1924-06-27

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister :of Justice):: I desire to lay on the Table of the House copy of the bill passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, referred to a few days ago by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean); the letter of the Lieutenant-Governor stating that he is compelled to withhold his assent to the bill; and copy of order in council passed on the 5th of May, 1924, with regard to the matter.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: I desire to lay' on the Table of the House a petition signed by 132 Home Bank depositors praying for indemnification.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 210 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elizabeth Atkinson.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 211 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gerald Arthur Johnson.-Mr. Chew.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings):: 
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Has the Acting Postmaster General any information to give to the House regarding the settlement of the postal strike, with particular reference to Toronto?
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Argen-teuil, Acting Postmaster General):	I have
no new evidence to submit except to say that to-day we have in the neighbourhood of sixty carriers delivering mail in that city. Of course, I do not want the impression to go abroad that we are anything like covering the city, because ordinarily 450 are engaged in delivering mail. Two of the postal stations are being manned to-day and delivery other than by carrier is improving all the time. A personal letter mailed in the afternoon of the 25th instant was delivered to my family this morning. True, it ought to have been received yesterday, but the report the postmaster gives me is that the matter is improving every minute and in a very short time complete mail delivery, not complete carrier delivery, will be re-established.
As regards the men, I have a communication that would indicate that the only grounds upon which they will return are for all of them to be completely re-established.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: How much mail has accumulated in the Toronto post office?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: There is very little mail accumulation in the post office at Toronto at the moment.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Would the acting Postmaster General care to state to the House just how many strike breakers, if I may call them such,-or perhaps I had better put it this way, how many men are employed now in the post office at Toronto and how many men were employed prior to the strike? My purpose is to get the situation there. I do not know whether a strike is on or not.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give my hon. friend a definite statement as to the numbers of employees that are working, but there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 at the moment. Ordinarily about 1,400 are employed in Toronto. Indeed, it is such an important mail centre that the number sometimes runs up to 1,600.



MARITIME PROVINCES-EXPORT TRADE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce contemplate sending a person from his department to the Maritime provinces to investigate conditions concerning export trade? I understand such an investigation is going on and I am informed that the delegate was going to a number of places in Nova Scotia, but that the important county of Hants, with its great gypsum quarries, fruit growing and all that sort of thing was being absolutely ignored. I want to give my hon. friend fair warning that if he undertakes to ignore the constituency of Hants, he will receive a good many kicks from the member.


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: It is the policy of the department to send junior trade commissioners to different parts of Canada so that they may acquire a knowledge of the goods they have for export to such countries as the trade commissioners are likely to go to. If one has not been sent to Hants, I shall be glad to look into the matter, because we do not want to overlook any important part of this country.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE DOMINION DAY SITTING

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might mention to the
House that it is the intention of the government that we should sit on Tuesday the 1st July. I know a number of members have asked the question.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 26 consideration in committee on Bill No. 47, to incorporate the United Church of Canada-Mr. Forke -Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Definitions.
Mr. McGIVERIN:: Counsel for the promoters of this bill, in fact counsel on both sides, have drawn my attention to a number
United Church of Canada

of clerical errors that have appeared from the changing of the numbers in the bill. I move that the word "section" in line 25 on page 2 of the bill be amended to read "act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4, subsection (b)-Corporations and local union congregations.
Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move that the subsection be amended by substituting the word "three" for the word "two" in lines 20 and 22.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Property of congregations.
Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move to amend the section by striking out the word "seven" in the first line and substituting the word "eight."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as aimended agreed to.
On section 8-Special property of certain congregations.
Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move to amend the
section by substituting in lines 8 and 9, in place of the words "four" and "five", the words "five" and "six".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Existing trustees continued.
Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move to amend the
section by substituting in line 15 the word "six" for the word "five".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Property of non-concurring congregations.
Mr. DUFF:: This section provides that
the vote shall be taken by call of a meeting of the congregation. During the discussion in the Private Bills committee some of us thought that this was not the best method of taking the vote; we considered it would ibe far better to have it taken by ballot. If the meeting -were held on a Stormy night a great many people might be unable to attend. There might be others too who would be unable to be present at the meeting owing to sickness or for any other valid reason; and some again might be out of town. I would suggest :to the hon. member (Mr. Forke) who introduced the bill that he accept an amendment to have the vote taken by

ballot instead of ait a regular meeting of (congregation. I therefore move to amend the section by adding:
Provided always that if any congregation in connection or communion with any of the negotiating churches shall, upon a vote of such congregation to be taken by ballot in accordance with the regulations set out in schedule "D" to this act, decide by a majority of the votes cast not to enter the United church, then and in such case the property real and personal belonging to or held in trust for or to the use of such congregation shall remain unaffected by this act, and provided that any church formed by the non-concurring congregations shall stand in the place of the respective negotiating church in respect of any trusts relating to such property. Any vote of any such congregation taken in accordance with the provisions of any act of any province of Canada respecting the United church passed before the passing of this act shall be deemed to be a valid vote for the purposes of this section.
In the two previous votes taken in 1911 and 1915 in the Presbyterian church the ballot was used; ballots were distributed either by session or otherwise to every member in the congregation whether they were able to attend church or not, or even if they were out of town at the time the vote was taken. This ballot was regularly signed and1 witnessed by someone and was returned either to the clerk of session or to some other authorized person. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I hope the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) and the rest of the committee will accept it.


Mr. MILLAR:: How does the hon. member propose to apply this to those persons whose names are still on the church register as members but who have moved a distance away?


William Duff: If I remember rightly the
bill provides that members who are in full communion at the time of the passing of the act shall be deemed competent to vote for the purposes of the act. Take the hon. gentleman's own case for example, or mine; this vote might be taken while we were in Ottawa. I do not think it would be fair to require either the hon. gentleman or myself to go back home to attend a meeting in order to vote either to remain in the church or to leave it. I think he will immediately see with me that the suggestion I make is only reasonable; I think the right method is to have ballots distributed to the congregation and returned.


John Millar: I was thinking more of
those who have changed their places of residence permanently.


William Duff: I believe it is provided in the bill that any one who has changed his

United Church oj Canada
residence may still vote. Probably the hon. member did not intend to suggest it, but there seems to me to be a flaw in the bill in that respect. If any one has moved from his home town and taken up residence permanently in some other place it is not fair that he should be able to vote with the congregation in the church from which he has removed. That, however, appears to be in the bill and perhaps we shall have to take it unless we are prepared to amend the present provision. The amendment I propose would meet the difficulty of railwaymen or fishermen who might happen to be out of town on the night the meeting was being held. Then, take the case of parents with young children, either the mother or the father would have to stay home, and this would create a great hardship on many people interested in their church. It seems to me, in view of the fact that the two previous votes were taken by ballot, that this vote should be taken in the same manner.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I would suggest that this
amendment is out of order; we have had no notice of it.


The CHAIRMAN:: That question arose in my mind a few minutes ago, but rule 112 applies only to "important" amendments, amendments which are very material to the principle involved, such as were submitted yesterday. But this amendment, it strikes me, is of minor importance. The manner of taking a vote does not affect the principle of the bill at all, and therefore I do not think that this is an important amendment within the meaning of the rule. The amendment before the committee deals purely with the question of procedure.


William Duff: Of course, if the hon. member
objects I will ask you, Mr. Chairman, to let the section stand, but I would rather see the bill go through quickly.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule that this amendment does not require notice.


Mr. HODGINS:: Who are to have the
privilege of voting-members of the congregation or members of the church?


Mr. FORKE:: It is set out in clause (b).
I do not think it is necessary to read it. It seems to me that to accept the amendment that has been proposed would open up a good deal of confusion in taking the vote. All parties concerned have the same chance to vote and I think anyone who is sufficiently interested will be at the meeting where the vote is taken. I cannot agree to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that the section be passed as it stands.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: Mr. Chairman, this
matter was very fully discussed from all angles in the Private Bills committee. The method of voting was not challenged. As chairman of that committee I strongly support the bill as it stands.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think the request of
the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is a most reasonable one. I was not in attendance in the committee, but it would strike the ordinary man that the proper way to vote under circumstances of this kind would be by ballot. In almost every society and every incorporated company absentees are permitted to vote by proxy, and certainly the whole membership of the church should be entitled to oast a vote on such an important question as that involved. What injury is going to be done the promoters of the bill if this privilege is accorded? What difficulty is going to arise? The privilege will apply to both sides, those for and those against. It is the course adopted by the church authorities on two former occasions, why not follow it on this occasion? I think the hon. member for Brandon is taking rather an odd course in opposing what would appear to an ordinary member of this House to be a most reasonable proposal.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I point out
that the votes taken in 1911 and 1915 were not decisive votes, but were intended to be merely a guide for the courts. This particular vote will be decisive.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Is not that all the more
reason why everybody should have a chance to vote?


