country. That western countiy cannot be settled unless you make it possible for the immigrant whom we propose to bring in to go there and prosper. In the first place the western farmer to-day-and you can sneer if you like; I have heard many jeers and sneers, and I take issue with them-the
western farmer is suffering under a disadvantage, and that disadvanatge is this. It costs him too much to lay his grain down to the consumer. He is losing from six to ten cents a bushel on his grain by reason of the fact that we have not wakened up and are not taking advantage of the natural trade routes. If we take advantage of these natural trade routes he can then market his grain and obtain a reasonable return for his product. Furthermore, he would then be able to buy his necessities, his machinery and other things that he has to use in his business, at the lowest possible cost. Do not make it necessary for him to haul these things he needs right across the continent. Enable him to take them in by the shortest route, and then you will cheapen the cost of living and make the prairie an attractive place for farmers to come and settle and prosper. Biit if we insist upon these artificial trade channels we cannot hope to make the West a popular place for the immigrant to come and settle.
I am quite aware it might be said that the Americans to the south of us have higher freight rates than we have in the West on grain and some other commodities. That is true, but let it be remembered that these American farmers are in this position: They have at their door a huge local market-something we have not got. They can sell the bulk of their grain locally, but we are dependent on the price we can get in distant markets for our living. Furthermore, let it be remembered that they have a protective tariff. I know my friends to my left will not agree that that is any advantage to them, but the fanners of the United States see the special advantage that tariff is to them. They are the people who have promoted a tariff on behalf of the farmer, and they are the people who have got it.
Let us also take advantage of their disadvantage if such exists. If they are suffering under a disadvantage let us make our country more attractive to them and then we can bring into this country from the United States the most desirable type of immigrant. They will move across the line if we make our country more attractive and make it possible for the farmer in this country to prosper.
There is just one other point that I wish to draw to the attention of the House and it is this: The principle of equalization of freight rates, in so far as British Columbia is concerned, has already been recognized by the past government, and in the opening paragraph of the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners handed down in June, 1922, the commissioners recite the direction
Railway Rates

which was given by the Privy Council on the 6th October, 1920, after they had heard an appeal from the judgment of the commissioners. The Privy Council then said:
The committee of the Privy Council therefore further recommend that as conditions have probably changed materially in recent years, tending more and more to make equalization practicable an inquiry by the board be directed to be held at the earliest date with a view to the establishment of rates meeting to the utmost extent possible the above requirement as to equalization.	[DOT]
Namely, the removal of the mountain scale. Now, I have various other arguments which I could advance but I feel that I cannot, in justice, take up any more of the time of the House. That it is a matter of the most vital importance to British Columbia is true, but I want to urge that I am not advocating this from the sectional point of view of that province. I believe that it is in the interest of this country, that if we are going to encourage people to come to Canada we must make the country attractive to them, we must make it possible for them to prosper. There is no question but that the high freight rates in Canada will make it impossible for a small population such as we have to prosper unless we largely increase that population. Furthermore, by increasing that population, by bringing in desirable immigrants and bringing them in as fast as we can, we will make it possible for these railways to prosper by hauling much greater quantities of freight, by moving much larger numbers of passengers; and that such equalization, and a broad-minded attitude on this question, will react not only to the advantage of British Columbia, to the advantage of eastern Canada and of the whole Dominion, but to the advantage of the railway companies themselves.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: I have a great deal of pleasure in seconding the motion so very ably presented by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark). This matter .of freight rates is one of the most important that we have in British Columbia, situated as we are at th? extreme western end of Canada. I feel that I will be quite safe in supporting the statements of the mover of the resolution to the effect that the statement of the Chairman of the Railway Commission, as it appeared in a western paper a short time ago, namely that the feeling in British Columbia was much more political than real, is not correct. The fact that we have fought this question of high freight rates for so many years should be ample proof for everyone that we are in earnest in our contention.
It is rather interesting, in looking back to the time when British Columbia was a colony and to the time when it was proposed that

she should be taken into confederation, to observe that in the undertakings that were then being considered it was decided to construct a railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific with the object of bringing the provinces of Canada closer together, and increasing trade from east to west rather than from north to south, and that at that time Great Britain also encouraged this work with the idea that it would enable her to reach her possessions on the Asiatic side and in the Pacific, with much greater ease and safety than was previously possible. British Columbia cordially entered into this bargain and made very liberal grants of land, giving to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a grant of twenty miles wide on each side of that line from the Alberta boundary west, and also about three-and-a-half million acres of rich land in the Peace River district. I might also point out that in making the bargain the federal government took over the right to collect a tariff, at that time enjoyed by the colony of British Columbia, and in exchange the federal authorities gave to the province a grant, of $100,000 a year in perpetuity. It is interesting to note here that while other sections of Canada east of the mountains made land grants towards the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, the colony of British Columbia gave her own land for this purpose; the lands granted in other provinces belonged to the Dominion. At that time nothing was said concerning the extra cost of construction through the mountains; nothing was said about it being necessary to give the railway any undue advantage or any privileges or monopoly; the whole spirit of the bargain was that of equal treatment for all the provinces. No references, as I say, were made with regard to an extra tariff being levied in the mountain section; I am quite sure that it is very doubtful indeed if British Columbia would have entered into this bargain had any such proposition been initiated by the federal authorities. In the selection of the route the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had the whole country to itself. It could have selected a pass from the Arctic circle clear down to the American, boundary line. As a matter of fact the company selected the route through the Yellowhead pass west of Edmonton That route was chosen, in the first place, by the company's engineers on account of its better grade. After some little time the company changed its mind and decided to go west through the Kicking Horse pass, but it was necessary to obtain the sanction of the federal government to that change. In the Kicking Horse pass, as has been so well

Railway Rates
pointed out by the mover of the resolution, the grades were very much greater than the grades in the Yellowhead pass, the mountain at its highest point being some 1,650 feet higher in the former than in the latter. In addition there is also the handicap of heavy grades in both directions. Any of you who have been through that country will know that there is a huge depression lying immediately to the west of the Rocky mountains and to the east of the Selkirks-what is known as "The Great Dip." It was only at that point, where the Yellowhead pass crosses the mountains, that a first-class grade could be obtained.
Now, British Columbia urges this: That these routes having been clearly open to the selection of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the company having first made the selection of the better grade across the mountains and then having changed to the Kicking Horse pass, and this having been endorsed by the parliament of Canada, the province should certainly not be penalized for any mistakes made by the railway company, or by parliament on that occasion.
With regard to the mountain scale at present existing, which is one of our first objections, and which is one of the subjects behind the resolution of the mover, we find, as has been pointed out, that under present conditions it is possible to haul for 125 miles on the prairie, at the rate applicable to a 100 mile haul through the mountains. I am quite sure that this is not in keeping with the spirit of confederation where, as I pointed out a moment ago, equality in all the provinces was the prevailing question that was prominently kept before us. In British Columbia we want this corrected. We believe in the Railway Commission . We believe it is a very valuable body and one that is rendering a great service to this country under a very heavy handicap but during the last session the government according to its right thought it proper at that time to step in and over-rule the heads of that commission and make certain changes in what is known as the Crowsnest pass agreement, giving certain concessions to the prairie provinces. This, we claim, is an added discrimination against the province of British Columbia, and we ask now in this resolution that that privilege be not confined to the prairie provinces favoured last year, but that it be extended to all the other parts of the Dominion, including the province of British Columbia.
It has been clearly shown that there has been very little difference, if any, in the cost of transportation over the line of the Canadian
National railway in the mountains and over similar distanpes on the prairie sections. In fact I am informed, taking the distance from Edmonton to Vancouver, and Edmonton to Fort William, that you pass over higher land on the way to Fort William than on the trip to Vancouver. It was also shown last year in the findings of the Railway Committee of this House, which sat during last session, that the cost of construction is no longer a serious feature in fixing freight rates over the Canadian Pacific railway.
The position in British Columbia is this:
Here is a vast province of great resources, with plenty of goods for sale, timber, minerals, fish and agriculture, anxious to do business with the eastern section of Canada, particularly that section lying immediately east of the Rocky mountains, but severely handicapped by freight rates which have prevailed for a great number of years. We feel that if we are to have the proper development which we have a right to expect, we should have equal treatment, and that we should be placed on an equal footing with that country lying to the east of us and with other parts of Canada. The result of the high freight rate has been that we find a certain amount of business uncertainty and unrest. There is a lack of confidence among business men, capital is shy about investment, particularly since the increase of freight rates some time ago, and many of those inland towns built along the line of the Canadian Pacific railway at the time of its construction have practically not developed at all, handicapped, as they are very greatly, by the excessive freight rates which they have to pay. We find that our mills, particularly those lying inland, are not doing the amount of business that they would under more favourable conditions. I am quite sure that if these concessions asked for in the resolution were granted we would have immediately very much improved business conditions, which would not only be enjoyed by the great northwestern country, but by the people throughout the whole of Canada.
Take the matter particularly of the concession made last year under the Crowsnest pass agreement in the matter of grain and flour. t which includes, as I understand, feed grain and mill offal, such as bran and shorts, a tremendous advantage would be enjoyed by our British Columbia friends if this material were permitted to go to British Columbia at a lower freight rate. You will understand in those western valleys we not only have an excellent growth of grass in summer, but we are able to grow a great deal of forage for winter use, ensilage and hay. If we could



Railway Rates
buy those cheap concentrates east of the mountains and have them delivered to us at a reasonable figure, we could extend our dairy operations much more. We have in that country as regards dairying, the finest possible conditions existing anywhere on the continent of America, and this has been proved on more than one occasion by our being able to produce cattle that have broken the world's record in dairy production. Looking at conditions generally in Canada, particularly agricultural conditions, while we all recognize the necessity of having a first class market, the first thing we need to encourage the farmer to produce is to guarantee him a first class market which will yield him some profit for his work. What do we find? Whe 1 we consider these markets, we find we are very much handicapped by the heavy cost of distribution, and one of the principal causes is the heavy freight rates. I am quite sure that if the concessions asked for were extended to British Columbia, much more of the wheat would roll to the West than is moving at the present time. But why not? The development of our agriculture is far too important to have that wheat guided with a view to helping out any particular point. If we are going to make a great country of this Canada of ours, huge in extent as it is, populated with a virile people, and to develop it in keeping with its present place in the world and as part of the great British Empire, we must put aside any little feelings we may have about any particular section which we wish to boost, and let the grain and any other produce we have run along natural lines. We have two channels through which trade flows. One is the natural channel and the other is the boosted channel. If we want to stand on a sound foundation, we must always rely on the natural channels of trade. I will read to the House this statement from the Toronto Globe, a paper that I have not quoted very frequently since I have com; into this House:
The Western Grain Route If British Columbia in asking for a reduction of rates on westbound grain, were seeking simply to build up its own ports as against those of eastern Canada, its demand might be described as sectional. But what it contends is that the westbound movement is not artificial, but natural, and is economically the more profitable, at least for the grain of Alberta and western Saskatchewan. The vital question is not what is best for Vancouver or Montreal, but what is best for the grain grower in the West.
The western route to the Pacific has the advantage, for at least a large portion of the West, of a much shorter rail haul. Against this is the grade through the Rocky mountains. But here it is to be borne in mind that the National railway has a far easier grade [Mr. Tolmie.l
than the Canada Pacific, and this advantage ought to be used to the fullest possible extent. This is not
a sectional, but a national question.
I was just going to say that we are only in our infancy as regards agriculture. During the time that I had the honour to be Minister of Agriculture, I had a very careful estimate made by the experts of the Department of Agriculture, and I may say that while they were all recognized as experts, some were also agriculturists, and some even farmers. It was estimated at that time that by a slightly improved form of agriculture, the more strict selection of our seeds, better cultivation, the keeping of a better quality of dairy cattle, beef cattle, hogs and poultry, with very moderate estimates in all those particular lines, there would be an increase to the agricultural wealth of this country of not less than 3503,000,000 a year, or enough to wipe out our national debt in five or six years without turning over a single fresh acre. This will show the possibilities. No single port is going to be able to take care of the produce of this country, when the western country gets into mixed farming as it will undoubtedly, because the history of some ot the states to the south will be repeated. Their wheat production went down to only six bushels an acre, whereas now by the introduction of the dairy and creamery system on an extensive scale, they are producing more wheat to-day than before, and producing at a greater profit. Therefore, our agriculture being only in its infancy; all the good ports we have will be necessary to get rid of our produce as the quantity increases.
Perhaps the most important question today before the government and people of this country is that of making the business of the producer profitable. If we can do that., nothing else practically will matter because it will take care of itself. We are talking about immigration. We want more immigrants into this country; but I think simultaneously with any movement to increase immigration, we should certainly move along those lines that will better conditions for those people who are in the country already, and in that way improve conditions for any immigrants that might settle here.
One of the most important of those 'things is to keep down the cost of living and freight rates to within a reasonable figure, so as to enable us to place our goods on the market at a reasonable profit. While we recognize that one of the greatest handicaps in our development is cost of distribution, perhaps one of the greatest factors in that cost of

Railway Rates
distribution is the matter of high freight rates.
Those freight rates affect everybody
5 p.m. and everything. They increase the cost of living, and while we blame the railways, the railways blame their employees for the high wages they have to pay and also the high cost of materials. This matter should be sifted to the bottom, and whatever remedies can be adopted should be adopted for the purpose of relieving the situation. One thing that the public are dead sure of is that we are not going to enjoy the proper prosperity to which this country is entitled so long as those high rates prevail.
Our transportation system was largely built up many years ago with the great centres in the East kept plainly in view at all times, such as Montreal, Toronto and other centres. Conditions have changed tremendously since that time. I think a point has been reached where it is almost time to review the situation and to bring to bear such reorganization as is possible, taking into consideration the tremendous growth of the prairies, the development of British Columbia, the development and great increase of our agricultural production	of the plains, particularly wheat,
and also the great possibilities of Pacific trade which cannot be overlooked now. This is increasing in importance every year, and we must always keep in view the competition which the Panama canal is going to give the railways crossing this continent. I am quite sure the development of British Columbia would be a great boon to our prairie friends. I have always felt that that great province, with its rich resources, will, once it is developed, provide at the door of the prairies, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan a market that will be a very valuable one. There is nothing that will help out the development of that country so much as favourable freight rates. I am sure, once rates are reduced, we shall find a great deal of the grain in the prairies flowing over the mountains, not only for consumption in British Columbia, but for shipment abroad through our elevators which are built now, and increased elevator facilities which will be provided in the near future. The Pacific offers to the prairies an excellent way of getting rid of its grain all the year round with a very short haul and all down hill.
I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House. The mover of the resolution has gone into this matter very completely and in full detail. I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, had my
122J
hon. friend had this motion presented to him two years ago, I am afraid he could not have seconded it in this House. He would then have been in the position of being a minister of the Crown with this case before him on appeal. He is fortunate, perhaps, in that respect to-day. The question of transportation, as hon. gentlemen have said, is one that directly and intimately affects the people. The method of moving from the point of production to the point of consumption the products of the people either on the farm or in the shop, to a large extent controls the returns which the people get for their labour or their investment. Neither the government nor parliament can minimize the effect of freight rates on the public business of the country, or on the private happiness, contentment and prosperity of the people.
But the question, so far as I can view it, is not one of freight rates, although that side. of the question has been presented ably to the House. This country, years ago, rightly or wrongly, passed an act creating a body with machinery to which is referred the control of freight and passenger rates and movement of trains, together with the kind of equipment and standard of its repair. That was right or it was wrong. But to-day that is the law of the land. I know the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) stated that last year parliament interfered with the work of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I want to point out the inaccuracy of that contention. In 1897 the Crowsnest pass agreement became a part of the law of the Dominion of Canada. That implied a contract between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the people of Canada, and the government of Canada. From 1897 until 1918, I think I am safe in saying, the Board of Railway Commissioners never had any jurisdiction over the rates affected by that agreement, at least not legally. Those rates were according to a contract embodied in the agreement called the Crowsnest pass agreement. In 1918, by another statute, with the consent of parliament and with the approval of the people of Canada, that agreement was suspended for a term, and during that suspension those rates came under the Board of Railway Commissioners. That term expired last year, and it was in the hands of this parliament to say whether or not it would be extended for another term. Parliament was not interfering with the work of the Board of Railway Commissioners as originally intended by this agreement, because that board was constituted many years after this agreement was made and the agreement was never brought under the board's jurisdiction until 1918. If this House had not enacted legislation for the purpose last session the Crows-
Railway Rates

nest pass agreement would again have come into full force and effect, and accordingly parliament passed certain legislation allowing the main features of that agreement to again become operative. In other words, parliament refused to extend in its entirety the suspension of that agreement.
Now, the position to-day is altogether different. These rates have been under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners since its inception, and this House is now asked to say that it is opposed to the existing machinery for the control of rates. How far has that machinery functioned concerning this very question now before the House? The Railway Act provides that the making of rates shall be placed in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners. If I remember correctly, the procedure is this:	The railway
companies file their rates with the board, and if any objection is taken to those rates by any person or any organization the case is tried on its merits by the board. Under that statute the very case we are now discussing was heard before the Railway Board and a finding given. But the Railway Act further provides that in case any dissatisfaction exists as to a judgment of the board, appeal can be had on questions of fact to the Privy Council-the cabinet- and on questions of law to the Supreme Court.
This case was heard before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the judgment of the board was not satisfactory to the province of British Columbia, which thereupon lodged an appeal with the Privy Council. That appeal has already been partially argued, and the constitutional aspect, referred to by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) has been presented to the Privy Council by Premier Oliver and counsel for British Columbia, Mr. McGeer. The Speaker has ruled that if the Privy Council were a court this case could not be discussed here to-day, but in his opinion it is not a court. Of course I must accept the ruling, but I would submit that the Railway Act to all intents and purposes constituted the Board of Railway Commissioners a court of first instance and the Privy Council a court of appeal.
Now, the government is in this situation. We cannot discuss the merits of this case no matter how we may regard them. We are precluded in all decency from discussing whether British Columbia is fairly treated or not, for, as I have already stated, the case is now before the Privy Council and has already been half argued, and the attorney-general and the premier of British Columbia agreed that the completion of the argument should

take place immediately after the close of this session. The government having within a few weeks to give a decision on this case, and not yet having heard all the argument, is it in the interests of the people of British Columbia, is it in the interests of those who wish to have freight rates reduced that this motion should be pressed upon the House? I submit that any vote on this question could not be absolutely on the merits of the case, because members of the cabinet are precluded from suying a word one way or the other. Therefore in my opinion this question ought to be left in abeyance until at least the Privy Council, as the appellate court to the Board of Railway Commissioners, has had an opportunity to hear full argument and give its finding. If parliament then comes to the conclusion that that finding is not in accordance with the facts or with public policy, it can always so declare.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do not want to give the impression that 1 am asking for freight rates to be reduced. When I look over the freight rates that are charged in the United States and compare them with the freight rates that are charged in Canada, I find that on this side of the line they are about 25 per cent less. If we expect our railways to pay how can we consistently ask the government to cut freight rates? I believe in running our railways as a cold-blooded business proposition. In other words, I think our railways ought to carry at least their own overhead expenses and not expect the taxpayers to shoulder the burden. Why should we in the West pay taxes to make up an operating deficiency to get coal to the people of Ottawa? And why should the peoole of Ottawa be expected to pay taxes to make up an operating deficiency on the hauling of grain from the prairies to the seaboard? I do not think it is fair that those who are getting no consideration whatever from the railways should be taxed to make up these deficiencies. In my opinion freight rates should be fixed on a basis to cover overhead expenses, and indeed I hope to see the time when our National Railways will not only earn their overhead expenses but a surplus that will go a long way towards paying the debt of this country.
Now, when British Columbia entered confederation the government of Canada agreed to build a road to the Pacific coast. When that agreement was made nothing was said of discrimination in the way of freight rates. And here let me say that anything I am about to state in regard to the Canadian Pacific

Railway Rates
Railway need not be taken as in any way condemning that railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway is (in organization that I think every true Canadian has just reason to be proud of, and the same might be said of the Canadian National Railways. The officials and employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway are giving transportation service to this country that is not surpassed in any other part of the world. The steamboats of the Canadian Pacific Railway and also of the Canadian National Railways on the Pacific coast are the flower of the Pacific ocean and should be the pride of all Canadians. Therefore I repeat any remarks I may make in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway are not to be taken as in any way condemnatory of that railway but are intended simply to show the discrimination against the West in the way of freight rates as compared with the other sections of the Dominion.
Now, I see no reason why the people in the W est should not get the same scale of freight rates as apply in the East. When British Columbia entered the union her people took into consideration the inducements that were then offered to them to take that course. As I have already stated, one of those inducements was a railroad to the Pacific coast that was to be started within two years and completed within ten. That railroad was not started, I may say, until eight years after British Columbia had entered the confederation. However, that is past history. There is not a vestige of the agreement under which British Columbia entered confederation that has not been fully carried out by the people of that province. Why, then, should this government not see to it that the railway companies carry out their part of the agreement and exercise no discrimination in the matter of freight rates? Why should it be that a manufacturer of roofing paper, for instance, in Victoria, can ship his product down the Pacific coast, through the Panama canal, up the Atlantic and back to Winnipeg at 89-20 a ton less than he can ship it direct across Canada by rail? Yet he can do it. It simply means that the people producing these articles on the Pacific coast cannot compete, owing to the freight charges, with those engaged in similar businesses in the East. Why should it cost 100 per cent more to ship a car of apples from Okanagan to Vancouver than it does to ship the same distance in Ontario? And yet it does. It must be borne in mind that the British Columbia government gave 14,000,000 acres of land toward the building of the Canadian Pacific railway; and not only
that, the Dominion government built the greater portion of the line and handed it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company free of cost. Taking these things into consideration I do not think any person can justly say that the cost of construction of the Canadian Pacific railway in the West to the company has been much in excess of the cost of construction in the East. It is argued that the Canadian Pacific was an expensive road to build. I will admit that, but are .the people of the West to be penalized for - the mistakes of the C.P.R. engineers? That is the question that is before this House. The C.P.R. had the, same right to go through the Yellowhead pass that the Canadian Northern had. But in 1882 the C.P.R. came to this House and asked permission to change the route from the Yellowhead pass to the present route through the Rogers pass, on the ground that the distance would thereby be made some 79 miles shorter. It was a more expensive road to construct and no doubt is a more expensive road to operate, but that is no reason why the freight rates should be held up on the Canadian National on the basis of what the C.P.R. charges. I do not suppose there is a member of this House who would say that the East should be charged a higher freight rate on account of the Quebec bridge or the Montreal tunnel. No person will say that the cost of building that bridge or that tunnel should be charged up to the people in Quebec; much less should we in the West be charged with the mistakes of the C.P.R. We in the West are paying taxes on the money that the government advanced to build these roads, just as well as the people in the East; why, then, should we have to pay an additional tax in the way of high freight rates?
Some people will say that it has cost a great deal more to operate the roads in the West than it has in the East. I think I can show by figures that the cost of operation is from 65 to 80 per cent more in the East than it is in the West, I am sure that anyone who is accustomed to railway operations will admit that it costs more to operate in the East than the V est. Let us look at a few figures. The cost of operation of the C.P.R. per mile in Alberta and British Columbia in 1917 was $5,682, whereas in Quebec and New Brunswick the cost in that year was $10,000 per mile, or 76 per cent more. In 1920 the cost, of operation per mile in Alberta and British Columbia was $10,830 and in Quebec and New Brunswick S17,913, or 65 per cent greater in the East. In 1921, Alberta and British Columbia $8,631 per mile; Quebec and New Brunswick,
Railway Rates

$15,560 per mile, or 80 per cent greater in the East than in the West. Why, then, are the freight rates in the West so much higher than they are in the East? Is there any just reason for it? . Some people will say, "But look at the amount of freight that is handled in the East compared with the West." Well, let us look at the figures with respect to the density of freight as represented by gross ton miles in Quebec and New Brunswick taken together, and in British Columbia and Alberta, taken together. The figures are as folows:
1917-	Tons
Quebec & New Brunswick	 54,572
British Columbia & Alberta	 56,431
Quebec & New Brunswick	 46,021
British Columbia & Alberta	 57,229
Quebec & New Brunswick	 38,411
British Columbia & Alberta	 42,891
This shows that in the West the volume of business for the railroad is much greater every time.
Some people think that the prairies are flat and that freight can therefore be handled much more cheaply there. But the prairies are not flat; at both Regina and Medicine Hat there are pusher grades on the C.P.R. Nearly a 2 per cent grade is encountered between Montreal and West St. John.
We hear a great deal about the mountain scale out West. The C.P.R. does pay its men a mountain scale of wages for 200 miles but it charges the people in the West the mountain scale on 4,500 miles. That is what is called the mountain scale. Is there anything to justify it? Not that I can see. As for the Canadian Northern, there is no such thing as a mountain scale.
I would now like to say a few words about the Canadian Northern. On that line out West for a distance of twenty-eight miles, up the North Thompson, the Canadian Northern has a grade of seven-tenths of one per cent, and that is the heaviest grade on the line. The rest of the grade is four-tenths of one per cent. In fact, the grade is such that you could start a train at Jasper or Lucerne and it would almost run itself without an engine to Vancouver. Indeed there is not one grade on the Canadian National railway that is not fully compensated. It is not so on the Canadian Pacific railway.
Some people may say: Look at the cost of construction on the Canadian Northern railway through British Columbia. Suppose we compare the cost of construction of the Canadian Northern railway through British Columbia and in the East. From Kamloops to Hope was the most expensive portion of the Canadian Northern road to construct, and that

section of the road cost $133,563 per mile, whereas the road from Ottawa to Montreal cost $178,000 per mile; in other words that section from Montreal to Ottawa cost $44,430 a mile more to build than the most expensive portion of the line in British Columbia. Or again, take that section of the road between Montreal and Winnipeg. That section cost an average of $59,313 per mile, whereas the section from Winnipeg to Vancouver cost $55,572 per mile, or in other words, $3,741 per mile less:	Why then, when we take these things
into consideration, should the people out West have to pay the freight rates they are paying to-day? I might say that all these figures were taken from the official railway accounts and have never been challenged.
There is no reason that I can see why the freight rates in the West should be such as they are; it is a discrimination against western Canada, and one that is hard to explain. There is no reason that I can see why any railroad company should be entitled to hold up the freight rates to debar the people in the West from doing business with the prairies, and that is what they are doing at the present time. All we ask out West is a square deal. We have carried out, as I have already said, every vestige of an agreement with the Dominion government, and we ask the Dominion government to carry out their part of the agreement and give us the same freight rates gs other sections of Canada enjoy. If the freight rates have to be raised in order to put the roads on a paying basis, we are prepared to pay our share of the cost, but let the rest of Canada do the same thing. That is all we are asking.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to review this subject briefly, Mr. Speaker, and to state where I stand upon the resolution of the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark). To come to an intelligent grasp of the whole question embodied and involved in this resolution, one has to go back some distance in the history of our railway legislation. That history has been reviewed, but I do not think reviewed fully, and I am quite certain not reviewed fairly by the hon. the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham).
This parliament has had from its inception the power to control railway rates in this Dominion. In so far as the railways of Canada were Dominion railways within the meaning of the British North America Act, the control of rates upon them rested with the parliament of Canada, or with such body or committee or commission as the parliament of Canada chose from time to time to depute

Railway Rates
that jurisdiction to. Up till 1903 parliament had left with the Privy Council under the Railway Act the exercise of that control. The Privy Council had what was known as a Railway Committee, within which was placed the exercise of such review of the rates on our railways as was deemed in the public interest. While such was the law of the land an agreement was made by the Dominion government with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in 1897, whereby in consideration of a grant of money for construction of a branch line the Canadian Pacific Railway Company agreed to give certain rates on grain and flour eastward and on other important commodities westward into and from the prairie provinces as a consideration for the aid so extended. Those rates were lower than had previously obtained on the goods affected.
In 1903 parliament decided on another body for the exercise of the control that had previously been in the hands of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. Parliament constituted the Railway Commission, and by specific legislation in amendment to and added to the Railway Act of the time provided that this commission should have control of all rates whatsoever, as well as the supervision of improvements, the maintenance of equipment and other matters that theretofore had been otherwise controlled. To that general reposition of power there was in the clauses establishing the Commission no exception at all, and it is unnecessary to add that any exception would be wholly inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of the legislation itself. As a matter of practical effect for many years no exception arose for the reason that in the case of the only exception which afterwards was found to exist namely this Crowsnest pass agreement, the rates thereunder were such as really not to be affected by the practical operation of the Railway Board.
What I would like to call attention to now is this, that in the granting of power to the board there was no exception, and intended to be no exception, but afterwards it appeared that in the general Railway Act, aside entirely from the provisions constituting and empowering the board, there was a clause that nothing in this general Railway Act should affect the provisions of any special act, the intention being, should affect any special act incorporating a company and the granting of certain powers thereunder. However, the effect of that general clause in the Railway Act was such undoubtedly as to maintain intact the original Crowsnest pass legislation. Now that Crowsnest pass legislation was not the only thing that was in my judgment intended to be cast aside by the general provisions adopted in 1903 establishing the Railway Commission. Previous to that there had been many agreements entered into, not only by companies and by individuals, but by provincial governments, with railways whereby for a consideration the railways undertook to give certain lower rates; but because of the establishment of a general tribunal and the submission of all companies to that tribunal these agreements inevitably were swept aside. If they were to still obtain in their old force then the whole purpose of the railway legislation of 1903 would be to that extent defeated. In a word, grievances of any kind-


Mr. CAHILL:: Was not the Manitoba agreement with the Northern Pacific also left as binding on the government?


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that very fully. I undertake that the hon. member will be fully satisfied with my treatment of his question a little later on.
All previous agreements were swept aside for that reason. Once the railway companies submitted to the tribunal constituted by the parliament of Canada and said "We will let this tribunal fix rates herafter" what more could we ask of the companies? Very well. Upon the establishment of the Railway Commission in 1903-there having been up to that time a gradual general reduction of rates in Canada

the rates then obtaining under the Crowsnest pass agreement were only such rates, and no lower, as the Railway Commission anyway would fix. So it turned out. Indeed, as time passed the Railway Commission found it possible to assess rates even lower than the Crowsnest pass rates, and those were in effect for some years. This point the Acting Minister of Railways overlooked in his review this afternoon. He stated that the rates effected by the Crowsnest pass agreement had never been under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. They were; the Railway Commission actually dealt with them and reduced them below the Crowsnest pass level. Now, all the while legally, because of that exception in the general Railway Act, the Crowsnest pass legislation was in existence; but not until 1917 did the time arrive when the effect of that agreement actually and practically interfered with the operations of the Railway Commission.


George Perry Graham: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: The minister smiles. I thought I was giving a fair review of the his-
Railway Rates

tory of this subject. Is not what I have said the fact?


George Perry Graham: I was smiling at this: I do not quite agree with my right hon. friend's position on the submission to the Railway Commission of the Crowsnest pass agreement. However, it is immaterial; the results were the same; the rates were lower than the rates under the Crowsnest pass- agreement.


Arthur Meighen: That is all I was endeavouring to point out.	.


George Perry Graham: Not on account of the commission, however.


Arthur Meighen: Well, the rates were lower and were approved by the commission.


George Perry Graham: No doubt the rates were lower.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly and came under the commission just the same as any other rates submitted to them and assessed by them.


George Perry Graham: Does my right hon. friend mean to say that those rates legally came under the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Arthur Meighen: Of course they did, subject to the effect of the original agreement.


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, I have stated that, but the original agreement had no practical effect-the minister will now either contradict me or agree-the original agreement had no practical effect until 1917.


George Perry Graham: When the rates became higher.


Arthur Meighen: Yes-when the conditions were such that it would have been the duty of the commission, entirely aside from this agreement, to make the rates higher. Consequently, the act of 1897 was, in effect, a dead letter until 1917. This cannot be contradicted. If it can, I invite contradiction,-that the rates would have been the same if the act had never existed.


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Arthur Meighen: Very good; from the time the Railway Act came into effect until 1917 the rates would have been just the same if there had been no Crowsnest pass agreement at all.


Mr. FORKE:: Did not the Crowsnest pass agreement fix the maximum rates?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.
I Mr. Meisnen.i


Robert Forke: It had nothing to do with the minimum rates.


Arthur Meighen: Quite right. What I have said is the fact all the same.


Robert Forke: Yes, it is the fact but there is nothing in the argument.


Arthur Meighen: If the Crowsnest pass agreement had never existed then, in so far as the period from 1903 when the commission was established up to 1917 is concerned, during those fourteen years, the actual rates in effect would have been exactly what they were.


George Perry Graham: Would this not be the case: Conditions arose and it was found necessary to have higher rates than those in the Crowsnest pass agreement. Then was it not necessary to change the law?	[DOT]


Mr MEIGHEN:: Yes, I am just getting to that point.


Mr GRAHAM:: That is my case.


Arthur Meighen: Then the Crowsnest pass agreement and legislation was, so far as rates are concerned, a dead letter until 1917. But 1917 coming, the war conditions then prevailing necessitated a general rise in railway rates or the paralysis of the whole railway system of this country. So the Railway Board came to the government, and the government came to parliament, and asked that the Crowsnest pass agreement be removed and that the Railway Commission be free to fix such rates, everywhere in this Dominion, as, under all the conditions, were reasonable and fair. That step the government took.


George Perry Graham: They suspended it.


Arthur Meighen: I know the government suspended it but the government's legislation in the first place, if I remember correctly-I 'will be corrected if I am wrong- was for the abolition entirely of the agreement. There was an amendment proposed, I think, in the Senate-I am not quite sure of that- and the government as a compromise agreed to it; but the government adopted the principle which had always been in effect until then, that there should not be hampering restrictions upon the board when dealing with the general subject.


Mr. BROWN:: Why the necessity for parliament suspending the rate, as you contend, if it was already suspended or abrogated under the original Railway Act?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has not quite understood me. Legally the agreement was in effect-that is to say legally it existed

Railway Rates
-but it had no practical effect at all until 1917. In 1917 it came into practical effect because the time had come when rates had to be raised. Consequently then was the time, and the only time when if there was any need for it to be dealt with it would have been dealt with and dealt with by parliament. Because, I say again, I do not believe for a moment it was ever intended by the Railway Act of 1903 giving the Railway Commission this power, ever intended that there should be any exception under the Crowsnest pass agreement or any other agreement inconsistent with the provisions of the act. Remember I wholly agree that under the Railway Act by reason of another clause which had been always in effect-another clause intended to apply to legislation incorporating companies, the Crowsnest pass legislation was saved. It actually did save the Crowsnest pass agreement legally. However, I am now at the year 1917 when the suspension took place, the intention being at that time to remove the agreement so that the Railway Commission should be free. Then came the expiration of the suspension of the rates in 1922. Now I come to the argument advanced by the Acting Minister of Railways.


Frank S. Cahill: Was not the suspension for two years in the first place, and then for a further period?


Arthur Meighen: Possibly so.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend then agreed to have it suspended.


Arthur Meighen: I think we asked to have the agreement removed first of all, but there were objections to that and the government agreed to the suspension instead.


Frank S. Cahill: On two occasions.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, the expiration of the suspension c^me in 1922 and then the Railway Commission-having already reduced the rates so far as they, felt they could until they knew the fate of the Crowsnest pass legislation, and having to hold their hands from further general reductions -which were due all over this country, until it could be known what was the decision of this parliament in respect of the agreement-came to the government and asked that the government declare, and that parliament declare, its position on the subject. The matter, as everyone knows, was referred to a committee and finally government legislation was introduced, the effect of which, was to restore the Crowsnest pass agreement in part and let the rest of it go by the board, for another year.
This legislation passed, the part restored being the rates on grain and flour moving eastward out of the western prairie provinces.
Now we must remember in this connection -though it is aside from my argument, and I ask that tfiis interjection be forgotten as related to my argument, as soon as I make it- that there is no question that whatever may have been the result of the imposition of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain and flour eastward out of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, whatever may have been the result, below what the Railway Commission would have felt it should have done, so far as Manitoba was concerned, there was nothing effected whatever below what the Railway Commission would in any case have done. I say this on the authority of the evidence submitted to the special committee, which went to show the railways were prepared, under the better conditions that had been brought about, to reduce rates until they would equal in Manitoba the Crowsnest pass rates. It is presumable, however, that in Saskatchewan and Alberta the rates imposed by this parliament in restoring that portion? of the agreement were below the rates which, under all the circumstances, the Railway Commission would probably have thought fair. How far below no one knows, but that they were below can be presumed from the subsequent judgment of the Railway Commission itself. As a consequence of parliament imposing those rates, in respect, we will say, of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Railway Commission were prevented from doing what they otherwise would have done in rate reduction in other parts of the country.
Now the hon. minister argues as against the present resolution-why reduce these rates? He says there is a board which has jurisdiction in railway rates that we should not invade that jurisdiction, and that to do so is to act on a false principle. Then he immediately sees in front of him the act of last session in which we did invade the jurisdiction by restoring the Crowsnest rates on grain and flour, in a word by fixing rates on grain and flour coming eastward, and he says that is an exception, because there was an agreement and we had to bow to it. That agreement he says was made in 1897. Its rates have always been out of the jurisdiction of the commission and consequently there was an exception based on the sanctity of such agreement. Now I ask if such is the case, why in the world was not the agreement wholly restored and its integrity respected? If it is a sacred agreement, all of it is sacred and one part is just as sacred as another.
Railway Rates

If the hon. member wants to get behind the agreement as an agreement, let him get behind it. He wants to justify smashing the agreement in two, and then to be allowed to say " because it is sacred as an agreement, I will get behind a fragment of it and let the rest go by the board."


Frank S. Cahill: What would have happened if .parliament had taken no action?


Arthur Meighen: Then the Railway Commission would have been free.


Frank S. Cahill: No, because the Crowsnest pass agreement would go into effect.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, but if parliament had done what I said then, and say now it should have done, it would have left the commission free to reduce everywhere in accordance with the conditions obtaining, and to be absolutely fair between all parts of the Dominion. Now, let parliament do that, let parliament cease to hamstring the commission, let it remove the chains, and then representatives from all parts of the Dominion can fairly be asked to go with these questions to the Railway Commission of this country. But while parliament handcuffs the commission in order that it may fasten certain rates, how then can it ask members of this House, and representatives of other parts of Canada, to go to the commission-a commission which is tied hand and foot by the government itself?


Robert Forke: As far as I can follow my hon. friend's argument, it is that the Crowsnest pass agreement did not do very much good to the West at all, and how did it hamstring the commission so very much, if the rates were infinitesimally lower through the fact of the Crowsnest pass agreement being restored?	.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is pleading that we may have done wrong but we did not do very much wrong because we did not make the rates very much lower any way. The fact of the matter is that parliament tied the hands of the commission. If we did not by so doing put rates below what the commission would have done anyway, what good did we do?


Robert Forke: The hon. member said we did not put them very much lower.


Arthur Meighen: No, I said in Manitoba we did not put them lower than the commission would have done. I said they put the rates in Saskatchewan and Alberta presumably lower than the commission would have done. How much I did not say It is the principle that is wrong-the principle

of tying the hands of the commission before which all parts of the country are asked to come, and by whose decision all parts of the country are asked to abide. The government having taken the responsibility of doing that must answer to representatives of other portions of the country when those representatives come to this House and ask the government to do the same in respect to their provinces.
Next they have argued-though the minister did not do so this afternoon-that valuable consideration was given for this sacred agreement of 1897. Well, consideration was given by this Dominion but similar consideration was given by one hundred other acts, and there would be just the same reason for statutorily fixing rates in lieu of that consideration. But if in the Crownsnest case there was any given, it was given by the whole of the Dominion of Canada and was not given by any one single portion.
Now I would come to the subject referred to by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) the agreement with the province of Manitoba made by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, an agreement for which consideration was given in lieu of control of rates being exercised by the province which gave the consideration. The province of Manitoba in 1901 made an agreement with the Northern Pacific to take over the Northern Pacific lines at a certain fixed rental for 999 years-a certain rental for ten years, a certain rental for another ten years, another rental for a third ten years, and then a rental of $300,000 for the balance of 999 years. The province immediately re-leased the lines to the Canadian Northern, and in that agreement re-leasing the lines they provided that Manitoba should guarantee the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway Company on its line from Port Arthur to Rainy River, 290 miles, at $20,000 a mile, a liability of $5,800,000, and in consideration of such liability the Canadian Northern Railway Cdmpany gave to the province of Manitoba full control of rates on all its lines in Manitoba and on all its lines from Manitoba to Port Arthur, and from	Port	Arthur to	Manitoba.There was valuable consideration and the^e was a sacred agreement, and the consideration came wholly out of the credit and out of the pocket of the people of Manitoba themselves. Now	then,	if	agreements are sacred,surely they	are	sacred chiefly	to thosewho	give	the	consideration	for them.
Manitoba stands to-day with all its rights under that agreement intact. I call on the government of this country to restore the validity of that agreement to undo what was done by this House in 1903 and allow the

Railway Rates
people of Manitoba, through its government to exercise full control of rates as they have a right to do under the terms of the agreement. If this government comes in and says the Crowsnest pass agreement must be respected, then why not the Canadian Northern agreement? If the Crowsnest pass agreement must be respected, or a part of it, a piece of it, torn and extracted out of the rest, for the benefit of a portion of the country which contributed no more to the construction of the road than all the rest of the Dominion, how much more should the Canadian Northern agreement enure to the benefit of, and be restored fully to the taxpayers of the province who paid the whole of the consideration themselves?


Mr. CANNON:: Does the hon. member contend that the provincial government of Manitoba would constitutionally have the right to fix rates?


Arthur Meighen: The provincial government of Manitoba has the contractual right to fix rates. As between that railway company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, which is still a corporate company to-day, the government of Manitoba can force the railway company to put whatever rates in effect it wants, unless restrained by the parliament of the Dominion of Canada.


Lucien Cannon: Does the hon. member contend that a party to a contract can grant power to any party, outside the powers conferred on that first party by the constitution?


Arthur Meighen: The province of Manitoba has the absolute right to exercise those powers unless restrained by this House. This House has the full right to remove the control it assumed by the act of 1903 and give complete effect to that agreement of 1901.


Robert Forke: Why did the hon. member not do that when he was in power?


Arthur Meighen: Because we do not believe in special agreements at all. I spent twenty minutes of my address endeavouring to show that the late government set its face against all special agreements and believed them inconsistent with the proper working of the Railway Commission.


Robert Forke: That is an excuse.


Arthur Meighen: An excuse?


Robert Forke: Yes, I think so.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
thinks it is an excuse, I would like to know what he thinks is a reason. I do not understand the hon. member.


Robert Forke: The right hon. gentleman knows quite well that the province of Manitoba would like to put that agreement over; but it could get no help from the Dominion, and the Railway Commission fixed those rates over the head of the province of Manitoba altogether. Manitoba has now power to enforce anything the Railway Commission would agree to.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has not made himself quite clear.


Robert Forke: I think the right hon. gentleman understands perfectly.