William Richard Motherwell: Of course they will have a chance to vote. If we are going to have a real test of the wishes of the congregation, we must have something more systematic than the rather loose method of distributing ballots to the congregation to be signed at pleasure, I quite agree with the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) that the discussion in the Private Bills committee was quite full. The reason for leaving the section in its present form was that it comes nearest to what is the practice in the church now. In my experience I have never 'mown any important question determined by oallot, it has always been by a vote of the nembers of the congregation present.


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to put a case to my hon. friend, and I think it is typical of what might happen in many other families. There are five votes in my family. If this meeting is called some time in the autumn or during the winter, four of these votes will in
United, Church of Canada

ill human possibility be scattered in. various parts of Ontario. Is it incumbent upon me to pay the expense of bringing my family to the meeting to vote? I think the case has only to be stated to be refuted. Voting by ballot is the rule in universities, in churches, in joint stock banks, and the like. What objection is there to the proposal? If there is a valid objection we will consider it, but let us hear what the objection is.


Mr. GOULD:: I am sure my worthy leader
(Mr. Forke) knows as well as I do that in our western country where the villages and towns are small-and I call this to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) -the majority of the congregations are composed of people living in the surrounding country. Just picture, in our western plains, a meeting being called and only 40 or 50 per cent of the people having an opportunity to attend it owing to a storm. That very serious handicap would be obviated by the method suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Duff). If I have a complaint to make it is that the whole attitude in this matter is based altogether upon an urban point of view; I want the committee to be broad and to have some regard for the interests of the people in the country who would find it impossible to attend this meeting called at a specific time for a specific purpose.


Mr. ROBB:: Having been a supporter of
church union-indeed, in the congregation where I worship we have had church union in practice now for three or four years-it does seem to me that the proposal of the hon. member (Mr. Duff) is most reasonable. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) refers to his own family; there are cases in my family that I know of where the people are unable to attend church, although they are very strongly attached to their church. I venture to say that if the congregation wanted i contribution for missionary work or for the minister they would not hesitate to provide those people with an envelope to be sent in. There is no good reason why this amendment cannot be accepted; it will give people who are unable to attend church an opportunity of voting upon this question.


Mr. BROWN:: I think there is very real
objection to the proposal. We shall make a great mistake if we seek to reason from analogies drawn from the practices of other corporations, because they follow the practice prescribed in the rules and regulations under which they are constituted. In my judgment this House should not seek to impose upon the churches any method of taking a vote that 
is not prescribed by their own rules and procedure. The method adopted by all churches in arriving at a decision of such importance as this is just the method that is here indicated. Even if we did not indicate in this bill the method by which the rote shouid be taken, the vote would be taken in such a way as to achieve the best results. I do not think the House should undertake to say to any of the churches: You must take your vote thus and so. It is true we have put this provision in the bill, but that is simply adopting the method that is followed by all churches in coming to important decisions at regularly called church meetings.
The minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has answered the objection that was raised, and I am sure the answer was given more than once in the committee when reference was made to former votes. It is true that votes were taken by the Presbyterian church.


Hugh Guthrie: Do they not always vote
for elders in the Presbyterian church by ballot?


James Alexander Robb: Always.


William Duff: The hon. member (Mr. Brown) is not a Presbyterian; he does not know our rules.


John Livingstone Brown: Apart altogether from that, there are very real objections. This is a matter upon which important issues depend, and I can see objections to distributing ballots loosely throughout the country. It is urged that it would be just as fair for one side as the other; well, the same may be said for the other method. In all elections taken for any purpose it is inevitable that some people lose their franchise, and in this case it seems to me that the vote should be taken in harmony with the procedure commonly observed. I know that elders are elected in the way that has been indicated, but is that true when it comes to the disposition of property? I rather think not. And, remember that great property interests are involved in this matter; large interests are at stake involving not only local congregations but the property of the church generally all over the Dominion. I think it is desirable that we should adopt the system set forth in this clause.


Hugh Guthrie: It would be a very bad
thing to allow the impression to go abroad throughout Canada that there is a desire on the part of anybody in this parliament or out of it to limit in any way the vote of the people interested in this movement. In the circumstances related by the hon. member (Mr. Duff), a large proportion of the membership could not possibly attend the meeting. We

United Church of Canada
know from common experience in regard to voting at elections that in most cases the husband and wife cannot go together: the woman cannot be taken from the home where there are infant children unless some grown person can be left with them. We know that from every family there are absentees who cannot get a chance to vote. A large number of our population constitute a travelling population. These people are usually at home on the Lord's day, but may be miles away during the week when this meeting is called. Is there to be a deliberate attempt to deprive that large and interested population of * vote in regard to what is to them perhaps one of the most sacred things in life? When we ask for objections to my hon. friend's proposal, all we_ get is the suggestion that loose methods may be employed in regard to these ballots. Surely not, in the hands of church dignitaries. Surely we can trust somebody in the churches to see that everybody gets a fair, full and free vote. Why oppose it? What have we to fear from it? The object of everybody should be to get as large and influential a vote as possible on these questions. Do not try to hamper it; do not try to limit it. Get the inclusive idea into your head, not the exclusive idea. See that everybody who has a vote is given every facility to register that vote, and that no obstacle is placed in his way.


Mr. STEVENS:: I am not going to differ
from the excellent opinions expressed by my hon. friend, but so far as I can judge, this amendment, which is vital in its character, means something more than merely providing for a vote by ballot.


William Duff: I am not a lawyer, and of
course I do not know as to that. This was cne of the amendments submitted in the committee, and it is quite possible that it may go a little further than it should. But :f the amendment does go further; if it interferes with anything else, I am quite willing to have that additional thing struck out. All I want is that the vote be taken by ballot instead of at a congregational meeting. I am not trying to put anything over on the committee at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not suggesting that.
But the amendment does appear to me to go much further than simply to provide that the vote shall be by ballot. First the amendment says:
In accordance with regulations set out in schedule D of this act,-


William Duff: The schedule was attached to the amendment. If my hon. friend will permit me, I would like to read that schedule, because it would be part of the amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: A schedule cannot be
put into this part of the bill.


William Duff: It can be put in somewhere.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the committee
is very much confused. There is no such schedule in the bill. Schedule "C" is the last section we have in the bill as it is now before the committee.


William Duff: I might explain that I attached it when I sent it up, but it was sent back to me. I wanted to read it and explain that this vote is not -going to be a loose vote as the Minister of Agriculture said it was going to be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I am coming to is
this:	In considering this amendment, with
the proposed schedule attached thereto, we are considering a vital amendment to the bill. Whether it is good or bad, I am not going to express an opinion for the moment, but we are considering what is undoubtedly a vital amendment to the bill, and I -think we ought to be very careful-not with the idea that the hon. member is attempting to put anything over at all-to see that we do not interject into the bill an amendment which will vitally affect what is the intention of the bill at the present time. Let me read the amendment:
That section 10 be amended as follows:
I pause &,t t'hiait point ito say that one would gather from tlhe reading that 'that meant a substitution, but when I go -a step further I gather that the intention is to add to the clause. Am I correclt in that?