Arthur Meighen: I am trying to understand the hon. member. I fully admit that this parliament has power to fix rates or to authorize as it did in 1903, the Railway Commission to fix rates irrespective of this agreement of 1901 but this parliament also has power to establish this agreement as a binding agreement to enable Manitoba to get the full value of the consideration which it gave just the same as it did in part at least^in. the case of the Crowsnest arrangement. That very thing I call now on the government to do.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: A matter was mentioned before six o'clock by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) the exact purport of which I was not sure that I caught. I think though he was endeavouring to make the point that the agreement between the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Government of Manitoba was beyond the jurisdiction of that government to enter into; that is to say, that the government of Manitoba constitutionally could not fix rates on Dominion railways. True, the legislature of no province can, as a legislative act, fix rates on Dominion railways; that is very clear. Similarly a town council could not do things with a company by general by-laws unless it had a contract with that special company. Perhaps this illustration will not add to the clearness of my argument and I will not pursue it.


Frank S. Cahill: Not a bit.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman need not smile. I do not think it would be clear to him no matter what I did.


Frank S. Cahill: That is not a smart answer.


Arthur Meighen: I mean to say the hon. gentleman is hostile, that is all.
Railway Rates


Frank S. Cahill: It is not even clear to himself.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is clear to me
all right.


Frank S. Cahill: Well, explain it.


Arthur Meighen: As a legislative act no
provincial legislature can fix rates on Dom-ionion railways; but as a contractual right it can. In a word, it can only base its power upon contract. If it attempts to fix rates without any agreement with the railway company, the company does not need to bother its head; but if the company agrees to submit to the rates fixed, then, aside from any interference by this House, undoubtedly the company would have to -abide by those rates because it contracted to do so. This does not apply to us. We can fix rates by legislation. The company need not contract to abide by those rates for we have jurisdiction over Dominion railways. A legislature can fix rates only if the company agrees to abide by the rates so. fixed; and the company is bound by those rates if it contracts to accept them, unless it is relieved by this parliament.
Then, it may be asked, how did this parliament relieve the company? It is very easy for me to answer. Remember when the provincial statute was passed there was nothing that prevented its enforcement. This parliament ratified the agreement, but at the same time reserved the right afterwards to come along and fix rates itself. The statute reservjng this right is chapter 53 of the statutes of 1901. This parliament ratified the agreement. It did not need to ratify it in so far as the contract was concerned for the fixing of rates; there were other things, though, that had to have ratification to make the agreement binding. And in ratifying the agreement in toto parliament said " Nothing herein contained shall prevent the right of this parliament by commission or otherwise later on to fix rates itself." The clause I refer to is subsection 1 of section 3 of the statute.
Unless this parliament came along and itself got in between the railway company and the legislature of Manitoba and forbade the legislature to enforce its right, the legislature could do so. But parliament did come along and forbid the legislature to take action when it established the Railway Commission in 1903. Manitoba did not complain. Why? Because the Railway Commission did not establish rates higher than those that had been fixed by the province. The province had fixed rates in pursuance of this agreement in 1901 and right from the first day, the first of April of that year, the rates which the province fixed were fMr. Meifihen.]
in force, showing that the province had a perfect right to contract so to do. The province of Manitoba got the benefit of those rates, having given consideration for them.
This parliament came along in 1903 and put the Railway Commission in a position, if it chose, to override those rates. The Railway Commission did not do so, but now it comes along and does override those rates. It exercises its power and steps in between the legislature of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company and denies the right to the Government of Manitoba to enforce the contract that it made with the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Very well, if an agreement with the Crowsnest Pass Railway is an agreement, here is an agreement too. If one agreement is not to be swept away, why sweep away the other?


Frank S. Cahill: Because the company is
swept away in one case.


Arthur Meighen: No, the company is in existence to-day in exactly the same corporate position that it was in in 1901.


John Livingstone Brown: It would follow then from all that has been said that the province itself has no power to enforce rates under the old agreement without the consent of this House?


Arthur Meighen: That is right.


John Livingstone Brown: Very well. That is not the position taken by many in Manitoba, including some of the right hon. gentleman's friends.


Arthur Meighen: That is the position I understand to be the law. I do not know of any who take a different position. What is the position taken?


John Livingstone Brown: If I mistake not, a campaign has been carried on in some quarters promising that certain individuals would restore the rates in Manitoba, and contending that the legislature has power to do so irrespective of the authority of this House.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I think my hon.
friend is misinformed. I do not think anyone would argue seriously that this parliament, in respect of Dominion railways that are works for the general advantage of Canada, cannot fix rates or establish a tribunal to fix rates over and above and operating beyond the contract of the province of Manitoba. Now, the province of Manitoba did not complain so long as this parliament did not in any way fasten chains upon the tribunal that fixes rates. But when this parliament, on the advice of this government, fastens chains on the tribunal and prevents them from making rates that they believe to be equitable, then the

Railway Rates
province of Manitoba is denied justice and is on good ground in calling upon the government to restore its rights as well under the 1901 agreement. I would like to know what the fault is with that reasoning. Because, this parliament, on the advice of this government, establishes fixed rates for wheat flour and grain westward, no matter what the Railway Commission should think would be fair, the province of Manitoba to-day is paying beyond the rates that would have been fixed and were fixed under the contract of 1901.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Were these
rates not fixed by the parliament of Canada long before this government had anything to do with it?


Arthur Meighen: No; the Prime Minister has not followed me either. Not at all; the government of Manitoba fixed the rates. The hon. Prime Minister will remember it put wheat down to 10 cents, subsequently to 11 cents-that is, wheat out of Manitoba to Fort WTilliam. About three years afterwards the Railway Commission was established. That body was then given power to step in and fix rates irrespective of that contract. But the Railway Commission, exercising that power, did not disturb the rates fixed by the Manitoba government, not until in 1917. That was the only time that there would be any reason to do it. But in 1917, it was made free to fix all rates irrespective of all agreements, on an equitable basis, all round. In 1917 this parliament, wiping aside the Crowsnest and all agreements, effectively stepped in and prevented the province of Manitoba from executing its contract with the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The province of Manitoba submitted as long as the tribunal was a tribunal unrestrained by the arbitrary acts of this parliament, but when this parliament restores another agreement and thereby prevents the commission from getting back to the old Manitoba rates as soon as it otherwise would, Manitoba has just ground for complaint and has a right to come to this government and say, "Restore our agreement too."
So much for the Manitoba agreement. Manitoba is not alone in this matter; other provinces have rights as well. But before I come to them, does anyone seriously argue that the act of last session was based upon any other consideration than that this government-to put it on the very highest plane-this government and this parliament thought that the old Crowsnest pass rates were as high as the western provinces could stand? Now, that is the highest plane you can put it on. I am not saying they were not; that is not the point.
When this parliament seeks to justify its conduct on the basis of the old Crowsnest pass agreement, that is the time this parliament takes a stand there is no defence for whatever. The old Crowsnest pass agreement, if it was an agreement, stood, and its integrity should never have been invaded. That is to say, if the fact of the agreement was to be a rock upon which we stood, then let the agreement remain a fact; do not tear it to pieces and then pretend there is a certain sanctity about what remains. Could any humbug be more manifest? That is what parliament did. But more: If this parliament felt that, no matter what the Railway Commission might think to be fair in the light of the circumstances in the Maritime provinces, in Quebec and in every part of this Dominion-if this parliament felt in the face of the serious conditions in the West that no higher rates could be paid-and that is the best footing upon which we could possibly put our conduct-then the duty of this parliament was to leave the Commission free, but to give power to the government of Canada to pay a part of these rates out of the public treasury. Would that not have been the straightforward conduct? It is what should have been done. If this government felt and this parliament felt-let me repeat-that the rates of the old Crowsnest pass agreement were the highest that could be paid if the West was to be saved from paralysis, they should not on that account have tied the hands of the commission; they should have let the commission do what they felt was fair having regard to all parts of this country. They should have left the Railway Commission a real tribunal with power to exercise its functions and then paid -as it could easily have done with the authority of this parliament-the extra freight out of the treasury of the Dominion. Very well, they took the other stand. They said definitely: "We are going to fix rates on wheat flour and grain going eastward, and we are going to do it even though it should be the opinion of the Railway Commission that such rates are inequitable having regard to the rights of other parts of this country in respect of freights." What was the result? One result which has been depicted in the strong speech this afternoon of the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark)-the discrimination that all along had existed, justifiably or not justifiably, against the western passage out of the prairie provinces, was accentuated and duplicated by the conduct of this government and. this parliament.
Ever since the Canadian Pacific railway was built, British Columbia has laboured
sajojf flv:nfiB}j

under a discriminatory rate, always justified by the argument that British Columbia was a mountain province and that because of the grade of the railway and the cost of construction-chiefly because of the heavy grade over the mountains-it was only reasonable that a higher rate should be paid. The discrimination has existed all along. There were those who felt it should never have existed. There were those who ever since the Canadian Pacific was built have taken the stand propounded by the hon. member for Burrard this afternoon, who have argued with very much force that when this country undertook to build a railway through those mountains it undertook that the whole of that burden should be the burden of the Dominion of Canada, that no special part of it would be levied on British Columbia alone, and that when you fix extra rates over the mountain section you do impose a certain special part of the burden on the mountain province. There is great force in that argument, but it was resisted-resisted by the Special Committee of the Privy Council, and resisted afterwards by the Railway Commission, both of whom held that a certain amount of differential was justified. Rightly or wrongly, that view prevailed. But the condition against which British Columbia complained has been aggravated because this parliament came in and fixed special rates eastward and said nothing about rates westward. The differential against the westward rate is much greater than it was before. I want to know how the government justifies that. What answer have they to the hon. member for Burrard? What right has this parliament to come in and to magnify the differential under which British Columbia has laboured all these years? Now, let this debate proceed and let us listen carefully for the answer of the government to this contention. British Columbia has a grievance against this administration. British Columbia has been done a grave injustice; other parts of the Dominion have too, and the government cannot expect to be regarded as anything except a tribunal before which they all can come and demand redress at its hands If they had kept out of the jurisdiction that we stepped from in 1903, then they could maintain their position; but they did not keep out. They thought they would get in and get credit for reducing the rates on certain wheat and flour; they thought they would like to be called the party of low freight rates. All right; I say to them now: Be the party of low freights.
I say to this government: Come to British Columbia. Come to British Columbia and at

least remove the extra differential you put against that province. Come to Manitoba and restore the rates you prevented Manitoba enforcing for the last fifteen years. Why don't you do it? Come to the Maritime provinces and listen to their complaint against the freight rates under which they labour. You cannot say you have nothing to do with it. You have already done with it. You went into two provinces and for one reason and one reason only, because you wanted votes in this House, for that reason and that alone, you went into two provinces and fixed rates below what the Railway Commission would do, and in that fact you imposed upon other parts of this country served by the railways, burdens that their people had no right to bear at all; you destroyed wholly the position upon which the government of Canada has stood for the last twenty years, that the matter of railway rates and railway control was for the Railway Commission alone.
Now the government is in the position of sheltering itself behind an agreement the integrity of which they claim is important. The shallowness of such position really hardly admits of serious argument. The idea of one party arguing that an agreement into which it entered is sacred and cannot be broken when the other party is at its door asking to be relieved! How foolish that is! The government cannot stand on such paltry talk at all. It cannot stand on it first of all because by the very Railway Act it broke down every other previous agreement. It cannot stand on it, secondly, because that very agreement they themselves took in their hands and tore to ribbons at the moment they were applauding its integrity. So I say, answer to the demand of British Columbia. Answer to the demand of Manitoba. Answer to the demand of the Maritime provinces. What you are ready to do for one part, be ready to do for all. That is the demand of this resolution. Pass this resolution, and the government must answer these demands, and there is no one who voted for the invasion of the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission who has any excuse at all for his vote against this resolution. And this government won't be through merely by voting it down.
Oh, we are told, the government is in the position of a judicial body, and they will be prejudicing the case if they vote on this resolution. They say: Inasmuch as we as a government must decide the appeal of the province of British Columbia against the judgment of the Railway Commission, inasmuch as we have to decide that, you should not bring the matter up in parliament at all until we are through. I would like to ask, what is

Railway Rates
the use of bringing it up after they are through? After they are through, it is hopeless. I know the government has an appeal to decide. I presume all the evidence has not been heard, but the tinje for parliament to speak is now. There is no use speaking at any other time. Why, this government has other things to decide besides this. It has to decide what it is going to do about the extension of the rest of the Crowsnest pass agreement, and I presume if we bring that question up hon. gentlemen of the government will say: Oh, please don't bother us with that because we have to decide it later on. There is no use in parliament waiting until the government has decided. The. only time parliament can express its opinion is now. Therefore we are expressing it now.
The government members may vote against this resolution because they must decide the appeal. There may be some force in that contention, but there is no force at all to the argument that we should not discuss the subject and press our views on the attention of the government. That is what we are doing to-day and we will continue to press our views, we will continue to press for the government to do for every province what it did for two and we shall do so until the government leaves the proper tribunal intact to exercise its functions as a judicial body should.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I
have heard my right hon. friend on more than one occasion adopt the casuistical tone which he has adopted to-night, and I notice that he resorts to it particularly when railway matters are under discussion. I call to mind with what simulated indignation in 1917, when he was dealing with the railway problem of that time, he undertook to deny that in 1914 when he steered through the House of Commons of that day the legislation that forever fastened on the Canadian people the ownership of the Canadian Northern railway, he had told parliament and the country that the legislation which he was then introducing for the purpose of taking over the stock of that company, involving the security of the Canadian people by way of mortgage, would have this effect, that in case of default the Canadian people could at once take possession of the property. Yet three years afterwards he came to parliament and introduced a bill for the purpose of enabling the Canadian people to take over that property at a valuation to be paid which three years before he had said would be absolutely forfeited in case of default.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? I want to make one correction,
not because the hon. gentleman particularly has made that statement, but others have. The legislation of 1914 provided that in case of defaidt under the mortgage the government could take over the property upon such terms as parliament provided. Those were the exact words of the statute. When there was default, the government came to parliament to provide the terms upon which we took it over.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not before me the statute, but I do not need to turn aside from this debate for the purpose of verifying what I say. I well remember, however, my hon. friend's attitude on those two occasions and of myself pointing out in 1917 how the arguments which he had used against the former Solicitor General, the Hon. Mr. Bennett, in 1914, had come home to roost.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, to hear my right hon. friend that we were discussing the question as to whether we should have passed the Crowsnest pass legislation last year. That has been the burden of his song. He has made his speech just one year too late. Why did he not when the report of the committee came before parliament last year stand up and say then in the same vehement tones the words he has used tonight? Why question to-night the action of the government in submitting that proposition to parliament a year ago?


Arthur Meighen: I did.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But the right hon.
gentleman did not do so. On the contrary. Let me call attention to the resolution which my right hon. friend's first lieutenant has moved, and to the resolution which my right hon. friend supported last year. What was that resolution?
That while the Board of Railway Commissioners remains as it is now a tribunal constituted by parliament to fix railway rates without discrimination and in accordance with changing conditions and to meet the needs of the country as a whole, it should be. left free-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -it should be left free to perform such duty-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends are applauding too soon.
-without dictation from this House and subject only to review by the Governor in Council as in the Railway Act provided.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.
Railway Rates


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yet my right hon.
friend to-day puts up his lieutenant from British Columbia to say that that resolution last year was all tommyrot.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: His lieutenant places on the order paper a resolution which says that notwithstanding the Board of Railway Commissioners, nothwithstanding the statute .that deals with the railways of this country and that permitted the commission to deal with rates absolutely with the Exception of certain special cases, that we should come in here and undertake to interfere and disregard the Railway Commission altogether. It is an absolute change of policy. Last year it was, leave everything to the commission. This year, play politics for British Columbia and leave nothing to the commission. That is the position my right hon. friend stands in today.


Arthur Meighen: If he will accept now our resolution of last year, that is quite satisfactory to us.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend is at his old game; he knows the value of consistency too well. My right hon. friend is in this position:	Last year he
solemnly asked this parliament to commit itself to the proposition that there should be no intereference with the Railway Commission. This year he puts his lieutenant up to ask us to absolutely interfere with and disregard the Railway Commission.


Arthur Meighen: Because you did last year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, because we did last year? Why, my right hon. friend has been talking for the last two years, day in and day out, about consistency to the extent of even excluding any of his followers from talking about it. Now we have a wonderful exhibition. The changed condition of my right hon. friend is a wonderful exhibition of consistency: Leave everything to the Railway Commission last year; leave nothing to it this year. That is where my right hon. friend stands. What does the resolution mean? My hon . friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark) had a resolution on the order paper all during the session to this effect:
That, in the opinion of this House, railway rates westward from the prairie provinces should be reduced to an equality with railway rates eastward from said provinces for similar goods and distances.
Nothing about the Crowsnest pass agreement there; but in order to carry out the policy of my right hon. friend that there should be no interference with the Railway

Commission the hon. member for Burrard, in amendment to a motion to go into supply, moves a resolution which declares that what is known as the "mountain scale" of railway rates in British Columbia should be removed, and secondly that the Crowsnest pass railway rates on grain and flour should be made applicable to the whole of Canada.


Mr. HANSON:: That is not the resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am quoting from the resolution which my hon. friend from Burrard sent to the Acting Minister of Railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not the
resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In terms it is. At any rate I will quote the other resolution. The one which I have just read deals with two subjects. The second resolution is thus worded:
That, in the opinion of this House all unfair and unjust discrimination against British Columbia, as exemplified in the "mountain scale" of freight rates should be rescinded-
Practically the same thing, only a change of language-
-and the special reduction made by the restoration , of the Crowsnest pass rates on the basic productions of the prairie provinces be extended to the basic productions of all other provinces of confederation.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend for Burrard consulted somebody between twelve o'clock this morning and three o'clock this afternoon. The resolution I first read was the resolution which was sent by the hon. member to the Acting Minister of Railways. This is a quick change of policy on the part of this wonderful party. They completely reverse their policy solemnly resolved on last year, which was supported by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in a strong argument. All this goes to the winds, and again a policy inaugurated at twelve o'clock in the morning is changed at three o'clock in the afternoon.
The whole burden of my right hon. friend's attack was this: There was something done about the Crowsnest pass rates last year. Because there was something of that kind done you committed a horrible crime, and you now propose to say British Columbia must have her rates dealt with regardless of the Railway Commission or of what the law may be, and we will commit the same crime. That is the policy of my right hon. friend, and he undertook to argue with his usual ingenuity that the provisions of the act of 1897 relating to

Railway Rales
what is known as the Crowsnest pass agreement had not been maintained in existence or specially preserved because of the fact that the Railway Commission came into existence. I was very much surprised at my right hon. friend's argument on that point. All he needed to have done was to have turned up the statute passed in 1903 which dealt with the agreements which were to be preserved, and he would have found the provision clearly set forth as follows:
Unless otherwise expressly provided in this act, where the provisions of this act and of any special act passed by the parliament of Canada relate to the same subject matter the provisions of the special act shall be taken to override the provisions of this act in so far as is necessary to give effect to such special act.
Could there be anything more definite, anything more clear laid down in the statutes -that the provisions of the Crowsnest pass agreement were to override the provisions of the general act relating to railways? I will cite the testimony of a witness on the point (Sir Henry Drayton), a gentleman who has had some experience in regard to railway matters. I would like to call this gentleman as a witness to substantiate the position which I have ventured to take in regard to this matter and also to show how the arguments the right hon. gentleman was advancing this afternoon and evening contrast with those of his desk-mate because that gentleman dealing last year with the question said in this House:
We have had the very limited rate regulation imposed by this agreement in place of the broad and full regulation given under the Railway Act. The agreement here only has to be considered because under the scheme of the drafting of our general railway act, all the conditions of special acts are made to over-ride the general provisions of the Railway Act and to that extent limit its provisions.
My hon. friend went on to say that it was on account of the provisions of the statute of 1903, which preserved intact the Crowsnest pass agreement that parliament was dealing with that very question. My right hon. friend can turn up the debates of last year and see the arguments of his desk-mate.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend has misunderstood me; I quite agree with that. I know the general provisions in the Railway Act cannot invade the provisions of special acts. I thought I had made that clear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend did not say that this afternoon. He was arguing that because the provisions of the Crowsnest pass statute were not preserved this government committed a great wrong last year in infringing upon the powers
of the Railway Commission and providing the legislation that parliament passed; and because this government did that my right hon. friend says this year that British Columbia and every other province can come in irrespective of what the law may be to-day. That is my right hon. friend's position; there can be no mistake about that. As a matter of law there can be no doubt that since 1903, since the Act constituting the Railway Commission was passed in this country, under the powers of the commission in regard to freight rates-so far as the territory covered by the Crowsnest pass agreement so-called was concerned-the commission had no power to interefere with the provisions of that special act, and not having any power to deal with the matter parliament had to determine whether or not the provisions of that act should be suspended and if so in what degree. It so decided, as is very well known, and my right hon. friend bases his whole position in favour of this resolution of his colleague upon the fact that we did that last year; we violated some holy law; we infringed upon the powers of the Railway Commission; and that consequently British Columbia can come in and do the same thing although it had no Crowsnest pass agreement.
So also in regard to the Manitoba agreement. My right hon. friend is too good a lawyer not to know that when Manitoba came here with the Canadian Northern Railway Company with an agreement to be ratified in 1901 and submitted to parliament the act they did submit, the conditions which were attached at that time by this parliament to the provisions of that agreement were such as were only fair and proper. Let me sav also that if the province of Manitoba and the Canadian ^Northern Railway Company did not choose to accept those conditions they did not have to come here to get legislation. But they did come, both parties came to an agreement, they accepted those conditions and those conditions were in force from 1903 on To-day my right hon. friend, after a lapse of twenty years, says that the bond must be broken; that notwithstanding the fact that parliament imposed those conditions twenty years ago we must disregard them because parliament permitted the Crowsnest pass railway rates to come into effect last year. That is my right hon. friend's position when you analyze it. I would like to remind my hon. friend for Burrard in regard to his claim that British Columbia lost its control over C.N.R. rates by the action of this parliament and that the person who took away from that province its right to interfere with rates was

Railway Rates

the right hon. gentleman who is his leader. So that is the situation in which the hon. gentlemen opposite stand in regard to the matter.
Where do we stand on the whole question? The province of British Columbia has not the Crowsnest pass agreement to protect it. She stands like all the other provinces of the Dominion, subject to the provisions of the general Railway Act which deals with the way in which freight rates shall be fixed in this country, and the method by which they should be fixed, as parliament knows, is to go to the Railway Commission, and thence by appeal from that Railway Commission to the Privy Council. Let me remind hon. members what took place, Mr. Speaker. The British Columbia government, speaking through their Attorney General, and speaking formally for the people of that province, petitioned the Railway Commission, under the provisions of the act, and asked them to take up this question. The people of British Columbia went to the tribunal, but I fear-although I do not want to charge any bad faith-that my hon. friends have come here not so much with the idea of coming to a proper tribunal, but with the idea of making a little political gain out of it. That is so plain, in view of the situation, that there can be no answer to it. What occurred? The Railway Commission dealt with this matter fully and completely and delivered judgment on the 30th June, 1922. Then they came to the Privy Council of Canada, and they came in these terms:
The petitioner the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, acting on behalf of the province of British Columbia, hereby appeals, by way of petition under section 52 of the Railway Act of Canada and asks thait that order be varied, and in part rescinded.
They set out twenty-two grounds upon which it should be varied or in part rescinded, and those grounds involved questions of law and fact. They involved the constitutional question whether the terms of union with British Columbia should be carried out, and various other suggestions as to the effect and the weight of evidence, and as to the law which should be applied in dealing with this matter, which inevitably involves the exercise of judicial discretion by the tribunal before which they came. Let me say, however, with the greatest respect for the decision you arrived at, Mr. Speaker, as to whether this motion was in order that I regard the functions which the Privy Council have to perform as being purely judicial. It is well settled law in this country that the king is present in the Privy Council and we inherit by precedent all the powers which the Imperial Privy

Council have exercised. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was a development in Britain from original powers of the Imperial Privy Council and it was specially created for the purpose of dealing with questions of appeals to the council. My hon. friend may laugh at my argument, but I want to say to him that I would be very glad if it were necessary for the purpose of dealing with this question to discuss that matter at length. I could suggest to him some authorities which he has perhaps forgotten. However I do not want to be dragged into a question of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think you had
better.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The provisions of the statute, and all matters that can be determined upon the appeal by the Privy Council, are of such a character that they demand the closest possible attention and a great amount of research, and the approaching of the consideration of the matter with those feelings with which any judge should be animated in endeavouring to do that which was fair, proper and right in the interests of the whole country. My hon. friend the former chairman of the Railway Commission last year pointed out the danger of any tribunal or any body attempting to deal with the question of railway freight rates without the fullest inquiry, with special reference to the costs of railway transportation, and yet his right hon. leader had the temerity to come to this House and, after an afternoon's debate, without any investigation, on a short statement such as we have been given here, to say that the Railway Commission did not know what they were talking about, that the whole rate question should be decided in this discussion. I believe that the right thinking people of British Columbia and Canada generally will be prepared to wait for that full and complete investigation which the Privy Council of this country will give to this appeal. It is conceded that this question was adjourned until after the session when it will be dealt with, as agreed with the petitioner the Attorney General of British Columbia, who is the legally constituted representative of the province for the purpose of instituting legal proceedings. And the government will approach the consideration of this matter with absolutely open and fair minds with the desire of doing that which is in the best interests of Canada as a whole.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: The resolution before the House has two parts to it; one part refers specifically to a

Railway Rates
longstanding grievance of a province and asks' for a statement or declaration by parliament that this grievance be removed. The second portion of the resolution asks parliament to declare that a certain action taken last year, giving certain advantages to a section of the country, should be extended to the whole of Canada. It has been held from time immemorial, as declared, Sir, by your ruling this afternoon, that the time for the people of the realm to submit their grievances to parliament and for parliament to hear and consider those grievances is when the motion i3 made for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
We have just listened for a very short time to the new minister without portfolio (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou). I take this occasion, the first I have had, of publicly congratulating my hon. friend upon having at last attained a longstanding ambition. Nevertheless, I want to say to him, as an old friend and associate in this House, that he scarcely did himself justice in the very brief but laboured argument which he has just concluded. I shall not deal with it more than for a few moments. First, I will remind him that it ill behooves the kettle to call the pot black. He rather twitted my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) with inconsistency. With that I will deal in a moment, but I would remind the hon. member that last year, in the special Railway Committee having this question under consideration, he fought day in and day out, and night in and night out, away into the wee sma' hours of the morning on one occasion at least, for a certain position that he had maintained, with a few others in his party and with some on the other side of the House, and supported a resolution in that committee for the continued suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement. It was stated through the House and the corridors that if he did not have his way there was going to be an upheaval amongst the supporters of the government, and there was, at least, a miniature revolt. Now he comes before the House to-day and puts up, as I have already said, an argument scarcely befitting his ability and experience in this House in support of the weak position the government find themselves in.
Before leaving my hon. friend's remarks, let me refer to what he said regarding my right hon. leader. He attempted to show that the right hon. gentleman this year is inconsistent with his position last year. Last year we stood behind the right hon. gentleman and declared ourselves in the form of an amendment to the resolution, and we stood behind this principle: That the Railway Commission, the properly constituted
123J
body, should be the body to determine railway rates. We stood there then, and we stand there to-night. But, Mr. Speaker, parliament, under the leadership, if not under the dictatorship of the government, departed from that principle, abandoned that position and arbitrarily fixed rates in defiance of law, or, at least, what was law previous to that, in defiance of this acknowledged principle and in absolute defiance of the Railway Commission and its-long recognized power. That is the answer to my hon. friend. Now we come to parliament to-day and we say this -and I shall risk wearying the House by reiteration of what I have already said- " Restore untrammelled, unhampered and free, the jurisdiction of the Railway Board ", or if you will not do that then we say, " Extend this rate-fixing power that you exercised last-year to adjust grievances that we claim exist There is a reason for that. I invite the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) particularly to give consideration to this reason.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does my hon. friend find the first point he has just mentioned? He says to restore the power to the commission. Where is that in the amendment before the House?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We do not say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend said so this minute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We do not say so in the amendment; but my right hon. leader stated in his speech a few minutes ago: "Undertake to restore the complete jurisdiction of the Railway Board, and we will withdraw the amendment."


Frank S. Cahill: It was ever thus.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) interjected a remark in an Irish whisper. I did not quite catch it. I was going to say, when I was interrupted, that we have reason to appeal to my right hon. friend. I intend to deal with this matter as broadly as possible, but for the moment I intend to localize my argument. We in British Columbia had this matter before the Railway Board, not for days but for weeks and .months. I understand the provincial government spent something over $50,000 in collecting data and in building up its case. That case was before the Railway Board; but we could not get a decision; we were denied a decision, and why? We were denied a decision because the Railway Board were awaiting the action of this government through its committee and its influence on parliament. As a result of the effect of the action of the government, through its
Railway Rates

members on the committee, and resulting in the action of parliament in the legislation to which we refer, what occurred? I ask my hon. friends, and particularly the Prime Minister, to follow this. If I had under my hand the decision of the Railway Board, I could read it; but it has already been read, and I am sure my word will not be disputed. In the official judgment of the Railway Commission delivered subsequently, they cite the figures submitted to them by the Canadian Pacific Railway traffic expert, Mr. Lanigan. What are the figures? They are an estimate of the losses resulting from the action of parliament. I want the House to get this. Upon ascertaining what that loss was, the Railway Board go on and give their decision. What is their decision? Their decision was based upon that loss; that is, they lowered the freight rates to a certain degree; but they said: "Because of the action of parlia-meht in arbitrarily fixing the rates on the Crowsnest pass agreement, we can reduce rates only so much." Let us reverse the situation. Had parliament not acted at all in rate fixing, the Railway Commission would have
9 p.m. given an altogether different decision as regards the case of British Columbia. They say that we have no grievance. Then it is stated that we did wrong in coming to parliament. It was parliament, the House of Commons that interfered with the just and fair decision by the Railway Board of our case, and it was because of the delay in parliament, a delay caused by the government, that we could not get a decision from the Railway Board until that delay was removed.
The Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) this afternoon, instead of complying with our request, instead of arguing the case, after the decision of the Speaker that the matter was properly in order, said that his hands were tied; that he was compelled to be silent, and that he did not dare to debate the question. My hon friend's attitude was not reasonable. In other words, last year they bound the hands of the Railway Board, and to-day the Acting Minister of Railways comes before parliament, and deliberately, voluntarily, shackles himself so that he cannot even discuss this question. We had a most lengthy, detailed ruling by the Speaker, and there is no reason under the sun why the question should not be debated in this House.
I wish to turn to the ease itself, and I invite consideration of this problem on as broad and general a basis as I can possibly fix it. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) declared that this was an effort to make party politics. Let me say to him

that this whole question was launched by the business men of British Columbia. Over fifty business associations were joined together in the associated boards of trade of that province, and they made their appeal. The Prime Minister received a letter the other day from the Vancouver board, setting forth the terms of this matter. There is no division of political opinion on this question in British Columbia, so far as I have been able to ascertain. The Premier (Mr. Oliver), the government, the boards of trade of British Columbia have all set themselves firmly behind this, as regards that province. What is the problem? I will endeavour to discuss it from the standpoint, not of British Columbia alone, but of Canada. Canada has grown just as a human being grows. In its early days, the strength, population, industry, development of the country were all centred around a circle, Toronto and Montreal, in Ontario and Quebec largely, and in the Maritime provinces. There was practically nothing in the West. I remember when I went West thirty years ago, there was very little there at that time. What happened? Eastern influences, eastern business thrust themselves into the. West; transportation thrust itself into the West to take care of the business that developed, and it was perfectly natural that every consideration for freight rates should be based upon that movement of trade from the eastern part of Canada westward. As far as I have been able to learn, in the fixation of rates there has never been any scientific basis; rates on commodities have been fixed most unreasonably and illogically. Yet this was done for what reason? Generally speaking, in the interests of the development of the country, as I frankly admit. But as the country grew and developed, as the western part of Canada settled down, the Panama canal was opened, and an entirely new situation arose. It is about time that Canada recognized the economic effect upon this country of the Panama canal. For years the railway transportation system of the United States resisted the construction of the Panama canal and objected to it bitterly. Why? Because the United States transportation system had been developed exactly as ours was later-thrust from the east into the west. All rates, all movements, all centres of industry and organization were based upon that distribution from the east to the west. But they have abandoned that policy, with the result that they have established a new system, that is, a distribution from the two seaboards

Railway Rates
inland. That is the result of the opening of the Panama canal. We have a situation very much the same only less accentuated.
Now then, is it possible for Canada to develop its transportation along any logical or reasonable lines? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is. First, I would suggest to the House that we ought to take full advantage of our geographical position. What is that position? I want to impress upon hon. members that we are in a wonderfully advantageous position geographically, having in mind the new world that has been coming into being during the last few years-that really we might say, is just being bom. In the last three years we have had a more rapid development of transpacific trade than in the previous thirty years, I think I am safe in saying. On the Asiatic continent there is an opening up of trade that perhaps was not dreamed of ten years ago. There is a movement of traffic from Europe across this continent to Asia exceeding anything we have ever experienced in the past. Where do we find ourselves? We are on the highway between this new growing market in the Orient and Europe. And the part Canada ought to play in this transportation system is not only to develop its transcontinental business, but also to develop its distribution from the two seaboards inland, and, further, to develop this trans-Pacific business. By so doing we shall take advantage of our geographical position. We have the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence route-I refer to this in passing, not for the purpose of injecting it into this debate-and everything that we can possibly do to make that great waterway into the very heart of Canada a highly developed and valuable instrument of trade ought to be done. But I say to this House equally as vigorously that everything possible should be done to give to the centre of Canada-I speak as from the Great Lakes west and from the Pacific coast east into that great inland district, the vast agricultural plains of this country-free and untrammelled access to the seaboard in either direction.
Now, all we ask is fair and equitable treatment. So far as British Columbia is concerned we are not seeking any advantage over the rest of Canada; but we submit that we are entitled to fair and equitable treatment. My hon. friend for Burrard (Mr. Clark) made the statement this afternoon that the Railway Commission fixed the rates through British Columbia. How? On a ratio of one to one and a half. That may not sound very significant, but, as he pointed out, it means that for a given number of dollars you cafi go three hundred miles east of our boundary to two hundred miles that we can haul the
same freight in our territory. It is an arbitrary arrangement. The Railway Commission gives no specific reasons for its action, it just simply says, "We will fix that ratio." That is what is known as the "mountain scale." I am going to deal with it veiy briefly.
I would ask the House to listen to me carefully at this point because I wish to make it quite clear. The argument is advanced that the excessive cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway over the Rocky mountains is accountable for this "mountain scale" or excessive charge. Let me state a simple fact; it will not require argument to emphasize its significance. Up to a few years ago, I think 1908 or thereabouts, a shipper in Montreal could ship a carload of merchandise-I care (not what it might be-2,400 miles to the town of Golden, B.C., for exactly the same freight rate as a shipper in Vancouver could ship a similar carload 450 miles to the same point. Was that discrimination? It is true that that disparity has been lessened and we now can get farther eastward. But I want to make this point not so much to show the excessive discrimination as to answer the argument that the cost of the mountain construction was the reason. Here is my answer. I included in the 2,400 miles that the Montreal merchant shipped his goods was what is known as the Big hill; in other words Golden is west of the Rocky mountains. The mountain haul was included in the eastern end of the system. I am going to repeat that. You could ship a carload of freight from Montreal 2,400 miles westward over the Rocky mountains, that is, including the mountain haul, for the same freight rate that was charged you for shipping a carload of merchandise of equal weight 450 miles from the coast to Golden. That answer cannot be refuted as far as basing this mountain differential on the high cost of construction in the Rocky mountains is concerned. I might further inform the House that the two spiral tunnels-not then there, they have been constructed since-but the big Field hill, which I think had a 5J or a 6 per cent grade, was included in the long end of that haul, that is, on the Montreal end. It is an absolute answer, Mr. Speaker, to the argument in support of the mountain differential. I assert that that differential is a purely arbitrary differential and should never have been imposed.
Another argument advanced is this: Why should the Railway Board-as is evidenced in the judgment referred to by my hon. friend for Burrard this afternoon-base its decision on Canadian Pacific Railway figures or facts; why should they be the determining factor? Why should they not take the Canadian Northern Railway cost of construction? Or
Railway Rates

let me put it another way: If they are going to take the Canadian Pacific Railway cost of construction through the mountains-


Robert Forke: If I may interrupt my hon. friend? I could not help remembering some of his arguments in the Transportation Costs Committee last year on this same subject.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Transportation Costs Committee? What committee is that? I have great regard for my hon. friend and do not want to make him look ridiculous, but I am afraid he is tempting me seriously. I was not on that committee.


Robert Forke: Perhaps it was in the House. But I remember hearing the hon. member's arguments at the time, and I think I can find them in Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will have difficulty in doing so, for I did not speak in the House on that subject. I will tell him why. I am glad my hon. friend has brought this up because it gives me an opportunity of explaining my silence. When this question came up in the House-and I am going to revert to my argument later nevertheless- Premier Oliver's counsel, Mr. McGeer was in the city. I had him come to my room and discussed with him the advisability of myself and others taking this position on the report of the committee coming before the House. He advised us not to. He said, "Our case is before the Railway Board, and we are well pleased to have it there. We expect a reasonable and fair decision, but if you people of the opposition take it up you will prejudice our case." We refrained therefore from taking any action. Where is my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald)? Was that political trickery, Mr. Speaker? We did not say a word. And what happened? The result was-well, I was going to use a term that perhaps is not quite parliamentary-but we lost an advantage because we tried to play the game above board. We lost an advantage-we lost a political advantage. And furthermore, we got what I shall not describe as unfair treatment, but we did not get anything like what we expected in the way of treatment in connection with freight rates.


Robert Forke: I want to be fair to the hon. member. My memory may have played me false; the argument was so familiar to me that I admit I may have made the mistake.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that you had in mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has been mistaken twice; if he wants to try it again, I will give him an opportunity.


Robert Forke: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no reason to hide anything, and I certainly cannot recall any such remarks as he has suggested. As a matter of fact I have always taken the stand, and I take it to-night, that this is the business of the Railway Commission, but now that the rights of the Railway Commission have been invaded, we are going to claim the protection of this House.
Let me come back to my argument, if I may be permitted to do so. If you are going to take the Canadian Pacific Railway as the standard or the basis or the determining factor in the matter of freight rates in the mountain section because its cost of operation is the highest and because the load to be carried is the smallest-if that is to be the basis, why not apply the same principle in respect to other centres of Canada? Why not apply it in the case of the National Transcontinental in eastern Canada, which unquestionably has a higher operating cost as related to traffic than that which applies to the congested area of the old Grand Trunk system? But that is not done. So I say that the action taken in this case is an arbitrary act which is not based upon any logical or reasonable argument. The National Transcontinental have a water grade from the mountains giving the people of the interior of Canada, western Saskatchewan and Alberta, access to the sea- and when I say access to the sea I refer to something more than the eastward movement of grain. During the last six months we have handled for the Orient 3,000,000 bushels of wheat. I would like the House to appreciate the significance of that. That is not wheat stolen from Fort William for the advantage of other ports; it is not diverted traffic; it is the development of a new market. Besides the 3,000,000 bushels actually handled in that period, about 2,000,000 are in prospect or are on order. That is an evidence of the necessity of recognizing the right-and this is my chief point-of the shipper in the interior to get to the seaboard on equal terms with other parts of Canada. May I pause to make this assertion-and I do not think even my good friend for Brandon, the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) will dispute it: the main problem of Canada to-day, the greatest difficulty facing my hop. friends to my left in their dilemma in the West, is the transportation question. Their difficulty-let me put it a little, differently-is the excessive cost of

Railway Rates
moving a product from the heart of Canada to its ultimate market, either in the Orient or in Europe. I had some figures here bearing on that point, but I will not weary the House with them. It is enlightening, however, to note that for the movement of grain from Edmonton to Fort William, a distance of 1,280 miles, it costs 15i cents a bushel, while for the movement from Edmonton to Vancouver, 620 miles, or half the distance, it is 15 cents a bushel, or approximately the same. Do my hon. friends not see-I know they do-that if they had as fair and equitable a rate westward as they have eastward, there would be 7+ cents a bushel at once which would be coming to them? Mr. Speaker, that means the difference between success and failure, and they know it.
Let us look at the, question from a slightly different angle. As the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) pointed out so eloquently a few weeks ago, you may have a measure of prosperity around, we will say, the province of Manitoba, because they have only a few hundred miles to go to reach the head of the lakes. But by every hundred miles a farm is further removed from the head of the lakes, the cost of transportation is increased and the value of the wheat to the farmer is lowered. So that when you get away up to Edmonton, the return to the farmer is very much reduced. Why, then, should he not have that outlet to the Pacific coast that it would be to his advantage to have?
I wish to turn for a moment to the letter of Mr. Carvell, the Chairman of the Railway Board, I want to preface my remarks in this connection by saying that I do not join with anyone in reflecting upon Mr. Carvell in any way; I have nothing to say on that point at all. But he makes two statements to which I wish to refer. I have already referred to one-he says it is a political move, and in that respect he concurs with the hon. member for Pictou. I want to say that it is not a political move-unless it is a political move by Mr. Oliver, and I have not said it is. There is no difference of opinion on the subject; it is like the oriental question-we are all heartily agreed upon it. However, because Mr. Carvell says it is a political move, are we to be spanked; are we to be punished as a naughty child, and are the farmers of Alberta to suffer, are the merchants of the British Columbia Pacific ports to suffer? Are they not to have the privileges that other sections of Canada have, simply because someone thinks we should be spanked or punished for doing something that is not quite right? But that is not the point to
which I wish chiefly to refer. In his letter Mr. Carvell says that the basis of the rate question is the cost of transportation. I think I have dealt with that pretty fully, I have tried to show the House that the cost of transportation is not the factor in the fixing of a rate; an arbitrary method is taken to determine it. In connection with the cost of transportation you have the question of density of traffic. If you have 100 trains a month you can haul that much cheaper than if you have only 25 or 30 trains a month. It has been stated in my hearing that there should not be this lowering of the rates, because the result would be the movement of more cars westward and the hauling back of empties. As a matter of fact, last year and the year before and the year before that the Canadian Pacific Railway hauled thousands of empty cars westward to bring back the merchandise that came in for distribution, to take care of the haulage of lumber, and so on. They hauled these empty cars westward; would it not have been better to send them down loaded with wheat at a slightly lower freight rate, especially if in giving that freight rate no injury was done to any other part of the country? I may say that I sent out for some figures that would verify what I said a moment ago regarding the cost of moving wheat from Edmonton to Fort William and from Edmonton to the coast, and they have now come to hand. I think, however, I have quoted them sufficiently.
I have in my hand an editorial from the Montreal Gazette of March 14, 1923. I want to say that I have always had a very high regard for thp Gazette. My hon. friends opposite will say: Of course you have, because you are a good loyal supporter of the Tory party. But that does not necessarily follow unanimously in recent months. However, I do have a very high regard for that journal, and its editorials ought to be given consideration. When it speaks, it speaks with some degree of knowledge and authority. The Montreal Gazette makes three statements to which I wish to refer briefly. I do not refer to them with malice. I refer to them because if they are answered, I think it will largely meet the arguments from many other sources.
They charge British Columbia with this. They call it "British Columbia's Ambitions: (1) To wrest authority from the Railwav Commission and transfer it to Parliament." That has been pretty well covered already. My right hon. friend the leader of the government shakes his head, but I think it has been pretty well covered. I would like if it were possible to make that point clearer. 1
Railway Rates

have referred to it I think three times, and I have referred to it with absolute honest}' of purpose so far as I am concerned. There is no desire so far as we are concerned, to place in the hands of parliament the control of rates, but parliament having taken control of rates in some sections to the prejudice of others, then I submit that parliament is called upon to exercise that function in regard to these other cases. I repeat what we offered a moment ago; I repeat it to the Gazette and to all they speak for. Let parliament withdraw from the field; let parliament rescind its action of last year, and we will readily abandon this position and leave the matter to the Railway Board. That is all I think I have to say in regard to that.
Then they say next: "(2) to secure a transportation advantage for British Columbia at the expense of the other provinces." I think I have shown already that that is not the case. I repeat, we are asking no advantage over any other section of Canada, but we resent and we resist, and have done so for twenty-five years, the imposition of penalties upon transportation in British Columbia. That is what we resist. We say: Remove these impositions from us; place us on an equal basis with other sections of Canada, and we have no complaint whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, do not let this House think for a moment that we are just bringing this question up tonight. I insisted on bringing it up in 1912 and again in 1914. It has been brought forward half a dozen times, but we have not been able to persuade the board to meet us and largely because of the policy-shall I say?