William Duff: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the intention is
to add to subclause (a) of section 10 the following:
Provided always that if any congregation in connection or in communion with any of the negotiating churches shall upon a vote of such congregation to be taken by ballot in accordance with the regulations set out in schedule "D" of this act-
Which schedule, I understand now, is to be added.
-decide by a majority of the votes cast not to enter the United church, then and in such case the property real and personal belonging to or held in trust for or to the use of such congregation shall remain unaffected by this act and provided that any church formed by the non-concurring congregations shall stand in the place of the respective negatiating church in respect of any trust related to such property. Any

United Church of Canada

vote of such congregation taken in accordance with the provisions of any act of any province of Canada respecting the United church passed before the passing of this act shall be deemed a valid vote for the purpose of this section.
What I want to point out is that the nature of this amendment is so far-reaching that before I would even attempt to pass approval or disapproval I would like to know whether the counsel pro and con in this case have given iit consideration, and whether those who are promoting the bill and those vho are resisting it have been fully consulted ind are conversant with the nature of the amendment.


John Livingstone Brown: There was no clause discussed more fully in committee than this particular one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the amendment was
rejected by the committee?


John Livingstone Brown: And rejected by the committee.


William Duff: It was not rejected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to make my point clear. I am not in a position to offer any criticism of this amendment without a good deal of study, but I would hesitate to give immediate approval offhand to its inclusion in the bill.


Mr. BRETHEN:: As a member of the
committee in which this clause was discussed, I might say that the petitioners are not opposed to a ballot. The ballot might be taken at this meeting
4 p.m. or the people might declare their wish by open vote. But, as I understand it, in six of the provinces legislation has already been passed prescribing a certain method of voting, and the clause in the bill is in harmony with that method. To alter it, I think, would only cause confusion. I might add that it is a provincial matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend means
that the clause as it now stands is in harmony with the provincial law?


George Arthur Brethen: Yes, the clause as it
now stands.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps we could defer consideration of this clause and see if we could not get together on it. It seems to me most unreasonable to take away the right of ballot from these people. We have been extending the franchise in this House; it is a principle we have ourselves adopted. We allow certain classes to vote two or three days before election day. Perhaps my hon. friend 
from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) would be willing to compromise and let the congregations decide whether they wanted to vote in congregation meeting; have it optional; give them local autonomy. I suggest that we might let the clause stand and perhaps hon. members might get together upon it.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the suggestion a
very good one.


Robert Forke: Voting for elders by ballot
has been mentioned. The ballot has always got to be held at a church meeting, the ballots are never sent out.


Hugh Guthrie: At my church they are
out on the collection plate.


William Duff: My hon. friend from Brandon
is mistaken. The ballots are taken out by members of the congregation to people who do not come to church, and they send their ballots in by their friends, who put them on the collection plate.


Robert Forke: I happen to be an elder myself.


William Duff: I cannot help that. You do
not follow the rules of the church in your congregation.


Mr. LOVETT:: Does that hold good in
the other two churches, Methodist and Congregational?


William Duff: I do not know.


Mr. WOODS:: It appears to me that the
hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Brethen) has mentioned a point that is of very great importance, and that is that legislation has been passed in six provinces providing for a method of voting. If this amendment of the hon. member for Lunenburg were adopted, it might cause two votes to be taken in several congregations in these provinces where legislation has already been passed. To my mind, it is of vital importance that this clause stand as it is, on account of the conflict the amendment might bring about. In regard to voting by ballot, I see no reason why a congregational meeting could not be called for a full day.


William Duff: How would the people who
are sick in bed or out of town get to that meeting?


Robert John Woods: How do they get to a government election now?


William Duff: We are not talking about
that.

United, Church of Canada


Robert John Woods: They would be in exactly
the same position as if it were a Dominion or provincial election. Persons who wished to vote and were in a position to vote could vote if you had a congregational meeting for the full day. In view of the provincial legislation, I think it is absolutely essential that this clause should stand as it is.


Mr. HOEY:: Would the hon. member for
Lunenburg allow me a question? In view of the provincial legislation that has been passed, does not this relate wholly to property in the Territories?


William Duff: What do you mean by Territories?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I mean outside the provinces.


William Duff: Oh no. It is the congregational property.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: Great stress was laid
by counsel for the promoters on the provincial legislation that had already been passed, and that this clause was an exact reproduction of the clause that had gone into the provincial legislation, and that to have two methods of voting would cause confusion. There was a long discussion in the committee, and a vote was not challenged. Having decided in that way in regard to the voting, and particularly in view of the provincial legislation that has been passed, and as my hon. friend from East Peterborough has just stated as civil rights and property are concerned, it seems to me it would be wiser to adopt the clause as it stands.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the chairman of
the committee contend that because this clause was not particularly challenged in the way of a vote in the committee, we are estopped or debarred from asking this House to amend the clause?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: Not at all, but I say
the question was threshed out in the committee.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, but it was never
satisfactory to those who were objecting to it, at any point. I might point out that another matter was decided in the committee and decided by vote, and yet this House changed it.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I am not saying for
a moment that this House has not the right to amend the clause. I am simply as chairman supporting the action of the committee on this clause, as I did on the other clause. That does not mean that the House will follow my advice, as was seen last night.
238i


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: As one who did
not take part in the discussion yesterday or previously, and as one who has no serious objection to union, provided the rights and privileges of the minority are protected, and following the promise of many members who spoke last night that a fair deal would be given, I think the proposition by the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is only right and fair. At the time of the last vote I was in France and had not the privilege of voting, and when I returned home I found my church voted away from me. Furthermore, this would be about the only case in which the members of the Presbyterian church, especially the nonconcurring members would have the right to vote. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said that the last vote of 1915 was only a slip vote and nobody paid much attention to it. If we are desirous now of having the matter go through with some kind of harmony, I think it would be in the interests of those promoting the bill to see that a fair opportunity be given to people to express their views. I would like to call attention to the fact that the lay people of the Presbyterian church-and this vote will probably refer to them-had not as a body the privilege of voting. The voting element lies in the kirk session of the congregation to begin with-the ministers and the elders. Next it is in the presbytery-still the ministers and the elders; in the synod it is the minister and the elders, and in the General Assembly it is the ministers and1 the elders. By the Barrier Act the vote of the General Assembly is referred back to the presbytery. It is only referred back to the people who voted on it previously. I should like to see this matter settled with' unanimity and harmony, and I do not think that, as far as the Presbyterian church is concerned, anything except a ballot would be accepted by them. That is the commonest method we have in the church of voting at the present time. The tendency of the time is to extend the ballot to as many people as possible. The taking of a vote at a church meeting would, in my opinion, be a haphazard method, and if a mistake were made they could not rectify it. It is important at this time to have harmony, and if possible to repair a slip which is a very serious matter for the community at large. It is not so much a general thing as it is a congregational matter. I say that vote should be made as large as possible, and I know of no other way that will satisfy the congregation, who will likely be the non-concurring ones, as the ballot, and I would appeal to those who stated that they were willing to give the minority the best possible deal. I think a vote would go a

United Church of Canada
long way to satisfy many who are dissatisfied at the present time.


Robert Alexander Hoey: As far as congregational property and the disposal of that property are concerned, the question must be determined by provincial legislation. I may be stupid but I cannot see how this provision affects it at all.


Arthur Edward Ross: The ballot is the
system we are all contending for politically and in every other way, and it is the system in the Presbyterian church at the present time.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That must be determined by
provincial legislation.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I think another matter which is lost sight of is the provision in the first part of subsection (b) which says that only those persons who are in full membership and whose names are on the roll of the church at the time of the passing of the act can vote. There is no possibility of stuffing the ballot box under that section. The ballots will be checked up by the church roll. I do not see that any objection can be taken to the proposal. This does not interfere with provincial rights, because it is a provision that will govern the administration of the act when it comes into force.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I quite agree with the
hon. member, but the legislature of Nova Scotia passed a bill this year which was practically the same as this measure, but they provided that not only communicants but adherents should have the right to vote.


Mr. LEWIS:: Is the hon. gentleman speaking as a lawyer?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Or as a member of parliament?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am speaking as a member of this House who happens to belong to the legal profession. I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman's proposition to decide the dogmas of your respective churches, and I have felt during the whole course of this debate that hon. members were getting far away from the points . which should be discussed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is this section (b) the hon. member refers to?


Lewis Herbert Martell: No. I was coming to the
point when the hon. gentleman interrupted, that under the provisions of the Nova Scotia act adherents have the right to vote. Under this act as we are passing it only communicants have the right to vote.
[Mr. A. E. Ross.l


Arthur John Lewis: The section says that where-ever it has been passed by the provincial legislature a different form of voting takes place.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is the hon. gentleman
satisfied that the provincial legislature should provide the method of voting where the provincial legislature gave the adherents the vote?


John Livingstone Brown: It is not the method, it is
the qualification.


Mr. HAMMELL:: I desire to point out
to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) that this clause further down contains the following provision:
In any province whereby an act of the legislature respecting the United Church of Canada passed prior to the passing of this act, a different qualification for voting has been prescribed, the qualification for voting under this section shall be as provided in such act.
That clearly covers it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Probably it does.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are anticipating
section (b) in this matter, and the question of voting by ballot, and also the provision dealing with property rights, to be a proviso to attach to section 10 (a).


Lewis Herbert Martell: The qualification for
voting does not imply the provision of a method of taking the vote.


William Duff: All I wish to do is to provide
some method whereby every possible member in every individual church will be able to record his judgment whether he wants to go into the union or not. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that, perhaps, the amendment which I moved goes a little too far. We might be able to work this out better by leaving section 10 as it stands in the bill, and if you will be good enough to turn to it, I will move a short amendment to that section which, perhaps, will cover the ground if the committee will agree to it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member
withdraw his amendment?


William Duff: Let us just see whether we
can agree to this thing.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment will
have to be withdrawn and another one substituted for it, or the vote will have to take place on this amendment, because it has already been read to the committee and the question is on that amendment.


William Duff: My idea is to suggest a different amendment from the one I moved. If the committee will agree to what I suggest now, I will withdraw the first amendment.

United Church of Canada


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member can
withdraw the amendment and submit another. He cannot have two amendments.


William Duff: I will consent to withdraw
it.
Amendment (Mr. Duff) withdrawn.


William Duff: I move that in section
10 paragraph (a) at line 33 the words "or by ballot as under schedule (d)" be included after the word "thereat." I think I can prove to the committee that if they agree to my amendment and allow the vote to be taken by ballot, every precaution is provided under my proposed schedule (d), so that no "loose" votes, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) says, will be taken. The schedule gives explicit directions, and everybody will find, when the vote is taken by ballot, that it will be satisfactory and in the best interests of the people concerned. This is the proposed schedule (d):
Schedule "D"
Regulations for vote by Ballot provided for in section 9 (a):
1.	The ballot to be used in taking the vote provided for by section 10 (a) and following of the act shall be printed in black type on white paper of good quality at the diligence of the Clerk of Session or Recording Steward of the Quarterly Board, or should there be no such official in office then by the minister for the time being in charge of the congregation.
2.	The ballot shall be in the form following or to the same general effect:-
Presbyterian Church The (or as the ease may be)
Are you in favour of this ^es-
Congregation entering the

United Church of Canada? nq.
X.B.-Voter should mark an X opposite the answer which he or she wishes to give to the question submitted and sign this ballot in the presence of a witness and return to the Clerk of Session (or as the case may be) on or before the	day
of	, 19	, when the vote will be
closed.
Witness	 Signature	
3.	The said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister of any Congregation in which a vote is to be held shall personally deliver a copy of said ballot to each member of said Congregation entitled to vote, or shall mail a copy of such ballot to each such member, postage prepaid, and addressed to the last known post office address of such member at least two weeks before the day for the closing of said vote, and the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall keep an accurate list of the names of all persons to whom such ballots are delivered and of the names and addresses of all persons to whom such ballots are mailed, and shall verify the accuracy of said list by solemn declaration.
4.	The said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall likewise deliver or mail at the same time to each said voter an envelope addressed to himself in which the said ballot may be returned to
him and upon which the words "ballot paper" shall be printed for purposes of identification.
5.	Should any person entitled to vote not receive his ballot in due course he shall be entitled to personally require the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister to deliver him a ballot at any time before the close of said poll.
6.	Should any ballot of a voter or the envelope for the return thereof be lost, defaced or destroyed before having been deposited, the voter, on establishing said fact by affidavit or solemn declaration, shall be entitled to a new ballot or envelope at any time before the closing of said vote.
7.	The said ballots shall be signed by those entitled to vote in the presence of a witness, and shall thereupon be returned in the envelope aforesaid properly sealed to the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister either by personal delivery or by mail with postage prepaid.
8.	At 8 o'clock in the evening of the day mentioned on said ballot, which shall be not sooner than two weeks from the said date o*f mailing or delivery, the said vote by ballot shall be closed and the Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall thereupon cause to be summoned a meeting of said Session or Quarterly Board without delay for the purpose of verifying the result of said vote.
9.	To this meeting of Session or Quarterly Board when convened the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall produce all said envelopes containing the ballots received by him before the closing of the vote and shall verify the accuracy of this fact by solemn declaration.
10.	At said meeting of Session or Quarterly Board the said Session or Quarterly Board or a sub-committee thereof of not less than five members appointed for the purpose shall open the said envelopes and verify and count the said ballots, and shall determine and declare the result of said vote, and shall prepare a list containing the names of all voters who may have cast a vote upon said ballot and showing whether said voters have answered the questions submitted Yes or No.
11.	The result of said vote by ballot as so determined shall thereupon be certified by the Minister in charge and by the Clerk of Session or Recording Steward of the Quarterly Board (if any) of said Congregation, and any person who may have cast a ballot upon said vote shall be entitled to obtain upon request from said officers a copy of said certificate.
12.	On the two Sabbaths following the verification of the result of said vote by ballot as aforesaid the Minister presiding at all diets of worship then held shall announce from the Pulpit the result of said vote, and a copy of the certificate of the result of said vote as aforesaid shall be posted at or near the entrance to the church edifice, and a copy of said certificate shall be forthwith deposited with the Clerk of Presbytery or Secretary of the Conference having jurisdiction over such Congregation, and also to the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada or to the Secretary of the General Conference of the Methodist Church or to the Secretary of the Congregational Union and/or to the Secretary of the General Council of the United Church as the case may be.
13.	All ballots cast upon said vote shall be retained in the possession of the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister, as the case may be, for one month following the close of said vote, and the said ballots and/or the list of vote^ cast may be examined in the presence of said officers by any member who may have cast or been qualified to cast a ballot upon said vote.
14.	Failure or omission to strictly observe any of the detailed requirements of these regulations shall not entail the nullity of the vote in the congregation in
United, Church oj Canada

question, provided that the Superior or County Court of the Province having jurisdiction over such congregation shall decide, if appealed to within thirty days from the first public declaration of the result 3f said vote, that said vote has been taken substantially in accordance with these regulations and that ao such failure or omission has materially affected the result of such vote.
They will mark an "X" after the "yes" or 'no". There is a place for the witness to sign and a (place for the communicant to ?ign the ballot.
Section 3 does a,way with the objection raised by the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), because those ballots must be returned within a fixed time, and if they are not so returned they are not counted by the officials of the ahurch.
If this schedule were adopted, I think every precaution is taken so that a proper ballot will be recorded and everybody in the congregation will be given a. chance to vote either "yes" or "no" on this great question.


Mr. BAXTER:: The idea of allowing people to use the ballot who wish to do so appeals to me strongly; I think it is absolutely fair and I desire to support it. Has the hon. member for Lunenburg any provision-I did not catch from his remarks anything to indicate that he had, and I do not find any from the insertion of the words which he proposes- which will determine whether a vote of any particular congregation is to be taken at the meeting or by ballot? In other words, who is to determine the question as to which method shall be adopted in any particular congregation? If I caught rightly the proposed words which the hon. member wishes to have inserted, they are these:	"Or by ballot as
under Schedule D." If that is right then it leaves it that the congregation may decide by a majority of the votes of the persons present at such a meeting and entitled to vote thereat, "or by ballot as under Schedule D." Apparently there is an alternative form, but I cannot gather who is to settle the question whether the vote is to be taken by ballot or at the meeting. I do not see any objection to the ballot system; on the contrary, I see a great deal of merit in having that system made universal. The ballot seems to me the fairest because I think that all of the members who are in favour of union and who will have accomplished it by their vote would naturally feel very tender of the susceptibilities of the people who hold a different view. The whole thing is a very delicate and painful question, and the best way to approach it, in my opinion, is to give every one the utmost and the fairest opportunity to express his or
[Mr. Duff.)
her view upon the subject. That can be done better by ballot, I believe, than in any other way. I would with all deference suggest that the ballot alone should be used; but if there is to be an alternative form, then at least let us have some authority, designated in the bill, who shall prescribe whether the ballot or the meeting system is to prevail in any congregation.