largely because'of the method by which rates have been fixed from time immemorial in this country, namely having regard to the things established during the growth of this countiy, and disregarding the effect of the Panama canal and the necessity for changing the basis of our consideration of the question.
In the third place the Montreal Gazette says: " to assert a dangerous political and sectional interference with the Canadian National Railway." That is a pretty serious thing. I answer that with a repetition of what I have already said: Is it fair to take the Canadian Pacific Railway with its expensive cost of movement of freight, its high operating cost, or to take the Canadian Na-tioial Railway with its best grade? Let me put it differently. Surely we can approach these problems from an economic standpoint. That I know will appeal to my hon. friends to my left, if it does not to the government. Is it not sound business, is it not common right, to base your legislation and your executive action upon that which is the cheapest 
and the lowest cost to the country? Is not that sound? Is it not good business for any section of the country to seek to move its commerce over that route which is the easiest from the standpoint of physical operation? If that is a crime then this charge or statement of the Montreal Gazette is correct. But I submit with all due deference to the strength and influence of that journal, that the case is not proven against us at all. Wo agk for the Canadian National Railway to be the basis, rather than the Canadian Pacific Railway, through the mountains, because it is the best and the most economical route.
I wish to conclude my remarks with just a brief summary of these facts and arguments.
We ask for consideration because under the general terms of confederation it was never considered that one section of Canada should be discriminated against by other sections. It was never intended under the terms of confederation that a customs duty, for instance, should be imposed by one province as against another. And what is the difference between the imposition of a customs duty and the arbitrary imposition of excess freight rates superimposed on the normal rate? Tell me that. If you move one hundred pounds of merchandise four hundred miles, and it is met at the boundary with a customs duty, that is an imposition of some kind. If you charge an excess rate of freight on that, amounting, we will say, to fifty cents per hundred over and above the rate charged in other sections, that is equally an imposition. So I say that confederation never contemplated the imposition of penalties on one section of the country as against another.
Then I make appeal briefly on the British Columbia government agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway. I do not make a very strong appeal on that ground, but it ought to be considered. They did guarantee those bonds. They did get control of the freight rates. It was taken from them by an act of this parliament, and I submit that consideration ought to be given to British Columbia just as well as to Manitoba, just as well as to the Crowsnest pass agreement. However, I am not stressing that as the basis of my argument, but I do advance it as a reason.
Then we ought to have the right to the full advantage of our geographical position. That should not be denied us; it should not be denied to any section of Canada. Whatever its geographical advantages may be, any section of the country ought to be allowed to take full advantage of its position. We appeal chiefly on the common ground of justice and for the purpose of promoting the spirit of

Railway Rales
unity and tranquillity,-shall I say?-and good feeling throughout the whole of Canada. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister and this House knows that no large section of this country' can rest for any great length of time under a grievance, under an injustice, even though that injustice may not be very clearly defined, under a sense of injustice even-I will put it-and still maintain good feeling and Unity throughout the country, and every effort ought to be made by the government and by parliament to remove any reason for a feeling of injustice remaining in the minds of the people of any province.
With this summary I ask the government to give serious consideration to this matter- not to treat this resolution as if it was either a want of confidence motion or simply a political dodge, as my hon. friend from Pictou contends, though not I am sure, with the authority of his colleagues. It is nothing of the kind. It is a seriously meant resolution. This matter must be brought to some sort of focus, and we submit it to the government and to parliament with the request that it receive the consideration which is due to it.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: In rising to oppose this resolution I would like to make it abundantly clear to the House that I do not oppose it from any desire to see any province deprived of any just right. Nor do I oppose it on the ground that I desire to see retained to any corporation, railway or otherwise, any unjust privilege. Nor do I oppose it on the ground that I desire to see one section of the community preferred to another. On none of these grounds do I impose this resolution; but I do oppose it be-I'tvuse, in my opinion, it strikes at the very root of certain legislative enactments of this parliament and threatens the stability which tils country is so much in need of at the present time.
It does seem to me, Sir, perfectly useless discussing	on the floor	of this	House	thequestion of freight rates,	the question of	discrimination, the question as to whether one province is preferred to another, the question whether	the mountain	scale	should	orshould not be in effect. To my mind it does	seem to be	useless	to do	so
and why? Simply because we are not competent in this House, constituted as it is, to discuss matters of that description. I doubt, Sir, if there are very many in this House, outside, the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who does understand this most complicated question of freight rates, and who can bring to bear that intelligence
which it is absolutely essential to bring to bear in a matter of this description. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be competent to take up this complicated question from the floor of this House. Of course it will be alleged, and it has been urged-and let me in the first part of my argument state only in part what I intend to say later on as regards this particular part of the subject-it has been urged I say that this House did interfere on another occasion with the making of freight rates. Sir, I absolutely deny that statement. The simple denial, I quite admit, is not sufficient and I will elaborate that theory later on. What viewpoint, therefore, should we discuss this question from? We must admit that if this amendment is adopted it must be given the force of law and if given the force of law, this House must of itself interfere in the making of freight rates. Therefore I say the amendment should not be adopted on those lines and this House should not interfere in the making of freight rates. If this House does that it immediately takes out of the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners all questions as regards the making of these rates. It establishes a precedent; it takes these questions out of the hands of this board which is clothed with most ample powers, which has functioned fairly and equitably in the Dominion, and places the making of railway rates in the melting pot of politics immediately; it places the making of rates- perhaps the most important part of railway management-as I say in the melting pot of politics. Now, if hon. members can view that situation with equanimity I certainly cannot do so, because I do not think that the making of rates should be taken out of the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The situation as brought forward in this amendment does not require a very difficult answer; it demands a simple answer "yes" or "no."	If we
answer "yes" what do we do? We constitute ourselves into a judicial tribunal to make and unmake rates at will. What will happen if we do? What will happen if we say to this demand of British Columbia "Yes, we will interfere; we will make these rates ourselves". Similar demands are bound to come from other provinces. Another province will come forward at a later date and say "We want relief frgm certain ratfe. We want rates fixed in a certain direction." Can we answer "No" to that demand? The reply would immediately come back "You interfered in the case of British Columbia, why not interfere in a matter of this description?"
Railway Rales

The question has been stressed to-night, in discussing this amendment, on more than one occasion that last year this House did interfere in the making of freight rates. The statement has been made time and time again that if we did away with what was done last year this resolution might not have been placed before the House; that the government did come forward last year and did interefere in the making of rates. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that was not the case at all. The government did not come forward of its own volition and change the rates. The government came forward in a perfectly proper way and rpade an amendment to an act which they were requested to make by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How do you make that out?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will follow that up. The Crowsnest pass arrangement, as everybody in this House will remember, was made in 1917 between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the government of the Dominion.
An hon. Member: In 1897.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I should have said 1897. At that time, in consideration of certain cash subventions amounting to about $4,000,000, the Canadian Pacific agreed that they would make certain fixed rates extending indefinitely on certain commodities. The company carried out that agreement. In fact they extended the agreement not only to the lines primarily affected but also to other parts of their system. In 1918 owing to the war, and the Chicago award in the United States, the Board of Railway Commissioners raised the rates under the Crowsnest pass agreement. In 1919 an amendment to the Railway Act came into effect; in fact a new act was made at that time. When that act was originally drafted section 325, I think it was, had no provision in it which called for the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement. As a matter of fact section 325, as originally drafted, gave the Railway Commission free and ample power to override that agreement. Now, if at that time it was desired to leave the Railway Commission free why was this suspension clause put in the act? My right hon. friend was in power at that time. Instead of that an amendment was brought down to that particular clause 325 which suspended the Crowsnest pass agreement for another three years. That olause could have been omitted at that particular time if it had been so desired.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member not know there was a division between the Commons and the Senate; I speak subject to correction and only from memory. An amendment was added in the Senate. It was not part of the government policy at all. In the collision between the Senate and the Commons the government accepted that. I explained the fact when I was on my feet this afternoon.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I know my right hon. friend did explain it but nevertheless it was accepted by the government of which he was a member at the time.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is perfectly clear it was accepted at that time and it could very readily have happened that it would not have been accepted. But it was accepted and I think by the influence of the member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). He recommended that the amendment be accepted at the time and it was accepted and was put into effect. The rates were altered,
as I	have	stated in	1918,	and	thensubsequently	the 40	per	cent	ratecase	came	up and	the	rates	wereagain	raised.	That 40	per	cent	rate
case was appealed. The appeal was heard and was dismissed by the Privy Council and the general rates inquiry was instituted. The general rates inquiry being instituted, the Board of Railway Commissioners found that they could not make the rates because of the Crowsnest pass agreement, and therefore they came to the government of the time, and stated that they wanted to know expressly what the government intended to do in regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement. The government took the matter up, appointed a committee of the House, the matter was gone into and an agreement was come to as regards grain and flour. That was not in any way a question of interfering with the Board of Railway Commissioners. That board came directly to this House, asking for advice, and they asked for action by the government under a special statute. But there was no similarity whatever, no parallel can be drawn, and it cannot be said that the government overrode the Board of Railway Commissioners, because they did not. It was distinctly and expressly at the request of the Railway Commission that the government acted.


Arthur Meighen: Why did the government not leave the commission free? And the only way it could do that would be by removing the agreement from its path

Railway Rates


Herbert Meredith Marler: No reason why they should have left it free. It was left in the act, not by the present government, but by the government of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has
been arguing that it should be free.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was not arguing anything of the kind. I was taking a specific contract-


Arthur Meighen: Then if there was a specific contract, why is it not continued?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It was continued.


Arthur Meighen: Only a part of it. Why was it not all continued, if there was a contract?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No reason why it should have been continued. It was a special contract, but that is not the point. The Board of Railway Commissioners came directly to the government.


Arthur Meighen: They had to.


Herbert Meredith Marler: And asked the government to act, and they did act by way of a committee.


Arthur Meighen: AU of the hon. member's speech up to now has been that the Railway Commission should be free. It is true they came to the government because they had to, on account of it being only a suspension and not a removal. If my hon. friend's first position is right, that the commission should be free, how does he justify the government in refusing to make it free?


Herbert Meredith Marler: They did not ask to be made free.


Arthur Meighen: They could not ask to be made free. They simply had to know the will of parliament. If, as he says, and as he has argued up to this minute, that the commission should be free-and I agree with him-how does he justify the government in declining to take the only step to make it free?


Herbert Meredith Marler: If the will of parliament had been made known by the government of my right hon. friend by leaving in section 325 of the act, which dealt with this particular agreement there was no reason why that will of parliament should not have been varied in whole or in part by parliament itself. This is an entirely different matter. There is no agreement at all in effect. There is not a shadow of an agreement in effect. This is an entirely new thing, and if this resolution is put through, they will have to act as if there had been no agreement at all. That is the difference, and I am surprised at my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: There is no difference in principle. If the hon. member follows me at all, he will see that the suspension made it necessary to act. The fact that it was a suspension was in no way the will of the previous government. It was something it had accepted from the Senate, just as this government last session accepted what it would rather not have accepted from the Senate. That made it necessary to act. If, when it was necessary to act, the government agreed with what the hon. member has been arguing, that the right course and principle is to leave the commission free, why did they not .take the step to leave the commission free?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government did take that step.


Arthur Meighen: It did?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, absolutely.


Arthur Meighen: Left the commission
free?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Left the commission free.


Arthur Meighen: What about grain and flour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It did not provide that the suspension should cease completely in one year, but in two years it would be at an end.


Arthur Meighen: The Crowsnest pass
agreement will be removed at the end of two years?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government took the rational course of so legislating as not to embarrass existing industrial conditions ; it certainly made it clear that after one year the government might have power by order in council to extend the period of partial suspension, but at the end of that time the suspension would be completely removed, and that leaves the commission exactly where it was before my hon. friend's government and his friends interfered.


Arthur Meighen: How does re-imposing the agreement leave it free? The commission can only be free when all agreements are gone.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is not a question of re-imposing the agreement. The agreement was there all the time. The agreement was agreed to by the government of my right hon. friend. He talks about the senate bringing down an amendment.


Arthur Meighen: We had to agree to that amendment.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The right hon. member did agree to an amendment.
Railway Rates


Arthur Meighen: The agreement was made in 1S97, and it was agreed to by those who made it. It was a dead letter till 1917, when we sought to remove it, but we accepted the compromise of the Senate suspending it. The late government was never a party to it in any way, and nothing was done till 1917.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is going back to the old argument. I thought everybody in the House understood the matter clearly.


Arthur Meighen: So did I.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How can my hon. friend say that he did not accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) ? I thought I had Hansard containing his words, but I find I do not have it here.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to take an advantage, I will admit it. I know there were some who wanted the amendment, but the government took its stand, and only accepted the suspension as a compromise with the Senate. It is unfair to try to make it a matter of government policy on that point. ,.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not trying to be
unfair, but I think the argument the hon. member advanced to-night is fundamentally unfair, when it is suggested to us "You wipe out what you did last year, because you interfered with the Railway Commission, and we will then and there withdraw this amendment." The whole argument is absolutely and fundamentally unfair. I do not deny anything the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) has said, or anything my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has stated. All that they say may be founded on . fact. It may be a necessity that they should have lower freight rates and that the mountain scale should be removed; all these things may be necessary, but what I say, and what I repeat, is that fundamentally the argument advanced by the other side of the House is unfair, when they try to impose on this side of the House, and on the government, by saying "Last year you interfered with the Railway Commission; go ahead and interfere with them this year." I say we did not interfere with them. They came to this House and asked for advice, and the agreement on the statute book was varied the same way as this parliament could vary any other act of parliament, and no regulation of the Railway Commission was varied in any shape. I think my argument is a sound one, and the
fMr. Marler.]
position I still adhere to is that the Railway Commission should be left in charge of rates. It is no doubt the intention to leave them in charge of rates, and the government has no intention of interfering with them at all.
I wonder what attitude the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) -will take on this resolution. What can the resolution do? What effect will it have? It will have one effect and one only, and that effect will be to remove from the Railway Commission the making of rates. I wonder what the hon. member will have to say in connection with a resolution of this kind. No man in the House knows the question of rate making better than he does. Is he going to support or to favour the resolution? Does he intend to make the Railway Commission into a dried up mummy or into a rubber stamp? What is his judgment about it?
The sum and substance of this resolution means nothing more and nothing less than that the Railway Commission should be done away with, and the railways thrown into the pot of politics. That is the meaning of this resolution and that is one of the reasons why I do not support it. Questions of discrimination and questions of rates have been taken up time and again by the Railway Commission and by no less than four chief commissioners. Starting out in 1909, Mr. Justice Mabee took up the question of western freight rates. My hon. friend from West York took it up, and in a most admirable manner went into the whole question with the utmost care, and brought down an admirable judgment in all respects. Then the 40 per cent rate came along. Mr. Carvell took the matter up in September, 1920, and later on the "General Rates Inquiry" was taken up. Why was the general rates inquiry taken up? It was taken up simply because certain provinces were not satisfied with the 40 per cent rate. I think the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) will correct me if I am wrong in that respect. What is the order of the Privy Council that was passed regarding the taking up of that particular matter? This is what is stated in Privy Council Order No. 2434 of the 6th October, 1920, passed by the government of my right hon. friend:
In connection with this appeal it must be observed that one of the duties, if not indeed the principal task of the Board of Railway Commissioners, is to determine upon application, what are fair and reasonable rates to be charged from time to time for the various services performed by public utilities under the jurisdiction of the board. In such determination there must of course be taken into account, as has been done in the present case all relevant circumstances such as change* in the scale of wages and the cost of materials-


Railway Rates
Then it goes on to say, and this is what I desire to point out:
For Your Excellency's advisers to take upon themselves to weigh the evidence adduced and substitute their own judgment for the judgment of the board upon the question of fact arising on the issue and to be determined upon such evidence would defeat the purpose for which the Board of Railway Commissioners was created and would in the end be highly prejudicial to the public interest.
That is the order in council passed by the government of my right hon. friend, and that is exactly what this amendment to the motion to go into Supply means to take out of the hands of the Railway Commissioners, namely, the fixing of rates. It is not necessary for me to read to the House various extracts from Hansard as to the opinions of different hon. gentlemen opposite regarding the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I do not intend to speak at any greater length respecting this matter. What I wish to make abundantly clear is that, in my opinion, this is not the place to discuss the question of
10 p.m. freight rates, nor whether there has or has not been discrimination. This is not the place to state whether the mountain scale should be removed or not. I do say that the question of the mountain scale or the question of discrimination should not be discussed in this House; but I say that these questions should be taken up at the proper time and in the proper place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me? I do not wish to embarrass him. We were prepared to discuss this question two months ago; but at the request of hon. members opposite, and very largely for the convenience of the acting minister himself, it was put off repeatedly. It is not through any fault of ours that this question is coming up to-day instead of two months ago.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not refer to the particular moment of its being discussed. What I mean is that the House of Commons is not the proper place to discuss freight rates. The proper place to lay a complaint with regard to freight rates is with the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. LADNER:: Did the hon. gentleman think that way last year?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly I thought that way last year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did he vote that way?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly I voted that way last year. I have been trying to infuse into my hon. friend the idea that last year we did not interfere with the Board of Railway Commissioners. Has he studied conditions himself? Is he aware what did happen last year? I am surprised at my hon. friend asking such a question.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If my hon. friend asks for information, we certainly know what happened last year. We know that the effect of the action of the government made it impossible to give to British Columbia that degree of justice which was given to the rest of Canada.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I cannot exactly follow the argument of my hon. friend. Last year we were dealing with a specific act, nothing more and nothing less, an act which had been on the statute book and which this parliament was perfectly right in changing in whole or in part, if it thought fit. Everything in connection with that act, the reason it was changed and the manner in which it was changed by a committee going into the whole question, was fair and equitable in every respect. I am opposed to this resolution, and I shall vote against it for the grounds which I have given.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks that I intend to make, I will endeavour to adhere to the resolution more closely than-some of the members who have preceded me. There is no question that British Columbia is a unit in demanding justice as regards the discrimination of freight rates against her. She is practically unanimous in that matter; but I fear she is not and will not be unanimous in the presentation of this resolution in this way and in this manner and at this time in this House. British Columbia is as unanimous against the discrimination in freight rates as she is on the Asiatic question, and last year when that was brought up in the House, all the members from British Columbia got together and presented the case with a united front. I think this impressed the other members more because although of different political opinions, we were able to get together on a common ground. I think it would have lent more force to the arguments and prevented the suggestion of partisanship if that had been done in this case to-day; but I fear that would have been, under present conditions, almost impossible, because those members-what shall we call them?-who are nonconservative members from British Columbia, would hardly have lent themselves to the resolution as it is drawn.
A great deal of history has been given in regard to this case this afternoon, and I notice with some surprise that very little credit has
Railway Rates

been given to the Hon. John Oliver, Premier of British Columbia. I hold no brief for the Hon. John Oliver. He had the unpardonably bad taste to come into the district where I was trying to be elected and to canvass against me, with the result, no doubt, that he contributed to the sweeping defeat that I sustained on that occasion. At the same time, when a man has done a good and zealous work on any particular matter, it is only justice, whatever his political affiliations may be, that he should be given credit. The history begins in the time of Sir Richard McBride. His friends here were in political'sympathy with him, but he was not able to achieve any concrete results. Mr. Oliver took the matter up on its merits; he engaged experts, and he spent, at the expense of the province, some 850,000. I mention this sum to give to the members of the House an idea of what an immensity of detail this highly technical question involved, the investigations that had to be, and the men who had to be employed, before a real grasp could be got of the situation. He employed one counsel to devote his whole time to the matter. Mr. Oliver, himself, spent weeks on the subject, and at last they got a grasp of it, held, I believe, by no other two men in Canada. Perhaps some members of the Railway Commission might have a greater grasp of railway matters as a whole; but on the subject of British Columbia rates, there is no question that the Hon. John Oliver and Mr. McGeer have a grasp superior to that of anyone else. They brought the matter by repeated hearings before the Board of Railway Commissioners, the hearings lasting over a period of weeks. There were no discursive speeches as we have here, but hard facts were brought out by a lawyer and one witness at a time. Finally they got a decision from the Railway Commission, not what they were contending for; but as regards this mountain scale which has been alluded to so much, the decision gave a remission of practically one-half of the discrimination. Where it was $2.50 before, it was reduced to $1.25. There were gther matters of discrimination claimed as well; but on this mountain scale rate, Mr. Oliver by his representations before the Railway Board secured that reduction. Why have some of our members from British Columbia not given Mr. Oliver any credit in that regard? I leave that for them to answer. Not satis-.fied with that reduction of 50 per cent, Mr. Oliver appealed through his counsel to the only appeal he could get, namely the Privy Council of Canada. That case is now under advisement before them. It has been in a 
manner tried-half tried at any rate-and it is now awaiting further hearing after the conclusion of this session.
Now, I do not wish to reflect upon the motives-I have neither the right nor the desire to do so-of the introducer of this motion, the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark). In passing I may say that I know him to be in the town from which he comes a gentleman of the highest standing and most honourable character. But possibly being a somew'hat new member he did not thoroughly appreciate the plow he was putting his hand to; I think he will realize that before the end of this debate. While this motion ostensibly seeks to be in the best interests of British Columbia, I submit that by its wording and the time of its introduction it can only have three results-first, to do considerable harm 1o the interests of British Columbia; second, perhaps to create a certain amount of embarrassment for the government of the day; and third, possibly-possibly I say-to manufacture a certain amount of political capital of very dubious value for the Conservative party in British Columbia.
One of three things must happen to this resolution : It can be withdrawn, it can be passed, or it can be defeated. I will deal with them individually. We will suppose it is withdrawn. Then we have wasted the time of this House for a whole day at an expense of something like $20,000. We have had no new light thrown on it whatever. The superficial manner in which we have had to deal with it has not affected the question in the slightest. Can we discuss in a few hours in this superficial way and with many of the members out in the lobbies taking no interest in the subject, give it that frank impartial consideration such as our courts will give it after weeks of study of the highly technical evidence submitted to them? It is impossible. We cannot come here and in a few hours decide such an important and intricate question like a meeting of a Young Women's Christian Association dealing with the academic question: Is the pen mightier than the sword? Or something of that kind.
On the other hand, if the motion passes what happens? The defeat of the government follows because the resolution is introduced as an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply, and its passage would mean the defeat of the government. The question is under advisement by the government to-day. We in British Columbia are earnestly hoping for a favourable decision. Will we advance our case much by defeating the government on this motion? Surelv