William Duff: I think there is a provision in another section whereby the session or the quarterly board on the request of certain members of the congregation shall call a meeting, or decide whether to have the vote taken by ballot.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The hon. member proposes to move an amendment.


William Duff: The provision is covered now, I think; I am not positive but I believe it is.


Thomas George McBride: I am opposed to any
change in connection with the way the vote shall be taken. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Rev. W. MacLean of Newcastle, New Brunswick. There were certain people who had influence and who were good talkers, and they went through his congregation and secured 171 names in opposition to church union; they took an active part, mixed amongst the congregation, and obtained this result. When Rev. Mr. MacLean called on some of these same people, he states, he found that out of 39 whom he interviewed there were 34 who were in favour of church union when they heard the case presented to them as it should have been.


William Duff: That shows that both sides
canvassed.
Mr. .McBRIDE:	I can see a danger if
the vote is taken by ballot; some good-looking gentleman like my hon. friend from Lunenburg, with his pleasant manners, would have no difficulty in getting the ladies in the congregation to vote his way.


William Duff: I will do my best.


Thomas George McBride: I believe that the ballot
system would cause friction, and those people who could make the best canvhss would secure the most votes. In my opinion the proper way is to call a congregational meeting, and, if you like, have the ballot taken there. But have both sides present at the meeting to hear the subject discussed and then let them decide there and then. I am opposed to any amendment in this respect.


Mr. LOVIE:: I am very much in favour
of the ballot but my experience leads me to

United Church of Canada
believe that the best and the most practicable way of taking a ballot would be at a congregational meeting. I say this because last February the congregation to which I belong and the congregation associating with it in entering the union were asked to vote on the question. Six hundred ballots were distributed by mail among the members of these congregations and two weeks were allowed for their return. Out of these 600 ballots only 230 were sent back and quite a number of them were too late coming in. I do not think that there would be any greater vote by means of the ballot than at a congregational meeting, and certainly those who were interested in the matter would make a point oi attending the meeting. That, at any rate, has been my experience.


John Livingstone Brown: It hias already been indicated why we desire the vote to be taken a,t a congregational meeting. It is significant that when this matter was before the committee reference was frequently made to the fact that ait one meeting of the General Assembly it had been indicated that it might be desirable to have a wider method of taking the vote than would be afforded at a church meeting. That was emphasized strongly. But it was also pointed out that when the union committee came together they found that some of the experiences which they ha,d had showed that this loose method of taking the vote was most undesirable. With this before them, and many other facts that might be adduced, I understand, the Presbyterian General Assembly at Owen Sound a few weeks _ ago stood for the provision of taking the vote as it appears in the bill. I would rather not say these things, although evidently we must say them; but I can well understand how it might be passible for those who would like to secure a vote against the union or in favour of it to make misrepresentations in regard to the subject.


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. m,ember wish
to leave the inference that the members of the Presbyterian ichuroh would deliberately misrepresent the situation?


John Livingstone Brown: I did not mention the Presbyterian church.


James Alexander Robb: Or any other church?


John Livingstone Brown: I did not refer to any
church specifically. I came across an instance in which a person had been deliberately told -this was in the province of Quebec-that if this bill went into force the property of the church would be subject to State taxation. That was one of the things that had been
stated. In another case representation was made that the congregational property was going to be taken away entirely from the church. It is in view of some of these statements that the General Assembly at Owen Sound decided that it was not desirable that their former recornmeindation Aould be carried out and they therefore stood for the bill as it now appears.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I want to point out to
my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) that having looked through the remainder of the section I fear there is no such provision as the one he thinks there is. There is provision for calling a meeting but I do not think it goes further. Personally my attitude on this matter is one of indifference; if the giving of proxies to the meeting would serve the purpose I would be in favour of the proxy. I am in favour of the ballot or the proxy; I am in favour of anything that will give the people a fair, honest opportunity to express their views. I stood up last night in a state of grave doubt in some particulars and voted for the consummation of the union, believing that after all it would in the long run be far the better thing. But because I voted that way I am not prepared, and no one can carry me in a spirit of intolerance, to treat people who are not in sympathy with union as if they were vanquished and all their right of expression and of representation blotted out. That surely cannot be the attitude of any great Christian body. I do not propose to do that. I want to vote for some intelligent, well-safeguarded means of expression, and I do not think that because there may be in churches, as there are outside of them, some people who occasionally do unfair or dishonest acts we ought to brand an honest attempt to give people an opportunity of expression as a mere opportunity for someone to do something that is wrong. That cannot necessarily follow, it does not necessarily follow; if it did, the ballot system of this Dominion would be a veritable farce. Surely, in a Christian body assembled for a deliberate and great purpose such as this, we ought to expect the very minimum of trickery instead of the maximum. I think we may fairly assume that people will handle their ballots honestly, and that there is no intelligent member of the congregation today who does not know pretty well what the issue is in regard to this subject. The great principle of union has been achieved, and I think rightly achieved, by this committee. Surely, there ought to be absolute generosity and fairness in regard to the details.
United Church oj Canada


Mr. STORK:: Those who advocated this
bill before the Private Rills committee referred quite frequently to the vote taken in 1911 and 1915, and for myself I cannot see why the method which was then so successful should now be obnoxious to those who apparently thought the earlier votes by ballot quite satisfactory. It is quite likely that an expression of opinion might be taken on a stormy night, or on a holiday, or on some other occasion when perhaps only a small portion of the congregation could be present. Surely such an important matter as this should be decided by the democratic and up-to-date method of expression of opinion, namely, by ballot, and I am strongly in favour of this method.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would point out to the committee again the rather complex nature of this change as it affects the succeeding sections describing the method of calling the meetings, and so forth, which do not harmonize with the form contained in the amendment. I would suggest that section 10 might stand over until such time as those intimately acquainted with al'l the clauses of the bill could harmonize their views. I have very grave doubts about the wisdom of amending this clause as proposed, in view of the references made to the provincial acts. This is not only a question applying to the taking in of a given congregation, but it also applies to the disposition of its property.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This only applies to the
vote to enter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest that the committee be given an opportunity to study the clause as a whole so that we may deal with it after mature and careful consideration.


Mr. GOOD:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
amount of discussion which has arisen over the point would indicate the propriety of letting the section stand until we are better seized of its significance.


George Newcombe Gordon: If there is no objection, this clause will stand and the other clauses will be proceeded with.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
would suggest that the amendment be typewritten and distributed. I am sure half of this committee do not know what the suggestions mean.


William Duff: I read it clearly enough for
everybody to hear.
[Mr. Baxter.l


George Newcombe Gordon: I think it should be
typewritten and distributed to every member of the committee.


Arthur John Lewis: Could it not be circulated for eight o'clock to-night?


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 10 stands in
the meantime, with all the subsections.
On section 11 (a)-Commission to determine equities of non-concurring congregations.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move
an amendment to this clause. It is intended to protect the rights of minority non-unionists who have been voted out of their church by the bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does that mean as to
division of property among congregations?


William Duff: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: I shall have to rule
that such an amendment comes within the meaning of rule 112.


William Duff: This is the amendment I propose, Mr. Chairman:
That section 11 (a) be amended to read as follows:
" Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, non-concurring congregations and non-concurring members shall be entitled to a fair and equitable share, to be determined by the commission hereinafter mentioned, of the property, real and personal, rights, powers, authorities and privileges of or in connection with the respective parent church or churches, that is to say, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Methodist church or the Congregational church, as the case may be, vested in the United church by this act, or of or in connection with any congregation of any of the said churches, or to compensation to be determined in like manner in lieu of such share."
In view of the fact that this federal law ' proposes to set up a commission of nine persons to deal with property, it seems to me that my amendment should be in order.
If it passes, the commission, wherever it is deemed practical to divide the property, could give to the minority any fair share to which they might be entitled.