Railway Rates
it is the part of wisdom to afford them a chance to give us what we want. Why Swap horses in the middle of the stream? We-and I am only speaking of British Columbia- have more to gain by letting this matter go on and seeing what we do get out of the decision of the Privy Council. Then it will be time enough to come to this House if we do not think we have got justice from the Privy Council.
So much for the passing of the resolution. Now, if it is defeated I submit the result will be to very much prejudice British Columbia's case before the Privy Council. The Privy Council consists of what-ten or fifteen men, some of whom are bound to be inimical to our desires, and if we defeat this resolution it will give those members of the Privy Council an opportunity to use this argument: Well, the House, the highest court of Canada, consisting of 234 men, have decided against British Columbia. Why should we, only a cabinet of a dozen or fifteen men decide differently? I maintain that if we defeat this motion tonight it will prejudice our case, and it is for that reason that I deplore the introduction of it, and state with all sincerity that, however innocently it may have been introduced, it was not introduced in the best interests of British Columbia.
I say that the net result of this resolution can only be the production of a certain amount of political capital. Just to show with how little consideration for the interests of British Columbia this matter was brought forward let me quote the original resolution placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), which we would have been debating at that time if it had come up when he expected it would some weeks ago. It is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, railway rates westward from the prairie provinces should be reduced to an equality with railroad rates eastward from said provinces for similar goods and distances.
That would mean that starting in the prairie goods would be carried westward to British Columbia for the same rates as they would be carried eastward from the prairies; but no provision was made at all for dealing with the vital question in British Columbia- the passage eastward from British Columbia of our produce, our fish, lumber, paper and other products. These would have been handicapped worse than they are now because it would have given an opportunity to the eastern manufacturer to ship his goods more cheaply west, whereas we would have had no reductions in shipping east. Take fish, some members in this House were attacked the other day because we asked that the fish
canners of British Columbia should gradually introduce white men in place of Japanese in their canneries. We were held up as men trying to injure their business. But what greater injury could be done to them than that suggested in this resolution? Let me show how it works. There is a certain kind of herring- I forget the name-put up in British Columbia. It competes with a similar kind cured in Holland. A manufacturer in British Columbia told me that owing to the freight rates his product from British Columbia could not go any further east than a point some distance west of Winnipeg, say 100 miles, where it came in competition with the product from Holland. The Dutch product could be laid down at that point and the British Columbia product could not compete with it in the Winnipeg market. If this resolution had gone through at that time this point would have been still farther west and would have given a direct advantage to the manufacturer and producer in the East and a direct disadvantage to the manufacturer and producer in British Columbia. To show that that is the case I shall quote a few words from a telegram sent by the Board of Trade of Vancouver to the member for Burrard-and I am not, as was done in a provincial legislature, reading someone else's correspondence, because I am quoting from the newspapers. The Board of Trade of Vancouver is a body which with all moderation I might say contains its full share of gentlemen of the same political leaning as the member for Burrard. I will quote as follows:
We would point out that this resolution,-
Referring to this resolution I have just read.
-if carried, would be against the interests of British Columbia's industries. . . . The whole resolution, while greatly assisting grain movement westward,-


John Arthur Clark: I presume my friend is talking about the former resolution which was on the order paper, not the resolution which we are discussing to-day?


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend is perfectly right.


John Arthur Clark: Then I presume my hon. friend **knows that the argument on the other resolution would be exactly the same as the argument on the one under discussion?


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I anticipated, that had this resolution in its original form been introduced-he himself has used the words that I intended to use-the argument would have been the same, and presumably the results would have been the same. His object in bringing it forward is, I presume,
Railway Rate's

to pass it, and if it had been passed in its original form the strictures of the Board of Trade would have been justified for it would have had the effect I have been quoting. It would have created a most serious, if' not disastrous, position for British Columbia. Let me quote further from this Board of Trade resolution:
It would hamper British Columbia's industries. We would suggest that you refer to the provincial government application for removal of discrimination March 18th, 1921, in the hands of the Railway Commissioners-
That is John Oliver's kick
-to which application we, as a board, are committed and feel that it is in the best interests to press for. Your resolution gives no consideration to goods moving eastward from British Columbia, which is absolutely essential.
I only quote that to show how lightly this matter was decided to be introduced when the Board of Trade in the very home town of the hon. member-the centre and industrial capital of British Columbia-has come out and repudiated the action taken by the hon. member.


John Arthur Clark: May I interrupt again? My hon. friend does not suggest, does he, that my argument for the removal of the "mountain scale" could not have been considered by the Privy Council on the other resolution, which was originally drafted dealing mainly with the extension of the Crowsnest Pass legislation to grain and flour going westward' Does he suggest for a moment that the Privy Council could not have listened to the argument on the "mountain scale" and dealt with it just as they might deal with it to-day or after this session?


Alan Webster Neill: I must frankly confess that I do not understand the hon. gentleman's argument, and I think other hon. members do not understand it either. It is an illustration of how incompetent we are in this House to go into a subject of such a highly technical character and lightly pass a resolution upon it.
There is another aspect of this question I want just to touch on-another thing that leads me to question the sincerity of this resolution. I refer to the attempt to wave the flag, as it is popularly termed. I have never known it to fail, when a man gets up to deal with a question that has nothing whatever to do with nationalism or patriotism and proceeds to what is known as waving the flag-that he has a rotten argument and is trying to cover it up in that way. There are some politicians, who cannot discuss the removal of a dust-bin from a country post office without waving the flag and suggesting that the oppon-

ents of the proposed removal are animated by lack of patriotism. Nothing is more prejudicial to the true and real influence of patriotism than its being invoked in this way for political effect. We have had here to-day the usual flamboyant references to "The British Empire," to "this Great Canada of ours," and the "Virility of the race" that inhabits it. I assure the hon. member that the British Empire would probably have muddled along if this discussion had not taken place at all; that Canada would remain as great, if not have been even a little greater, had we not wasted the time and money that we did this afternoon on this subject, and as to the virility of the race, that, I submit, has nothing whatever to do with freight rates in British Columbia. When we take the facta as we see them here; when we realize that the withdrawal of this resolution renders it useless and that its passage or defeat is calculated to do actual harm to our best interests in British Columbia, I would ask hon. members of this House to consider-and I would go further than that; through the pages of Hansard I would ask the people of British Columbia to consider very carefully-whether this resolution was introduced with the idea of advancing the best interests of the province we come from, or whether it is a piece of political, shall I say, claptrap?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a rather peculiar position. Although a member representing British Columbia, I am not allowed to present the arguments that would be expected from one coming from that province. It has already been explained by the hon. Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) that the government of British Columbia, through its Attorney General some months ago made an argument before the Railway Commission of Canada dealing with what they alleged to be discrimination in the matter of freight rates. The government of that province, through its Attorney General, did not accept the findings of the Railway Commission. Appeal was taken to the Privy Council, and, as it has been explained by the Acting Minister of Railways, argument has been partly heard, presented by the Premier of the province and also by counsel representing the people of British Columbia through its government. Joined with British Columbia was the province of Alberta, Mr. McGeer acting as counsel for both provinces. Argument was heard extending over some three or four hours on just one phase of the question, the constitutional aspect. The government having received an intimation

Railway Rata
from the Premier of British Columbia and his counsel that it would take from two to tiiree days to present fairly before the government the argument on behalf of British Columbia, it was by mutual consent decided that it would be inadvisable to proceed with the further argument at that fime but that the matter should be delayed until after the session of parliament in order that the government might have an opportunity of giving fair consideration to the question, which i-t an important one to British Columbia and to western Canada generally. The district represented by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) has been agitating this question for a great many years, because it was the Vancouver Board of Trade which in 1912 presented the case to the Railway Commission. On that occasion the Vancouver Board of Trade did not accept the findings of the Railway Commission; they appealed to the government of which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was a supporter-and with what result? The government of that day advised that the case be again referred back to the Railway Commission. It has been stated in this discussion that the Canadian Pacific Railway should not be taken as a standard or basis for the fixing of rates, but that the Canadian National, built on extraordinary grades through the mountains, four-tenths of one per cent grades -should be taken as a standard in that respect. But I am told that in 1912, when the government of the day referred that matter back to the Railway Commission, they indicated to that body that the Canadian Northern was a colonization road [DOT] and should not therefore be taken as a standard, but that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be taken as a standard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me? The Canadian National, or the Canadian Northern, as it was then known, was not completed for some years after that application was made.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I quite understand that. It is true that the Canadian Northern was not then a part of the railway system of Canada; it was then under construction. After it was completed it was under the control of the government of British Columbia in the matter of freight rates, but my hon. friends opposite took that control away from the province, saying that as the Toad was a work for the general advantage of Canada the Railway Commission should control its rates. Now, the hon. member for Burrard has projected a discussion this afternoon with a view, supposedly, of dealing in one sitting with a question which the premier of British Columbia and his counsel have
had under the closest consideration for the last two years, a question which they advised the government it would take two or three days to argue. I say that the hon. member for Burrard this afternoon undertook, by an incomplete recital of argument, to convince the House that it should support his resolution- a motion which, if carried, meant the defeat of the government. Is my hon. friend playing fair with his constituents when he jeopardizes the case which the people of British Columbia through their Attorney General and their Premier have taken two years to prepare for the consideration of the Railway Board and of the Privy Council of Canada? I claim that he has not done so. I think it is most unfortunate that my hon. friend has had the hardihood or lack of judgment to throw this case on the floor of parliament with the incomplete study he has given it and the incomplete argument that he has been able to submit to the House this afternoon. He complained bitterly that he was not allowed to introduce the first resolution he had on the order paper earlier in the session because it was not convenient for the government, and he withdrew it. We find now that the resolution he originally intended to introduce was not in the interests of the province, and that his resolution presented 'to-day is an entirely different one. He did not tell us that in his argument this afternoon, but he insisted on bringing this matter forward on a motion for going into supply in order to force a vote of want of confidence in the government on this question. For what purpose? Surely he did not expect that the members from British Columbia who are supporting this government are going to vote for a" resolution presented in the manner he has presented his resolution this afternoon. I think not, I think the people of British Columbia would have preferred my hon. friend not to meddle with this question; I think they would have much preferred that he allow it to pass through the ordinary channels of legal procedure and come before the Privy Council in the ordinary way, where proper argument could be presented. But he has failed to do that. I hope even now that he will have the good judgment and the good sense to withdraw this resolution, rather than let it go to a vote and receive the defeat which I am satisfied it will receive.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is not my hon. friend aware that the Hon. Mr. Oliver has repeatedly complained because we have not brought this question before the House? In the same breath might I ask does the hon. member object to the discussion of this question by the House?

Railway Rates


John Warwick King: I have no objection to the discussion at all, and I have no control over Mr. Oliver. If Mr. Oliver wishes this to come before the House, I say that it is a perfectly proper question to bring before the House, but it never should have been brought before the House as it has been to-day as a want of confidence motion. There is a proper time and a proper place to bring it before the House, and if it had been brought forward at such a time I might have been free to discuss it. My hon. friend was in this parliament in 1912 when this question was before the Railway Committee, and referred to the Privy Council. Did he discuss it at that time?


John Arthur Clark: Is my hon. friend aware of
the fact that the government of which he is a member prevented a discussion of this question on the floor of this House as a private member's resolution, and when my hon. friend might have taken part in the discussion? As a member of the government I think he might have tried to see that the matter was given an opportunity to be discussed in this House as a private member's resolution.


John Warwick King: That is not so.
My hon. friend's resolution stood on the order paper for weeks and was called and let stand time and again.


John Arthur Clark: That is not so. My hon.
friend is wrong.


John Warwick King: But we understand to-night that that resolution was not a fit and proper resolution.


George Perry Graham: Good thing for him he
iid not get the chance.


John Warwick King: He was taken to
*ask for it by the Vancouver Board of Trade. It is not my purpose to continue this discussion. I repeat, I hope my hon. friend will have the good judgment to withdraw his resolution at this time rather than have it suffer defeat at the hands of the House.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): The question of freight rates is one of the most interesting and I think all members will agree with me, one of the most complicated questions which might well be brought before this House for its consideration. With the political arguments which have been advanced I have little concern, but with the desire to secure legitimate reduction in freight rates so far as the western provinces are concerned I have every sympathy, and I am prepared under the proper circumstances to lend my every support. We in western Canada, especially in the interior provinces do, I think it must 
be admitted, suffer severely from excessive freight rates. But I recognize, that it is a very difficult and a very complicated problem. It is one which requires consideration, not for days, but for months by competent bodies to arrive at a proper conclusion.
The double.-barrelled resolution introduced by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) this afternoon has two purposes: First of all he wants to eliminate the so-called mountain rate. Secondly in some mysterious way which I cannot comprehend, he desires to grant the benefits of the Crowsnest pass agreement to all the basic commodities produced in every part of Canada.
With regard to the first question, the mountain scale, or differential as it is sometimes called, hon. members will recollect that this differential has been in existence ever since the Canadian Pacific railway was constructed. I do not know where it came from. I suppose it was introduced by way of analogy from the American states to the south, but in any event in 1914, I think for the first time, it was placed upon a rational, logical basis. The then chairman of the Railway Commission, Sir Henry Drayton, in the judgment of the court, gave as his reason the high cost of construction of the railway and the high cost of operation, and. let it be said that the British Columbia counsel who were associated with that case concurred with that particular view, that is, that there was a higher cost of railway construction in British Columbia, and in addition a higher cost of railway operation. I am satisfied that any hon. member of this House who has ever travelled over the Canadian Pacific railway in the province of British Columbia in the winter time or in the spring or fall cannot but have come to the conclusion that both these contentions are absolutely sound and absolutely justified. In that judgment the then chief commissioner of the Railway Board held that the differential was not only just, but that it was necessary. To that decision I have not the slightest objection. Not only did the judgment do that but it recognized the existence and the economic necessity of distributing centres not only in British Columbia but also in the adjoining province of Alberta. As a result of that long existing differential confirmed in effect by that judgment of the Railway Commission, distributing and jobbing houses have been built up in several centres in the province of Alberta. We have a large number of such institutions in Edmonton, we have them in Calgary, in Macleod and Lethbridge. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested on the strength of that decision, and

Railway Ralet
hundreds of men have been employed. Now is this House, on a casual consideration of this question, going to imperil that investment, because that is exactly what would be done if this mountain rate were ruthlessly removed at the present time, and at the same time without giving to the consumers in Alberta or elsewhere any adequate compensation for such a removal.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How does the hon. gentleman arrive at that in view of his statement that the elimination of the mountain rate will strengthen competition but will not help the consumer?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My hon. friend did not catch my remarks. I said the elimination of this mountain rate will imperil perchance-I am not suggesting that it will entirely-the existence of these institutions, and at the same time I suggest it will not give the benefit to the consumer which some people suggest.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Does my hon. friend
allege that Alberta has not had the benefit of competition?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am anxious to see competition; I am anxious that primarily consumers shall get the benefit of it.
Owing to the various rate increases this mountain differential was exaggerated; I think-that British Columbia did so suffer as a result of these increases. In 1921 British Columbia took its case before the Railway Commission. That case, as hon. members will realize, extended over a period of some two or three months. During its progress much evidence was heard, much argument was given, and in every possible way the case received the fullest consideration. I think some twenty-six different witnesses were heard from the city of Vancouver alone. Representatives were also heard representing Kamloops, Calgary, Edmonton, and all the western centres. It was pointed out by the Vancouver representatives that the rates were so extremely burdensome, that the Vancouver industries and industrial enterprises could not do business under them. In the very next breath some of the witnesses told the commission that industries had increased in Vancouver five-fold since the year 1912; that there were 1,200 industrial enterprises in Vancouver at that time, and that new industries were being added evqry day. So that in one breath the witnesses told us about the tremendous rate burdens from which they were suffering, and in the next breath they declared they were making this very substantial progress-a progress, I suggest, which cannot be paralleled by perhaps any other 124}
comparable centre in Canada. The Railway Commission having heard that evidence came to the conclusion that the mountain scale should be cut in half. Subsequently, British Columbia appealed from that judgment and that appeal is the one that is now under consideration by the Privy Council.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has spoken of the very grave discrimination from which British Columbia suffers. I have no complaint to make with regard to the presentation of British Columbia's case. I have every sympathy with that province in its demand for lower freight rates; but I do ask the people and the representatives of British Columbia not to put Alberta in; exactly the position they are asking to be relieved from. Let me illustrate. Under the conditions existing at the present time, owing to the fact that Vancouver has a special transcontinental rate compelled by water competition and although it is 640 miles farther west than Calgary we find that on all commodities shipped from Montreal, and similar places east, Vancouver has a much lower rate than Calgary enjoys. There is a very grave discrimination against Calgary so far as west bound products are concerned. I am not going to trouble the House with a whole list of these discriminations, but I do want to give just one or two illustrations which may be of some interest. Take the matter of bars, iron and steel bars, shipped from Montreal to' Calgary, a distance of 2,240 miles. We have a rate on carload lots of 192 cents per hundred pounds. The rate from Montreal to Vancouver for the same material, a distance of 2,882 miles, is only 65 cents per hundred pounds by carload lots. Shipping the same goods in less than car-load lots to the city of Red Deer which, mark you, is some 95 miles north of Calgary we find that these goods can be shipped from Montreal, through Calgary, to Red Deer, a distance of 2.335 miles, for 222 cents per hun-died pounds, whereas similar goods shipped from Montreal to Vancouver and back again, through Calgary, to Red Deer cost 185 cents per hundred pounds. The same situation exists with regard to wire rods, and I could go on and give several instances of such unjust discrimination in so far as the distributing centres of Alberta are concerned. If you take off this mountain differential, then you discriminate to just that extent further against the distributing centres in Alberta which have been largely built up on the faith of the judgment of a former Chief Commissioner of the Railway Board.
Railway Rates


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is my hon. friend arguing for the permanence of the mountain differential?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Not at all. What I say is this: If you are going to remove the mountain differential it is only proper, when these discriminations do exist, to consider the question as a whole and not only one phase of it. My suggestion is that in doing justice to British Columbia see to it that you likewise do justice to Alberta.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has my hon. friend read the resolution? That is exactly what it aims at.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am not so sure that that is exactly the terms of the resolution. The resolution does not say anything about giving the distributing centres of Alberta a rate from the east, so far as mileage is concerned, in comparison with the special rate which Vancouver enjoys.
I simply want to point out one or two other tilings. British Columbia has not done too badly so far as railway freight rates are concerned in comparison with the province of Alberta. I suggest to this House that no province has been discriminated against to the extent that Alberta has. In the first place, as I have mentioned before, Vancouver has the benefit of a special transcontinental rate, water compelled, by reason of her location on the Pacific coast. In the second place she has special commodity rates east bound which are much lower than any possible class rates, or any special consideration, received by the province of Alberta or any part of it. I need only instance the special rate which British Columbia enjbys with regard to the shipment of lumber, the special' rate which that province has with regard to the shipment of rice, and several other commodities. In fact I gather-and I think I got the information from the 1914 judgment I have referred to- that 80 to 85 per cent of British Columbia's east bound products enjoy special commodity rates lower than any rates which Alberta enjoys. Not only does British Columbia have these special privileges but, in addition to that, she has her class rates on special constructive mileage. That is, British Columbia is given the right in fixing the class rates of considering 424 miles equivalent to, I think, 290 miles. These are some of the special considerations enjoyed by British Columbia which *are not vouchsafed-certainly not to the same [DOT]degree-to the province of Alberta. Therefore, I say that while I do not dispute the [DOT]claim of British Columbia for the elimination
I Mr. Shaw.]
of this mountain scale, I do say that it cannot be considered as a thing apart; the other provinces must have their special conditions taken into consideration if justice is to be done to the country as a whole.
Now, as to the point I was speaking about a few minutes ago with regard to the question of benefit to the consumer. In the judgment which is now under appeal the Railway Commission decided that the mountain scale should be reduced 50 per cent. I think that the percentage of mountain scale prior to that judgment was some thirty-three per cent. This judgment would reduce it to sixteen or seventeen per cent. One would expect that, with that substantial reduction, there would be a great benefit to the consumer. I have taken the trouble to look up the Labour Gazette containing the prices of many commodities, the prices prevailing so far as Calgary and Vancouver are concerned, and I find not the slightest difference between the months, say, of June and December, last. The consumer has not apparently benefited, despite the partial removal of the differential. I simply point that out. It may be that the removal of this differential, even the total removal, is not going to give the great benefit to the consumer which some hon. members of the House might suggest. Therefore, I say to this hon. House that to pass this resolution would simply mean that, in increasing the preferential treatment to British Columbia, just treatment may not be given to neighbouring provinces. We in Alberta are asking, and I think properly, for a special rate on coal eastward, in order that the product of Alberta may be placed in the markets of eastern Canada where it is so urgently required. How can we expect, under those circumstances, to receive any favourable consideration for that view, if at the same time we place an additional burden on the Transcontinental railway, and increase the deficit which they already labour under? The whole problem, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a most complicated and difficult one, requiring months of study and of effort, and it cannot be determined adequately or properly by this House in one session, or for that matter, in many sessions. It occurs to me that the whole matter of fixing rates should be gone into scientifically by the Railway Commissioners. An effort should be made to iron out many of these difficulties and discriminations which undoubtedly exist, and unless this work is undertaken by the Railway Commission, I am fearful that we will never be relieved of the burden of considering rate difficulties in this House.