George Newcombe Gordon: Under ride 112 no
important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in committee of the Whole unless one day's notice has been given. This amendment is so material and so vital to the principle of this bill that in my view it comes within the rule.


William Duff: Will you allow the clause to
stand to enable me to give the required notice?


George Newcombe Gordon: Everything will have
to stand, apparently.


William Duff: No.

United. Church of Canada


George Newcombe Gordon: I think this amendment requires notice of motion under rule 112. There is no notice before the committee.


John Livingstone Brown: In regard to the division
of congregational property, I do not suppose any phase of church union has been more widely discussed in the provincial legislatures and committees which have dealt with it. We may just as well recognize that so far as congregational property is concerned it is impossible to consider any smaller unit than the congregation.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have ruled that
amendment out of order. The question is on subsection 11 (a).


John Livingstone Brown: Carried.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have an amendment along somewhat similar lines but not touching the matter of local church congregational property. It seems to me that in the case of minorities who wish to form a congregation there should be some recognition of their rights in the general church property. My resolution would be as follows:
That paragraph (a) of section 11 be amended by adding thereto after the word, "congregations'' in the second line thereof the following words:
"and any minority number of members of any non-ooncurring or other congregation as determined by the result of the vote taken under section 10 hereof, who constitute themselves a congregation."
That paragraph Ob) of section 11 be amended by adding thereto after the word, "congregations" in the second line thereof the following words:
"and of any such congregation so constituted of a minority."
That paragraph (d) of section 11 be amended by adding thereto after the word "congregations" in the second and third lines thereof the following words: "and of any such congregation so constituted of a minority."


George Newcombe Gordon: My present view is
that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg is out of order, because it is an important and vital amendment to this bill requiring notice. If any hon. member desires to speak to the point he may do so.


William Duff: What about allowing the
clause to stand until we get a chance to go into this?


George Newcombe Gordon: That may be done if
il is the unanimous wish of the committee that the clause shall stand. Is that the committee's wish?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not need to be
unanimous.	*


George Newcombe Gordon: What rule is there
that a clause can stand if that is not the unanimous wish of the committee?


Hugh Guthrie: The committee always
has control over its own actions. If the committee desire that the clause shall stand, it is not necessary that there be unanimity.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is a new rule to
me. I thought we had to continue the clauses of the bill right through.


Hugh Guthrie: The committee has control of the matter.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is no motion
before the committee to change the order. The present question is on 11 (a).


William Duff: I move that 11 (a) stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved by Mr. Duff that paragraph 11 (a) stand for further consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: An amendment of some
consequence has been moved and notice has not been given. I think the Chairman's ruling is right on that point. But we are all anxious to reach a reasonable settlement and to produce a good bill, and if possible we should avoid having any reasonable proposals ruled out on some technical grounds. It would be far better in the interests of everybody, if we are going to get this bill through, to let the matter stand in order that the motion may be presented regularly after notice, and in the meantime let the notice be given. This bill is not going to be jammed through; it is going to be fully considered.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member move that the whole section stand, or simply subsection (a)?


William Duff: Just as you like; 11 (a) will suit me.


George Newcombe Gordon: The motion is that
section 11, subsection (a) stand for further consideration by the committee.


William Charles Good: In view of the amendment-


George Newcombe Gordon: This is not a debatable motion, any more than is a motion to adjourn.


William Charles Good: I am not debating it; I am
simply calling attention to the fact that the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) has moved an amendment referring to other subsections. It would seem to be better to have the whole section stand rather than the part.
United Church of Canada


George Newcombe Gordon: I have ruled that the
amendment of Mr. Woodsworth, being a vital and important amendment to the bill, and having been given without notice is out of order.
Those in favour of the motion that subsection (a.) of section 11 stand for further consideration by the committee will please stand.
Amendment (Mr. Duff) negatived:	Yeas,
29; Nays, 42.


George Newcombe Gordon: I declare the motion
lost. The question is now upon section 11, subsection (a).


Hugh Guthrie: This is an important
clause, and it will require some discussion. Some of us who were not on the committee which dealt with this measure have not had that opportunity to consider some of the involved clauses -that members of the committee have. This, I fancy, is one of them. I note the following opposite the section on the blank page of the bill:
The establishment of a commission is suggested in the report of counsel for the Presbyterian Church in Canada. A commission with wide powers was established by The Churches (Scotland) Act, Imp. Statutes, 1905, c. 12.
The section seeks to make provision for a commission to determine the equities of the non-concurring congregations. It certainly will deal with the property belonging to the various congregations of the church and also with the funds of the church,hdld not by individual congregations but in the name of the church itself. The amendment which has been ruled out of order, and which I am referring to only by way of argument, provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, non-concurring congregations and non-concurring members shall be entitled to a fair and equitable share, to be determined by the commission hereinafter mentioned, of the property, real and personal, rights, powers, authorities and privileges of or in connection with the respective parent church or churches, that is to say, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Methodist church or the Congregational churches, as the case may be, vested in the United church by this act, or of or in connection with any congregation of any of the said churches, or to compensation to be determined in like manner in lieu of such share.
I tlhink the provision of the proposal now ruled out of order is rather better than 11 (a) in the bill, the lauguage of which is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, such non-concurring congregations or any one or more of them as may be determined, shall be entitled to whatever the commission hereinafter mentioned shall determine to be a fair and equitable share of the property, real and personal, rights, powers, authorities and privi-
leges of or in connection with the respective parent church or churches, that is to say, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Methodist church or the Congregational churches, as the case may be, vested in the United church by this act.
The commission under the clause has practically unlimited power to deal as it sees fit with the whole property, real and personal, and with all the rights, powers, authorities and privileges of the church. These are very, very wide powers to give a commission. The appointment of the commission is dealt with in the next section, which, speaking from memory, provides that a commission of nine shall be appointed, three by those cf the united church, three by those opposed to it, and the remaining three by the six so appointed. I think that the powers given to the commission in regard to the distribution of the property are rather too ample. In my opinion there are churches which have something in the nature of vested rights almost more sacred than the ordinary rights of property-cases where churches hold property by reason of bequests, or under trusts drawn in the strictest language and for the most specific purposes. My opinion is that under this clause the commission would be empowered to deal with trust property, to set aside trusts, nullify the last wishes of testators, and the like. I doubt very much if any commission should be given powers as broad as that. If there are churches, and I believe there are,-in fact I know there are- where property is held to-day under special trust for special congregations, I do not think these trusts should be disturbed by any commission.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the hon. member speaking now of trusts for special congregations?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, for specific purposes.


John Livingstone Brown: This commission does not
touch them.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I do not think the clause is well drafted, or if it is well drafted I have misunderstood it. It says:
Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, such non-concurring congregations or any one or more of them as may be determined, shall be entitled to whatever the commission hereinafter mentioned shall determine to be a fair and equitable share of the property, real and personal, rights, powers, authorities and privileges of or in connection with the respective parent church or churches, that is to say, the Presbyterian church in Canada, the Methodist or the Congregational churches, as the case may be, vested in the United church by this act.
If it is intended that this section shall not apply to special trusts or gifts of property to individual churches, I think that should be made clear. I have in mind notw the case of

United Church oj Canada
a trust in. favour of a particular church., where the money is at all times to be employed for the maintenance of a Presbyterian burying ground. The amount of the trust is fairly large. The man who settled the fund is many years dead, and the trust has always been, held by that particular church and to that particular use. I do not think any commission should be permitted
5 p^m. to disturb a trust of that kind.
If it is intended that this clause shall refer only to the general property held in the name of the corporate body, as it were, then perhaps my remarks would not be applicable. But as I read it, it would apply to all property held by any individual church, and the commission would have power under the language of this section to say that the trust shall fall into the general fund, and shall be devoted to this cause or the oth-rr, to this use or that, just as it sees fit, and there would be no relief for any person. Last wills could be set aside and trusts of the most solemn and definite kind could be broken. I would suggest that words of limitation of some kind be inserted in this section so that the individual property of individual churches cannot be interfered with by the commission which will be appointed under this clause. I am only at the present time discussing the provisions of subsection (a). Perhaps as we proceed to the rest of the section I may find something that may change my view, as I see theire are a great many sulbclauses to this section; but I would like some clear statement by the promoter of the bill or someone interested in it that subsection (a) does not give the commission power to set aside or otherwise dispose of property held by individual churches in trust for specific purposes.


Arthur John Lewis: Probably if the hon. member had taken the trouble to read section 8 he would have found his question answered. I do not .think the section under discussion has anything to do with the individual property of a congregation. It has reference to the real and personal property of the church, trust funds, and so on.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think section 8 applies at all to the property of individual churches, but to property thajt is received after the coming into force of this act. Section 8 says:
Any real or personal property belonging to or held by or in trust for or to the use of any congregation, whether a congregation of the negotiating churches or a congregation received into the United church after the coming into force of this act solely for its own benefit, and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary
or otherwise, shall not be subject to the provisions of sections four and five hereof or to the control of the United church, unless and until any such congregation at a meeting thereof regularly called for the purpose shall consent that such provisions shall apply to any such property or a specified part thereof.
If the words which I have suggested as being appropriately added to section'll were put in there, it would serve my purpose.


Arthur John Lewis: I understand that the lawyers representing both sides were agreed that section 8 covered the point my hon. friend mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: That is, that no commission in dealing with the property under section 11 shall have any power to deal with private trusts or the private property of any individual congregation?


William James Hammell: Unless a meeting is
called for that purpose and the congregation so decide,


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the congregation has any power to deal with sudh gifts. If they accept a trust they cannot change it. I do not think the congregation or the commission has any power to change it. I want to make it clear that the commission has no power to change it. Unless someone states authoritatively that that is the meaning of section 8, I think words should be added to provide that the commission shall nlot have power to change these trusts.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member, as a good lawyer, will gain some light on the matter if he reads section 5 and 6. Any property that is vested in any individual congregation is absolutely within the control of that congregation, and the commission has no power to take it away from them.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any objection to making that clear under section 11? I stated a concrete case. Take the case of a trust settlement many years ago in favour of the Presbyterian church, where the money is held expressly for the purpose of maintaining a Presbyterian burying ground. Would the commission under section 11 have any power to deal with that trust or the trust estate in any way? If that is made clear, I think that is all I desire to know.


William James Hammell: It was made perfectly
clear by the legal gentlemen.


Arthur John Lewis: It seems to me that any
commission that is to be appointed will naturally be guided by the sections in this act dealing with property, trusts, and so on.
Subsection (a) agreed to.
United Church oj Canada

On subsection 11 (b)-Appointment of commission.


James Dew Chaplin: You have not read this
section and I would like to understand it. The section reads:
(b) All the equities (if any) of the non-concurring congregations, or any of them, under this section, shall be determined exclusively by a commission to consist of nine members, of whom three shall be appointed by the non-concurring congregations at a conference of representatives thereof, three by the United church from its members, and the remaining three by the six members so appointed. The names of such persons shall be submitted to the Chief Justice of Canada, and if he is satisfied after making such inquiry as he deems proper or desirable that they fairly represent the parties so appointing them, their names shall be approved by him in writing and they shall thereupon be deemed for all purposes to be duly appointed. In case the said six members are unable to agree, or in case of failure or refusal on the part of the non-concurring congregations or of the United church to appoint the required number of members as aforesaid within twelve months after the coming into force of this act, the Chief Justice of Canada, upon the application of any interested party, shall appoint sufficient members to complete the commission of nine members,-


Arthur John Lewis: What is the object of reading all this? Hon. members have the bill before them, and we are all able to read.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Chaplin) has the right to read the clause if he desires.


Arthur John Lewis: If the hon. member has any amendment to propose, let him propose it.


James Dew Chaplin: I am well within my rights in reading the section. Many hon. members here have not had the pleasure of hearing the clauses read in committee, and I do not see that anything will be saved by interrupt-[DOT]ing. I think in view of the interruption I had better go back and read it all over again.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go to it.


James Dew Chaplin: The sub-section continues :
-and any appointment so made by him or to fill any vacancy among the members of the commission, or any order of the chief justice on the application of any interested party confirming the appointment of the commission, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to review by any court. If a vacancy occurs in the commission by reason of death, resignation, incapacity or otherwise, it s/hall be filled by a member to be appointed as in the case of the original appointment of the member whose office is so vacated, and in case of inability to agree or of failure or refusal to appoint as aforesaid, as the case may be, the Chief Justice of Canada may appoint a member to fill the vacancy and so from time to time as occasion requires.
It was suggested in the committee that instructions should be given in respect of the appointment of the chief justice, and that the three members who were to be ap-
pointed by him should be outside of any of the churches interested. Certain people of the committee did not seem to want that change made. It seems to me that suggestion should be considered by the House. Inasmuch as three of the members out of the six original members are from each of the churches, it seems to me that if you want to get a fair expression of opinion amongst the nine members, you should balance the commission, with people outside of any of the churches in question. Surely it would not be a hardship to ask that the chief justice appoint people who are not in any way connected with the churches in question.


Arthur John Lewis: It seems to me that this
would be just a little reflection upon the members who might be appointed if they happened to be from any of our congregations. I think that if the men who are appointed and who are agreed to by both sides of the commission, free from negotiating churches and free from those opposed to the union, could agree on three men irrespective of the denomination to which they belong, surely they would act in a fair capacity, and I see no reason why that section should not go through.
Subsection (b) agreed to.
On section 11 (c)-Conference of non-concurring congregations.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move that m subsection (c), line 21, the word "The-' be inserted before the word "conference."
Amendment agreed to
Section a? amended agreed to.
On section 13-Colleges.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move that in the first line of this section the word "four" be stricken out and the word " five " substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-Religious teaching in colleges.
Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I move that in line
8 on page 14 the word " twenty " be stricken out and the word " twenty-one " substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 28-Declarations.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, in
accordance with notice of motion given on the 23rd June:

United Church oj Canada
(d) That inasmuch as questions have arisen and may arise as to the powers of the parliament of Canada under the British North America Act to give legislative effect to the provisions of this act, it is hereby declared that it is intended by this act to sanction the provisions therein contained in so far and in so far only as it is competent to the parliament so to do.


William Findlay Maclean: What does that
mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
declaratory statement. It simply makes perfectly clear that so far as this parliament is legislating in the matter, it is not interfering with the jurisdiction of the provinces as respects property and civil rights.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the Prime' Minister
not really think that whether this is inserted or not, the fact is clear that parliament could not legislate to interfere with the rights of the provinces or to do anything contrary to its powers? I dio not, however, see that there is any objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I admit that
the powers of parliament are not extended or limited by this declaration; but the sections immediately preceding are declaratory sections, and I think it would be well to supplement them with this one.


William Findlay Maclean: No parliament
can legislate outside of its responsibilities, whatever they are.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Arthur John Lewis: Will section 10 come up immediately after recess?


George Newcombe Gordon: We have not taken
the schedules yet. We shall have to come back to section 10 and the committee decide on that.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.
Progress reported.



LATE DR. ALPHEUS TODD LIBRARY COMMITTEE PROPOSE ERECTION OF A MEMORIAL TABLET

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received the following report from the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament:
The Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament met on June 25, and report as follows:
The Joint Librarians explained to the committee the economies which had been effected in regard to the re-arrangement of the periodicals and the work of the bindery. The work of card-indexing the large collection of pamphlets was being proceeded with.
The following resolution was unanimously passed by the committee:
" That it is desirable and fitting that a memorial tablet should be erected in the library to the late Dr. Alpheus Todd, LL.D., C.M.G., former Librarian of parliament, in recognition of the valuable contributions made by him to the study of constitutional government, particularly in the publication of his two works, Parliamentary Government in England and Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies."