Railway Rates
I have one or two further remarks to make with regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement. Much has been said about that agreement. I want to say frankly, as I have stated before, both in public and elsewhere, that the Crowsnest pass agreement must be preserved. I took the position in the Transportation Cost Committee last year that we should preserve every part of it, that if it is sacred in one part it is sacred in every other part, and it must be preserved in toto for the benefit of western Canada. If one considers the circumstances under which that agreement was entered into, one can readily appreciate how it can be easily differentiated from any other question of freight rates. In western Canada at that time- that is in 1897-the freight rates were excessive. The people of eastern Canada realized, even in those days, that the hope of Canada lay in the West, and it lay largely in the development of the agricultural resources of that territory, not only that, but they realized that, while eastern Canada had special rate controlling, geographic factors and as well American rail competition, western Canada was entirely deprived by nature of such rate controlling factors. We had no water competition in western Canada to save us from excessive freight rates. We had no American rail competition such as eastern Canada enjoyed, and so parliament said in 1897 "We will give these people a statutory rate-controlling maximum, beyond which the railway companies of Canada can never go." That agreement did operate for several years as a rate-controlling factor until 1903. Then subsequently, by reason of the competition induced by the Manitoba agreement referred to earlier in this debate, the railway companies had to meet competitive reduced rates, and as a result, until 1917 the Crowsnest pass agreement did not become effective, although remaining on the statute books, as a safeguard against increased freight rates. In 1917, however, by reason of the 15 per cent increase of freight rates, the Crowsnest pass agreement again became an effective barrier against increased freight rates. It did not long remain, however. The railway companies apparently saw to that, because under the jprovisions of the War Measures Act the statute was ignored, not by an act of parliament, but under the provisions of the War Measures Act, and then under that act the various increases took place. However, with the. conclusion of the war the War Measures Act fell. Prior to its falling parliament suspended the Crowsnest agreement for a period of three years, and that explains why on the
7th July last it became necessary for parliament to determine whether or not the agreement should be further suspended. As I say, this is the only safeguard which western Canada has at the present time with regard to its basic production. That is something which we are not prepared to abandon, and is something which must be preserved in the absence of those natural geographic and competition-compelling factors we do not possess.
The resolution proposed by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) suggests that the benefits of the Crowsnest pass agreement shall be made to apply to the basic productions of all of Canada. I do not know how he is going to do it, but if you look at the agreement itself you will find that in connection with certain west bound articles certain stipulated percentage reductions on the then existing freight charges were provided for. With regard to grain and grain products, it was provided in that agreement that a reduction be made of three cents per 100 pounds. How does the hon. member for Burrard propose to apply that agreement to the basic commodities of all Canada? Personally, I cannot understand how he is going to do it. Does he mean that if there is a water-compelled rate from, say, some place in Nova Scotia to Montreal that he is going to reduce that rate, regardless of water competition? Is he not going to take into consideration at all the natural factors which fix rates, and simply impose an arbitrary rate of some kind or other, in some peculiar way or other, which I must confess I do not understand?
I want to make it perfectly clear in conclusion that, so far as the application for reduction in freight rates is concerned, I have every sympathy, and I will on the proper occasion lend every support. I think it is high time the whole question of freight rates be examined into scientifically and carefully and be placed upon a logical and rational basis. But I do not see how we can take a jump in the dark by accepting this particular resolution and hope to iron out the difficulties and the intriicadies in connection with our freight rate problems in western Canada.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, we are, perhaps, getting a little away from the resolution as a whole and what it is really aimed at. I am going to invite hon. gentlemen just to go back again to what was done and said last year and to what has happened since. Last year the government started out with the idea that they did not know anything about freight rates. They were right. They did not. Starting out with that idea, they had a com-
Railway Rates

mittee sitting for weeks on the question of freight rates. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was one of the members of that committee and he took a very strong stand in connection with the deliberations of that committee just upon the lines that the government did not know anything about freight rates and that the Railway Commission was the proper body to consider rates. In fact, the committee as a whole came to the same conclusion, and brought their report in to the committee;-it was never allowed to get to the House-to the effect that as regards basic commodities, reductions ought to be made on all of them, and that those reductions could not be got if the Crowsnest pass agreement was again made operative. That is the committee's report. Then we had a change, and the hon. gentleman representing Pictou suggests politics in connection with this motion. We had that considered report changed against all the evidence, simply because certain interviews had taken place with the government and with hon. gentlemen to my left, as a result of which interviews the government thought it would pay to disregard the evidence, disregard the claims of producers of basic commodities everywhere except in two provinces. So it was that last year we had rates, political railway rates, enforced as regards the very important commodities of wheat, other grain and flour on their eastern movement. There is also no doubt that, probably, of the different commodities that had claims for reductions, there were none that had greater claims-I want to be absolutely fair about this-than had wheat and flour, but after all no greater claims than had the basic commodities on which other provinces were depending, no greater claims, for example, than the claims regarding basic commodities of the Maritime provinces, no greater claims than those of the agriculturists of Quebec who showed that they could not sell their hay.
Hon. gentlemen say that the action of the government had nothing to do with the result as regards all these other claims. Let us see if that is true. Do we not all know that it is not true? In December of the previous year, a 10 per cent cut had been made in those wheat and flour rates without any cut being given at all on basic commodities in the other provinces. According to the evidence, that accounted for 83,000,000. The resumption of the Crowsnest pass statutory rates meant another $14,000,000. This meant a difference of $17,000,000 in revenue which was available for purposes of a reduction, and at

that time it was said

I remember very well saying it myself-if this goes through, the suggestion that there will be other reductions made in the railway rates on other basic commodities, is nothing more than a pious wish; it will never and it cannot be carried out. What parliament said is this, that while during the inflation period, all railway costs were advanced as nearly as possible equitably, in the deflation period, the rate reduction shall be confined to the two chief activities of the prairie provinces. That prophecy, which anybody could foresee, has been absolutely borne out. The judgment of the Board of Railway Commis-11 p.m. sioners themselves refers to it. The House has heard that judgment read this afternoon, and I am not going to take up any more time on it. The fact is that there was the sum available for reductions, and that sum was appropriated by this House for a specific purpose. There is no question that there were heavy advances in grain rates and I am going to give the House a few illustrations of increases in order to show exactly the result of their interference with the freight situation last year, just what the result of the political rate is. The grain rate from Saskatoon, which is pretty well in the centre of the territory, was 24 cents. It was increased to 33| cents, or an increase of 39 per cent. The rate from Calgary was 24 cents. It was increased to 36 cents, an increase of 50 per cent. The rate from Maple Creek was 21 cents. It was increased to 331 cents, an increase of 54 per cent. In each case we have the re-enactment, not, of course, of the lowest rate, which was two cents lower in each case, but reducing all those increases to an increase of only two cents. I want to compare that with another basic commodity. We will go back to this again a little later on. We have been told-and there is no doubt that this is true-that down in New Brunswick, where they depend just as much upon potatoes as the Northwest does upon wheat and flour, rates were such that they were digging the potatoes into the ground again; that they could not use them. Let us see how they were increased and whether the West was unfairly treated. The potato rate from New Brunswick shipping points-they take a common rate for long distances-to Montreal in 1917 was 19 cents. That was raised to 341 cents, an increase of 81 per cent, as against a total increase at Saskatoon of 39 per cent, at Calgary of 50 per cent and at Maple Creek of 54 per cent. The only reduction that was made by the board at all, and apparently the only reduction that they

Railway Rate's
could make, was one or two cents, making that rate as left by the Railway Board, an increase of 71 per cent as against a Saskatoon rate, which was reduced by the action of parliament, and which had been increased by only 39 per cent. Where is the fairness in this? What possible justification is there for it, if we are to bear honestly in mind the general provision of the Railway Act that rates are to be fair, just and equitable?
Just another illustration as to whether, the western rate was so tremendously out of line. Let us take the Maple Creek rate. Maple Creek has a mileage to the head of the lakes of 1,013. Sweetgrass, Montana, is just south of Maple Creek and has a mileage to its distributing point, Duluth, of 1,004 miles. The Maple Creek rate before it was reduced was 32 per cent less than the Sweetgrass rate; after the action of the House the American rate is 87 per cent greater than the Canadian rate.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is that a grain rate?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is it not a fact that there is comparatively little grain moving from Sweetgrass in Montana to Duluth whereas there is a tremendous volume moving from Maple Creek?
Sir HENRY. DRAYTON: All these rates are on a mileage basis. I do not care what points you take, the result is the same. I am only dealing with these two points because they have a similar mileage, that is all. Take any points he likes, the grain rates, as the hon. member knows very well, do not depend upon volume but upon mileage, both in Canada and in the United States. There is no doubt of course that the major portion of American wheat is grown nearer Duluth than is the major portion of Canadian wheat. Now then, I was dealing with potatoes and pointing out that, so far as the potato producer is concerned,, he is still trying to do business at an increase of 71 per cent. That rate is not out of line with the others. Montreal was not the significant point, or a point that is treated differently from others. The rate to Toronto was 25 cents, it was increased to 45J cents, or an increase of 82 per cent; to-day the increase stands at 69 per cent.
There is another feature to consider. We had any amount of evidence as to the great necessity of cutting down the costs of building and making building materials cheaper. The rates on building materials were increased from 61 to 133 per cent in eastern territory, with similar increases in western territory.
There is no reduction whatever except some half a cent on building bricks.
Now take the. British Columbia lumber rates. We were told they could not do business on account of the high rates. Those rates still stand. But let us get away for a moment from both New Brunswick and British Columbia. The situation is the same all over Canada. Supposing we take coal, which is something everyone is interested in here. The rates on anthracite coal were increased 71, 81 and 83 per cent, and still stand without a single cent's reduction. For example, from the gateway, Prescott, where you get your coal, to Ottawa, the original rate of 83 cents was increased to $1.39, an increase of 70 per cent. Let us take Renfrew, another point in this neighbourhood. The original rate was $1.12, it was increased to $1.80, or an increase of 60 per cent. But the increase applies not only there, but everywhere. Take the rate from the Niagara frontier. To Hamilton it was 55 cents, this was increased to $1.05, or an increase of 90 per cent-not one single cent taken off.
Now, basic reductions. What is basic m Ontario? Why, this action last year was taken presumably in the interests of agriculture. It covered just exactly one-fifth of our agricultural products, that is that part of it that was aided by the rate and prevented any possible relief being given to the four-fifths. Supposing you take butter in carload lots to Toronto from a point near here, for example, Smiths Falls, the rate was 30 cents, it was increased to 54 cents, an increase of 81 per cent. Let us go to another part of the province, Woodstock, the centre of the dairy industry. The rate to the same destination was 23 cents, it was raised to 41J cents, an increase of 80 per cent-not one single sou taken off. Not only Toronto as a buttercollecting centre gets these rates; look at Montreal. Suppose we go back to Renfrew again which ships butter to Montreal. The Renfrew rate was 29 cents, it was increased to 52 V cents, an increase of 81 per cent. From Peterborough the rate was 33 cents, it was increased to 591 cents, an increase of 80 per cent-not one cent's reduction. Take this commodity in less than carload lots, and you have the same story-the same increases and absolutely no reduction. Cheese is a commodity which we are all very much interested in. On this basic production the rate from Peterborough to Montreal for export was 251 cents, increased to 461 cents, an increase of 82 per cent-no reduction made whatever. From Finch to Montreal the rate of 15 cents was increased to 271 cents, an increase of 83
Railway Rates

per cent-again no reduction whatever. To Brockville, a large cheese centre, the rate from Finch was 17 cents, it was increased to 30i cents, an increase of 80 per cent. Similarly the Peterborough rate of 22 cents was increased to 40 cents, an increase of 81 per cent. Eggs tell the same story. Everything the farmer handles in Ontario is left in the same position, everything the farmer raises in Quebec is left in the same position, everything the farmer raises in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is left in the same position -absolutely no reduction whatever made by the Railway Commissioners, just as was pointed out clearly and emphatically from this side of the House. Eggs in carload lots from St Mary's to Toronto enjoyed a rate of 19 cents which was increased to 341 cents, an increase of 81 per cent. From Smiths Falls the rate of 25 cents was increased to 45 i cents, an increase of 82 per cent. If you are collecting at Montreal, your increased rate is practically the same: from Lindsay to Montreal, 29 cents, increased to 524 cents, an increase of 81 per cent. From Renfrew, 24 cents, increased to 43 cents, an increase of 79 per cent. In less than carload lots the condition is the same; there are slight differences, of course, in amounts, but the percentage still increases; the additional burden placed upon the farmer stands about the same. St. Mary's to Toronto, eggs, in less than carload lots, 26 cents, increased to 47 cents, 80 per cent increase. Thamesville, 32 cents, increased to 58 cents, 81 per cent increase; Brockville to Montreal, increased from 30 to 54 cents, or 80 per cent; Renfrew, increased from 33 to 594 cents, or 80 per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the inference my hon. friend wants us to draw from all this? Does he wish parliament to correct all these alleged injustices?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The inference is perfectly plain. It is just what I said lasr. year: if you put through that legislation, if you tell the board that the whole of the difference, that $17,000,000, goes in one direction, do not expect anyone else to get any relief.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the bearing on the resolution? Does my hon. friend think we ought to remedy all these matters in the way the amendment proposes?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think none of them should be remedied that way, but if you start to remedy them you had better do it right through. If we are to have political railway rates for the voter here, the voter there has a right to ask for them.
[Sir Henry Drayton.l


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend really mean what he is saying now, that if parliament made a mistake last year it ought now to repeat that mistake in as many directions as it possibly can?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What they ought to do is at least to try to have the matter dealt with with a semblance of fairness; at least to try to undo some of the wrong they did; at least to try to put production on something like an equal basis throughout this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
very well; these are generalities. But come down to the concrete point: Does my hon. friend say that because, according to his argument, an injustice was done last year, this parliament should aim at repeating that injustice in many different directions?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are you repeating it? If it is good business to say that railway rates shall be put into effect irrespective whatever of cost, irrespective of merit, irrespective of the demands of traffic or anything else, and for the benefit of one set of traders-if that is to be the rule, do the farmers of Ontario not require some assistance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was not the ground, on which any action was taken last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I fail to see, then, what possible justification there is for it. Let us go back to it'; we have threshed it out so often that I thought it was clear. We started out with a declaration of parliament- I do not think my right hon. friend was in the government of that day; he was too young to be in it at that time, but he was a supporter of it. But that was a great declaration on the part of the then government. In other words, the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1903 said: "Special privilege is to stop; there is to be no further discrimination and unfairness in connection with the railway rates."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but if he is going back, why not go back to the obligations imposed upon the country by the legislation adopted by parliament in 1897?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, we will get there; I intend to deal with that. I just wish in the first instance to get my right hon. friend's attention centred on the time of the change.


George Perry Graham: December 6th.

Railway Rates


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it is only a matter of amusement to my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways. He can laugh about it; I do not suppose he is at all concerned about this tremendous increase that I have referred to in Ontario.^ We had that principle declared in 1903. Before that principle had been declared and before we had a method of general rate regulation, we had attempted-not only in this agreement; hon. gentlemen can find other agreements if they want to look for them- to make partial rate regulations. That is all we could do at the time; we had no general rate regulating facilities. Partial regulation was attempted in the Crowsnest pass agreement. Now, what does my hon. friend think would be the right and proper position? Where you have a general declaration of fairness, ought the government to be a party to the preservation of special privileges here and special privileges there, or should it be a case of general fairness everywhere? Should the people as a whole get anything like a square deal in railway matters, or is it right that the government should have special favourites here or there or anywhere? Does my hon. friend think it would have been right in 1917, 1918 and 1919 to increase further the rates on agricultural products everywhere else and leave them untouched so far as the Crowsnest rates are concerned? Was parliament wrong in saying that these necessary advances should be treated on the same basis? Why, they were not even then treated on the same basis, because it was recognized that the increases on the entire haul ought to be somewhat less on grain and flour than they were on those products. And they were- increases of 35 per cent, 50 per cent, as against increases of 80, 81 and 82 per cent; so that they were kept lower. But does my right hon. friend think there should have been no increases at all during that period and that the Crowsnest pass rate should have applied throughout the \tar? If as a matter of fairness he does not object to that-and I pause for an objection-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, in regard to anything that was done as a consequence of war conditions or arising out of the war situation, that was an exceptional case for that exceptional reason. When conditions were being gradually restored to normal it was reasonable that the government should seek to get back to the former legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, let us see. You work up to your peak as the result of war conditions; you are left on the peak- is that not the result of war? Is it not a fact that these high freight rates all over the
country are the result of war and of abnormal costs? If it is fair to increase equitably, is it not fair to deflate with some regard to equity? That is what the commission is for. They put up those rates with that permission for that war purpose. That my hon. friend admits is right, and having been there, should not they come down in the same way?
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) charged us with inconsistency today. I am only saying what I said a year ago, and I am in this happy position that I can turn to a tariff anywhere asked and absolutely justify every remark I made. That is the only difference. Why, it was simply extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, the way the demands of commerce,! the way the demands of the farmer everywhere outside of the prairie provinces were absolutely disregarded-simply extraordinary. But to my mind the most extraordinary thing is the accusation made to-night by the hon. member for Pictou, that this talk is all politics when he himself attended on that committee, voted for that first report, supported it right through, and for political purposes turned right about in this House in two days and swallowed it all. And what did he swallow? Is there no trouble down in the Maritime provinces? Are not the rates out of line there? We told you what would happen if you did what you did. Are not the rates out of line there? I am just going to give the hon. gentlemen, the noble sixteen, the result of the wonderful work which they did for their province last year, and I shall take just the articles in which Nova Scotia is tremendously interested. I shall not give very many of them; it is not necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend does that, may I ask, does he propose to remedy the injustice he is now going to speak of in the same manner that he proposes to remedy this alleged discrimination?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be all the same. There is only one source from which reductions can come. Surely my hon. friend knows this much about business, that there is only one way in which a railway can get its revenues, and that is out of the earnings it makes, and if you set to work and apply a whole lot of reductions here, unless you want to bankrupt your system you cannot give them over there. Nothing could be done, nothing was done, because there was an arbitrary withdrawal of funds to one purpose and one purpose alone, amounting to $17,000,000, as a result of the action of my hon. Mend's administration. I am not saying that all these reductions would have
Railway Rates

been made. Of course they would not have been, but the people of this country at least would know this, that there had been a real survey of the railway situation, not a survey such as is shown in that judgment we had read to-day, just pointing out what the government had done, and as a result of what the government had done the impossibility of doing anything further. You would not have had that. You would have had something like a proper, honest survey of the whole thing, out of which perhaps something like proper equitable treatment could come.
Now as to these rates. I have given enough to show what Ontario and Quebec are suffering under. I am going to give one or two now for Nova Scotia. Fish is a very important rate in Nova Scotia. There is a general fish rate which applies to fish, dry salted, green salted, pickled, smoked, in carload lots. I am going to take a few shipping points given to me by gentlemen down in the district as being absolutely vital to the trade. I do not pretend to know myself that these are the correct points, but some hon. gentlemen in this House from Nova Scotia will correct me if they are not; but I believe them to be important points. The rate from Port Hawkesbury to Montreal was 38 cents; it was increased to 66 cents, a percentage increase of 73 per cent, and that increase stands to-day. From, Lockport to Yarmouth the rate was 8 cents; it was increased to 18 cents, an increase of 125 per cent, and that still stands. Then on fresh fish, we will take the rate from Port Hawkesbury again to Montreal. The rate was 48 cents; it was increased to 83| cents, an increase of 73 per cent, and that still stands.
We have heard a lot about coal, and about the needs of coal. I am sure if the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) were here he would have a fit to think he voted for something that left things in this position. Take the rate from Springhill to Montreal. It used to be 9j cents; it was increased to 18 cents, an increase of 89 per cent, and every single cent of that still stands. Then suppose we go into business down in the Maritime provinces and try textiles. You have textile factories at Truro and Amherst. Your textile rate from Truro to Montreal was 38 cents; it.was increased to 68 cents, an increase of 78 per cent. There is a similar increase from Amherst to Montreal of 78 per cent.
Iron and steel, a most important product in Nova Scotia, had a rate of 22 cents; that was increased to 40 cents, a percentage increase of 81 per cent upon Nova Scotia's biggest industrial activity. They are complaining that

they cannot ship, that they cannot sell. Well, there is their increase, 81 per cent, and it still stands. That is on iron and steel, list "A." If you take iron and steel, list "B," which is a higher quality, it is worse. The old rate was 28| cents; that was increased to 52 cents, a percentage increase of 82 per cent.
The whole fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the results are just exactly what might be expected from the action that was taken. The government started out by saying: We know nothing about rates; we have no mind on this subject, and they sent it off to a committee. We had evidence taken for weeks and weeks pointing practically to all these conclusions, pointing to what was going to happen, and that was all thrown away. The political question was the only one considered, and if this discussion to-day does nothing else it will do a splendid thing for Canada if hereafter no government is going to try and make rates and take away from the board absolute and full jurisdiction in connection with the rate question. It would be a first-rate thing if it could do that.
Something was said about the inadvisability of making rates here. I would like to know how much better qualified the government is to make rates than is this House? Again, it was contended that the government cannot do anything with this question because it has to do something with it afterwards. Well, I would have thought the government would have welcomed action by this House. Generally it wants to know what the House thinks before it does anything on this, that and the other question. Why, even action upon the subject of oleomargarine has to depend on a resolution being introduced by a private member. I would have thought that the government would be pleased because this matter was being discussed by the House.
We think that the wrong thing was done last year; in fact we know it. We know that those who are producing these essential basic commodities are suffering. The government has put into effect an old statute and something was said about the matter of consideration. The consideration paid in connection with that statute was $3,600,000-that was the whole amount that was paid under the subsidy; and the losses in this one year under present conditions are infinitely greater. But the government brings that act into effect again when it need not. It is idle to say that the government is to be excused because it does nothing here. Surely if the government believes in fairness, and finds special privileges lurking here or there it is its duty

Railway Rales
to remove it. It is equally idle to say, if special privilege prevails by reason of the fact that we do nothing, that we are not to blame. The present position is entirely the result of the government's action. Even admitting that this House of all bodies, except perhaps the Privy Council is the most ill-fitted to consider a question of this kind, it has the right to ask something like a similar class of treatment for all the provinces. We were told last year that the action taken would help two important provinces. It did. Those provinces are important, it was right to help them; but there are a whole lot of other provinces that have not yet lost their importance and that are still highly important that require help just as much, and they have a right to expect equality of treatment at the hands of this government.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: to Canada in freight rates, or economy in railroad administration, is to be derived by using the Panama canal let that route be used, and let parliament give its assistance. The Railway Commission will never give it. It must come from parliament and by parliamentary action, by parliament taking the two roads, and wherever there is waste as between them, and where through or interprovincial freight is involved, and there is a better grade on one road than on the other, there must be common usage of the improved grade on terms. If we start in on that basis, instead of making it a fight between lawyers, or a question to be submitted to the Railway Commission or to the Privy Council, we may get somewhere, but if it is to be fought out between lawyers, as I suggest, we will have these discussions for a year or two. I do not think a discussion of this kind can accomplish anything; we must have direct action. The country demands it. We get that direct action in parliament.
I agree with the ruling of the Speaker that this question is a parliamentary one. It is not a question for lawyers, or the commission, or the Privy Council, but one for this House. A hundred railroad questions are pressing on the people of Canada to-day, and the solution is in parliament.
The responsible Minister of Railways should find a way to wipe out this differential based on the alleged greatly increased cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway over the Canadian National Railway. As a matter of fact, the Canadian National is prepared to have this Crowsnest pass discrimination wiped out. They know they can do the work for a great deal less and they are anxious to do it. I believe Sir Henry Thornton has said that he is anxious to do it, and if that is the case why leave it to lawyers? Why not let the department introduce an immediate and quick cure, not only for this question, but for a lot of others that may arise? Hon. members may say they do not want to bring up cases of individual rates. Neither do I, nor do I wish to see the time of this House taken up by somebody trying to get a little political advantage for his province or his business. This question should be settled in parliament and the responsibility is on the government, especially if there are two competing lines where the management of these lines will not come to an understanding. In such case let parliament wipe out the unfair condition of affairs and make them come to terms.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: I crave the indulgence of the House for about five minutes while I make a few comments

upon the method in which this resolution has been presented and upon some of the arguments by which it has been supported. As I understand this question, it is a matter in which the twin sisters, or the two provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, are vitally interested, and so far the two governments | have been working in partnership in order, if possible, to have the differential rates under the mountain scale removed, believing it would be for the benefit of both parties in that partnership, to enable those two provinces, and also the province a little further east, to trade together on the same terms on which the other provinces of the Dominion are permitted to trade. We believe it would be for the advantage of the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta, and we believe also that the removal of that differential would enable the Alberta men to take advantage of their proximity to the sea, and on that ground I and the other Alberta members, and, indeed, I think most of the Progressives in this House, would be solidly behind any bona fide attempt to have this differential removed, whether it is accomplished in this House or outside of it.
But I must confess. Sir, that I somewhat resent the manner in which this matter has been presented to the House at this time. I believe as I said, that this is a matter of partnership between the two provinces, and yet what do we find in the presentation of the case this afternoon and evening? I am not reflecting on the sincerity of the hon. member (Mr. Clark) who introduced the motion, but we find on the part of many hon. members who supported the motion simply a camouflage attack on the Crowsnest pass agreement. That is all it is, and all it is intended for, to my mind, on the part of many hon. members. I think I can say that, and at the same time be absolutely fair in saying it, by simply referring to what was said by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and concurred in, as far as I could see, by the party who sit behind him, when he made the offer to the Prime Minister regardless of the other party to this agreement, regardless of the rights of Alberta, that if this government would cancel the Crowsnest pass agreement which it put in force last year, which meant more to Alberta than to any other province of Canada, he and his party would be willing to withdraw their resolution. Is that fair play? Or does it savour more of treachery to the other partner? I and others in this branch of parliament resent the attitude that has been taken, and the camouflage attack that has been made upon what we consider to be one of the charters under which we can work the

Railway Rates
charter of our liberty I was going to say, but, at least, one of the safeguards of our possible success.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the hon. member not hear the Prime Minister state that the Crows-nest pass agreement would die by effluxion of time next year?


Alfred Speakman: If the hon. member understood the Prime Minister in that way, I did not. I understood him to say, in confirmation of what was done last year, that next year, if the Council took the action which they were authorized to do by parliament last year, the whole Crowsnest pass agreement would come into effect, and that the suspension in part would cease.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I did say.


Alfred Speakman: And had the Prime Minister stated otherwise I certainly would have strongly resented any such statement, but the fact remains that the only members in this House who have suggested the abrogation of that agreement have been the hon. members to my right, as a camouflage for securing the differential freight rates as existing over the mountains to British Columbia.
I promised I would only speak about five minutes, but I felt it was necessary for some member in this House speaking for Alberta to take exception to that attitude, and that is why I have spoken to-night. I am not reflecting on the bona fides of the hon. member who introduced the motion. I believe he is sincere in his wish to have that differential removed, but I certainly do not think his judgment was equal to his sincerity in that respect. I believe that had it been the intention on the part of hon. members on my right to have this matter definitely accomplished, to have these differential rates removed, to have trading permitted to be carried on freely and equitably between one province and another, to relieve the province of British Columbia from the disabilities under which it laboured in consequence of that differential, to assist the province of Alberta which is the partner with them in this matter in securing access to the sea, and the use of the port of Vancouver on the most favourable terms, they would have brought forward a resolution worded in a different manner, because the resolution mixes up two distinct questions, first calling for the removal of the differential, calling for the reduction of freight rates over the mountains, to bring them in line with the freight rates existing in other parts of the country, and, second,
attempting in a most peculiar manner to discredit the Crowsnest pass agreement.
That is all I need to say, all I wish to say, except that every Alberta Progressive in this House has been, is now, and ever will be, as far as I am aware, solidly behind those two provincial governments which are doing their best to have justice done to those two provinces. At any time in which this matter is brought forward in such a way, you will find us solidly in its support; but when an attempt is made, under cover of a proposed removal of the differential, to attack the legislation passed last year, when an attempt is made to take away from us the benefits of the Crowsnest pass agreement, we will oppose that attempt in this House and out of it at all times.	.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add a very few words in support of the resolution. The last speaker (Mr. Speakman) is much concerned about what he calls the attack on the Crowsnest pass agreement. The resolution before the House is not an attack upon the advantages which the prairie provinces have received under that agreement; it is an effort to appeal to the justice of parliament for the same advantages and the same principles to be extended to the other partners in confederation. That is the whole proposition in a sentence. I venture to say that every member from British Columbia, faced with the issue involved in this resolution and unable to avail himself of any subterfuge, would have to support the resolution, because the 600,000 citizens of our province appreciate the injustices w'hich have been perpetrated upon them in the past, either by chance or by design. The government last year did play politics, and now they are reaping the retribution of their wrongdoing. Until they rectify the mistake they made then, they will find themselves in continuous hot water from Halifax to Vancouver.


Alfred Speakman: Does the hon. member mean by rectifying the matter, that they should cancel the agreement?


Leon Johnson Ladner: No, I mean in rectifying it, you adopt the resolution before the House to eliminate the mountain differential, the discriminatory rates, and to give the same treatment to all the members of confederation on their basic commodities. What can be fairer than that? Can any hon. gentleman present stand up and seriously and honestly deny the merit of that contention? Certainly not, and least of all the government. What did they do? They took the first step last
196S

Railway Rales
year to smash a well-balanced, judicial body in the way of the Railway Commission, and to substitute for that judicial machinery, political machinery in exactly the same way as we have seen one attempt after another, under different guises, to abolish the Civil Service machinery and to inject political machinery, a process which even now the government may be endeavouring to carry into effect. The duty of every member of parliament is to put his hand flatly against attempts of this kind.
This resolution is being brought before the House on this occasion, largely irrespective of the political aspect, in order to make bare and plain to the government the effect of their action of last year, and the fact that when they gave a special consideration, as they did last year to the prairie provinces-not that I would deny them that at all-they must in duty and justice extend that to the rest of us. What do we find as a consequence of this advantage that was extended to [DOT] the prairie provinces last year? We find that in playing politics on those freight rates to move the prairie provinces, this year a Romeo left the family circle of the government in Ottawa, in the guise of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), and hastened away to Moose Jaw to sound his plaintive note; but sad as it may be said, Miss Moose Jaw hooked up with a Farmer. The result is that they are no further advanced than they were before.
Anyone who listened to the discussion last year, anyone who has heard the debate this year, the case ably presented by the hon member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), and the arguments brought out in some very able speeches, must, if he uses his intelligence, his heart and his judgment, admit that the case for British Columbia has been established to the full. We did suffer an injustice; we are under discriminatory rates; we are entitled to have that rectified, and the action of the government last year made it still more impossible to bring about the rectification of the situation in which our province finds itself. This year the government, through hon. members speaking on their behalf, say: "Keep railway rates out of politics; that is a matter for the Railway Board." Why did they not say that last year? This year they say: "We have the matter under consideration"; but for the past two seasons the government have been telling us that they are a democratic government; that when they have a complicated matter of interest to the whole people, they consult all the representatives of the people, they consult parliament, and when parliament has expressed its view, they
[Mr. Ladner.?
formulate the conclusion into legislation. These are inconsistencies which must be apparent to every hon. member, and I wish simply to point out, with all due respect to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), my good friend from British Columbia, that when he says that the people, of British Columbia would prefer if the hon. member for Burrard had not meddled in this question, he is stating just the reverse of the facts. I believe the people of British Columia want every one of its members to advocate its cause before the representatives of the sister provinces of this confederation, because we know that from the time of our admission to the union by the act of 1868, enforced in 1870, we were protected under that act with respect to unfair discrimination. We know that when the Canadian Pacific built their railway, it was especially planned under the statutory laws of that time that that railway should pass through the Yellowhead pass. If it had passed through the Yellowhead pass, and somebody had not made a mistake during the survey and diverted the line to the Roger's pass, the advantages accruing now to the Canadian National would have accrued to the Canadian Pacific, and would have redounded to the advantage of British Columbia and the Dominion at large. These are facts, historical records.
We come down to the present time, and a last effort was made to preserve the protection we had in British Columbia in 1910 in the agreement with the Canadian National Railways. It is not my intention to go into that matter; but in that agreement a special, concrete provision was made that British Columbia would have on rates the protection which she had had in the past, and which she did not wish to be deprived of. The fact is-and no hon. member has made a suggestion to the contrary-that there are discriminatory rates, and we are handicapped without a just cause. Where is the remedy to be found? Parliament last year absorbed by its action $17,000,000 out of the revenues of the railways in order that the prairie provinces might benefit that much. I do not object to their having that; but that is what the result of parliamentary legislation was, and this made it impossible to remedy conditions in British Columbia and to give fair treatment to the other provinces.
So to-day, Mr. Speaker, the government find themselves in the predicament that having injected politics into the question they have to play politics to get out of it. And that is what they are doing. They are appealing

Railway Rate-i
to parliament and saying: "Gentlemen, do not treat this resolution on its merits. This is a want of confidence motion, and if you want to retain your seats support the government. Never mind the merits, support the government."


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I put it to the hon. member that shouts "Carried" that perhaps he is afraid of losing his seat. I say to hon members generally, including my Progressive friends, that we must decide this question on the merits. The resolution simply asks for the elimination of the discriminatory "mountain scale" and the same treatment as the sister provinces of confederation in respect to basic commodities. The government seek to evade the issue by saying, "No, this is a want of confidence motion." I appeal to the conscience, to the political instinct and to the good judgment of all members to determine which course they take. I am confident that a very large number, including many in this part of the House, will determine this question on its merits and not as a matter of political expediency.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, a general freight rate reduction is necessary for the economic life of the country. From what we have heard to-day we might think that only the province of British Columbia is being discriminated against, but let me assure my hon. friends from the West that the provinces east of the Great Lakes are suffering greater discrimination than any other part of the Dominion.
The question of freight rates should not be made a political football of this party or that; indeed it is a question which should not be brought up in this House at all. The gist of the general Railway Act as to rates is equality of treatment. Consequently the regulation of freight rates is an economic and commercial question, and if we are going to attempt to fix freight rates by legislation and so tie the hands of the Railway Commission, that commission will not be able to function as it should in preserving equality of treatment throughout the Dominion in regard to freight rates.
Last session it was contended that the prairie provinces should have special rates to the head of the lakes for their basic commodities including flour and grain. To-day grain is paying the lowest rates, and this is necessary. But it is not necessary, in order to give preferential rates on those basic commodities, that the other provinces should be discriminated
against. We are reminded that when British Columbia came into confederation it was on the faith of an agreement which guaranteed her equal rates with the rest of Canada. Then the Maritime provinces have reminded us that under their agreement to enter confederation they were to have preferential rates in order to enable them to get their products to the centre of Canada. Thus we have the East and the West pressing for lower freight rates, but if parliament goes over the head of the Railway Commission and ignores the economic factor, then we might'as well abolish the commission.
In my opinion the fairest solution of the question is to put all the parties back where they were before the war-time legislation which increased freight rates. Let us go back and restore confidence in the Railway Commission, because if this commission to-day is not fulfilling the functions for which it was appointed, if it is not ensuring equality of treatment to all localities, then it is time to get a new Railway Commission. As I read the Railway Act the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission cannot be interfered with. It is clothed with paramount control of freight rates, which it should regulate strictly from the economic standpoint. Its powers' are largely similar to the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that commission is not interfered with by Congress or the Senate. It fixes rates in the United States according to operating costs. That is what should be done in Canada, and until it is done we are bound to have discrimination. To-day Canada has the highest average ton-mile rate in the world, '751 cents. The next is the United States '732 cents
Adequate and equitable rates depend very largely on the Railway Commission fulfilling its functions and powers and preventing unjust discrimination.
This question of the "mountain scale" was before the special committee last year. As the case was then pending before the Railway Commission it was urged that parliament should defer taking action until the commission had rendered judgment. Unfortunately, parliament interfered with the prairie rates, with the result that the Railway Commission has not seen fit to harmonize the mountain rate with the prairie rate. This unfortunate result prompts me to ask: Has not the time come for parliament to leave rate control to the Railway Commission? If the commission is no longer a competent body, then let u& appoint a new commission. Let us repeal the legislation of last session dealing with freight rates and put all the provinces back where
Railway Rates

they were before the War Measures Act interfered with rates.
Let the Railway Commission go into this whole question as the Interstate Commerce Commission did in the United States. The Railway Commission of this country did not wait for parliament to tell them what to do in the matter of raising rates after the Chicago award and the McAdoo award; they made these increases of their own accord, but they are waiting for parliament to tell them what to do in the matter of lowering rates. I agree with the principle of this resolution, because this House laid down the principle last session that the prairie provinces should have special treatment in respect to their basic commodities. If they are to have special treatment, so should the farmers of British Columbia have special treatment, and the same applies to the Maritime provinces and the other older provinces of Canada for their basic products also. The people of the old provinces of Canada-Ontario and Quebec-have paid out their money in taxes for the building of railways to give the West the railway facilities that they have. Ontario has been discriminated against more than any other province in the matter of railway rates since confederation. I say, then, repeal the legislation of last session and put all the provinces on a parity so that the Railway Act can be carried out in its entirety. Equality of treatment should be the principle; no preference should be shown to any one province.


Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (Kootenay West):: Mr.' Speaker, as a very modest member of this House I would like the privilege of addressing my few remarks from this seat. I have not been in the habit of contributing very much to the debates, and situated as I am in the far corner of the Chamber I fear that if I spoke from my own seat some of my remarks might not be heard.
I rise as a member from British Columbia to enter a most emphatic protest against this resolution. The member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) has said that as a member from Alberta he considered it was his duty to offer a contribution on behalf of that province. I as a member from British Columbia feel that it is my duty to offer a small contribution on behalf of British Columbia. Although my remarks may not meet with the approval of all on this side of the House, I feel that I have the welfare of my province is much at heart as any other hon. member of this House, and that I represent a class of people who are deeply interested in the

welfare not only of their district and province, but of the Dominion as a whole.
Let us review for a moment the question that is the subject of the present debate. The resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this House, all unfair and unjust discrimination against British Columbia as exemplified in the "mountain scale" of freight rates should be rescinded and the special reduction made by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on the basic production of the prairie provinces be extended to the basic productions of all other provinces of confederation.
If the hon. member for Burrard had been sincere in his professions of regard for the welfare of British Columbia-and I do not doubt his sincerity as an hon. member of this House-he would, in my opinion have been more consistent in the resolution which he had on the order paper under date of February 15. That resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this House, railway rates westward from the prairie provinces should be reduced to an equality with railway rates eastward from said provinces for similar goods and distances.
I cannot see the consistency of the two resolutions, and I do not see how the hon. member is consistent so far as his alleged interest in the welfare of British Columbia is concerned. In the last several months all the organized bodies of British Columbia, in fact I may safely say 95 per cent of the population of the province, have given their loyal support to those who have been instrumental in setting forth the claims of British Columbia on. this railway rate question. A large number of the boards of trade of the province have given their unanimous support to the Premier on the question. The claims of British Columbia have been carried from one stage to another until they are now before the Privy Council, and it is my opinion that this is not an opportune time for the House to take the matter out of the hands of the Privy Council and declare upon the merits of the discrimination so far as it affects British Columbia. If, on the other hand, we have a railway commission that is not doing its duty to the people, I and many other hon. members will be only too glad to see that that particular defect is remedied. But I say that this is not an opportune time to take the matter out of the channels in which it has proceeded. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) has said that the government last year played politics in respect to this railway question. Well, with all due respect to the hon. member and with no prejudice to other hon. members of the House, I would say that in my opinion this question as it is being

Railway Rates
handled is nothing else but politics, first and last.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman think that it should be the subject of political play, as he says it has been?


Levi William Humphrey: My remarks are addressed to the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South that this railway rates question was made the subject of politics last year. I repeat that in my opinion the matter is being handled now as nothing more or less than a political question, and the result is only to prejudice the interests of the people of British Columbia and to bring about a state of chaos so far as their attitude on this question is concerned-and their opinion is now a unanimous one. They are unanimous in their opinion on this question and are giving united and loyal support to those who are taking a sincere and genuine interest in it. But I feel it is not right for any member to bring this question into parliament at this time to be made a political football of at the expense of the people of British Columbia. My experience as a member of this parliament has been short. Perhaps I have not contributed, as much as many others to the debates. Nevertheless I have endeavoured as far as I could in my humble way and to the best of my ability to follow the questions that have arisen and to give my best judgment upon each, and particularly with respect to the questions affecting the Dominion. I compare this question to one that arose in the Chamber something like a year ago respecting the returned men of whom I am glad to say, without boasting at all, that I am one. Certain interests of the returned men were under consideration at that time, and I place this particular question on a parallel with that. I think this resolution has been introduced simply to further certain political interests. It has been brought in at this particular time and in this particular way not to further the interests of British Columbia because, however it is decided, it would not do that. If this resolution was carried by the House, we as residents of British Columbia would not gain anything. On the other hand would we gain if the resolution was not carried? I cannot see how in either event, from the point of view of those favouring the resolution, anything is to be gained. The question is entirely in the hands of the powers that have it under their consideration. I do not treat it as a want of confidence motion in any shape or form. I have little concern in that respect for the position of the government on this question, but I have a great deal of concern 125
regarding the people whom I am endeavouring to represent to the best of my ability upon each question as it arises, and taking that stand I cannot in any way support this resolution as it has been brought forward by the hon. member for Burrard.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 107 (from the Senate), to incorporate Montreal Finance Trust.-Mr. Papi-neau.
Bill No. 10S (from the Senate), for the relief of Violet Gardiner.-Mr. Sheard.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 12.29 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 18, 1923