RESIGNATION OF MR. PORTER WARRANT ISSUED FOR WRIT OF ELECTION

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the resignation of Mr. E. G. Porter, member for the electoral district of West Hastings. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a writ of election for the said electoral district.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 145, respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 199, to incorpate Shantung Christian University.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Florence Castle.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Frances Hadenka.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Louise Powell. -Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Margaret Johnston.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 204. for the relief of Hilda Girdler. -Mr. Harris
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Janet Ferguson.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Charles Whittaker.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 207 for the relief of Arthur Robert Ascough.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 208. for the relief of Albert Joseph Phillips.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Patience Oldfield.-Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. Copp (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of Bill No. 118 to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Bills of Exchange Act
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, Chapter 119, by providing a tariff of fees to be charged by notaries for their services in all the provinces for presenting and noting for non-acceptance or non-payment any bill of exchange or promissory note, for protesting the 6ame, keeping the same on record, furnishing copies and sending notices, and other matters incidental thereto.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the minister explain?


Ernest Lapointe: Section 124 of the Bills of Exchange Act provides that notaries in each province may charge the fees heretofore allowed them. In the eastern provinces those fees were fixed before confederation. In the West the fees have been regulated by usage. The result is that there is lack of uniformity in the fees charged by notaries for protesting bills of exchange, the scale being different in each province. For instance, in Ontario the fee for protest is 50 cents, for each notice 25 cents; Quebec, $1 and 50 cents; Nova Scotia, 50 cents and 25 cents; New Brunswick, $3. covering protest and all notices; Prince Edward Island, 50 cents and 25 cents, and for outside bills a lump charge of $2.50; Manitoba, $1 and 50, cents; Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, $2 and 50 cents; British Columbia, a lump charge of $2.50. The amendment proposed is for the purpose of having a uniform tariff for all the provinces, and jthe basis which has been adopted is that prevailing in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, namely, $2 for protest and 50 cents for each notice. This amendment has been requested by the bar of Ontario and by the Chamber of Notaries of the province of Quebec. The bill has been submitted to the governing body of these professions and has been accepted by them.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am in entire concurrence with the idea of uniformity. I wonder however if it is such an integral part of the law relating to bills of exchange that it is within the constitutional power of this parliament. A notary is of course a provincial officer; he receives his commission from the province and his duties may be defined by the province. I think a provincial officer has a right to fix the fees. I wish I felt otherwise, because I think the proposition is a beneficial one. Has the minister given consideration to the constitutional standpoint?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. I know in the
province of my hon. friend a statute has been passed fixing the fees.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That was done some years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; and Maclaren on
Bills, Notes and Cheques says regarding the New Brunswick statute:
As the parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over bills of exchange and promissory notes, the constitutionality of this provincial act is open to question. It is said that the charge still usually made in this province is that in force before the act in question.
So I really think there is no doubt that this parliament has full jurisdiction in every matter relating to bills of exchange.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to protest,
because in one sense I agree with this legislation. I think there is quite a distinction that we undoubtedly can make, and that is that a protest shall occur in a certain event, and the fixing of remuneration for a provincial officer performing a service by virtue of his provincial commission. I am not making an objection, but let us hope that the differences are not so great that any one will be compelled to raise the question before the courts.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me the
minister should take into consideration that the business people of the country are being taxed pretty well now and the fees are large enough at the present time.


Mr. LEADER:: I should like to endorse
that statement. Has the minister had any application from Manitoba to increase the fees in that province? I understand the fee is only about half the amount fixed in the bill. Is the minister going to increase the fees in Manitoba?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not heard from
Manitoba, but the fees which will be adopted are those prevailing in Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Harry Leader: But not in Manitoba.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Mr. COOTE:: I have no objection to the
resolution, but I warn the minister that when we go into committee I shall object to the scale of fees he proposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: The Bar association
appears to have petitions for a uniform schedule, and the schedule provided in the resolution appears to be the highest in force anywhere. I must say I do not believe I would have yielded to that if I had been the minister. It seems to me the lawyers have never needed any help to raise their fees.

Inland Water Freight Rates


Ernest Lapointe: In this instance they
cannot do it without this legislation.


Arthur Meighen: If a Manitoba notary is
charging one dollar for a protest, does the minister say he cannot charge two dollars, unless we pass this legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: No. In Manitoba the
fees are regulated by usage only. In Quebec and Ontario they come under a subsection of section 124; they must charge the fees which were heretofore allowed them. These fees existed before confederation. The fee of fifty cents for a protest, which is charged in Ontario, is not a proper fee when compared with two dollars which is charged in my right hon. friend's province.


James Dew Chaplin: This is not a case of
reduction of tariff.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


James Dew Chaplin: It is a case of jacking the fees up pretty well.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the minister
not make it one dollar?


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister think it
is right to raise the fee in Manitoba by law? -to double the amount which is now charged simply as a matter of usage? Is that not what he proposes to do?


Ernest Lapointe: I really believe it is a
good thing to have a uniform fee for notarial protests on bills of exchange in all Canada.


George Gibson Coote: As I understand the minister, the rate now in force in Canada varies from fifty cents up to two dollars. I have no objection to the minister making the rate uniform, but I object to placing the rate at the highest figure which now obtains in Canada. I think the fee of two dollars which is charged in Alberta is unreasonable, considering the amount of work connected with a protest. The notary simply takes a printed form, which probably costs one cent, inserts a few figures and words in it, puts his seal on it, hands it out and charges two dollars. I think the service is not rendered commensurate with the fee, and I would suggest to the minister that before the bill is brought down he should give careful thought to the matter of fees charged, and place them at not more than one dollar.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is making sure I will not prolong the session on
account of this bill. I have had requests from the Bar of Ontario, from the Chamber of Notaries of Quebec and others for this legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the bill fix two dollars and fifty cents?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or is that the maximum?


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is the fee fixed. In all the provinces the notaries may charge a fee for their services in accordance with the tariff provided, I am almost sure they will charge that fee.


Mr. LUCAS:: I understand in Ontario the
fee is fifty cents.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: Does the minister not think Ontario would be well satisfied with an Increase of a hundred' per cent? Then the minister could bring the other provinces down to the level.


George Gibson Coote: Say one dollar.


Mr.   IIOEY@: One dollar, and we will make
it unanimous.


Ernest Lapointe: I would suggest that
the resolution be carried and the bill be introduced, and when it comes back to committee the objection might be raised then. Perhaps it will not be objected to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 212, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INLAND WATER FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Inland Water Freight Rates Act, 1923, and to provide,-
1.	That it be enacted in lieu of the provisions of section three thereof as to filing with the Board of Grain Commissioners of a tariff of rates to be charged, that every shipper (including a corporation) shall immediately after entering into any charter party, bill of lading or contract for the carriage of grain from Fort William or Port Arthur to any other port or place in Canada or the United States by lake or river navigation, and before the grain shall have been laden in pursuance thereof, file with the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada a true copy of the said charter party, bill of lading or contract for carriage.
2.	That the provisions as to posting up statements in detail of cargo space, time of shipment and destination, as prescribed by section six, be repealed, and that the penalty clauses of the said act be amended.
Inland Water Freight Rates
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Thomas Andrew Low: When this act was passed
last session, it was passed with one object in mind, and that was to secure information regarding tariff rates and charges between Fort William and Bay, and American ports. As frequently follows in implementing new legislation we found some difficulty during the fall, and that was when the question arose as to whether the American vessel owners would comply with the provisions of the act. They hesitated for some time, but ultimately came in. The object of the amendment is to enable us to secure the information from the source from which it is possibly most easily secured, that is from the shippers, who will be compelled under this amendment to file with the Canada Grain Board a copy of their tariffs-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Shippers have
not a tariff.


Thomas Andrew Low: They have a copy of the
contract made with the ship owners.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a charter party; that is not a tariff.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is a tariff so far as they
are concerned. The information would be obtained perhaps a little more easily in that way than through the American ship owners.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend quite sure that he is giving the real object for passing the legislation last year? The object, we were told, as I recollect it, was that we were going to regulate these rates on the lakes, not merely get information regarding them.


Thomas Andrew Low: The object last year was to
secure, so that the public would be able to secure it, the information. It proved perhaps a little difficult to secure it through the American vessel owners, and we are therefore amending the act that we may secure it from the source from which it is perhaps most easily secured, and that is from the shipper. When the bill comes down the object of the amendment will be fully explained to the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we had better call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion was made
by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) that the House go into committee to consider the resolution in reference to Inland Water Freight Rates. I understood the hon. member for West York (S5r Henry Drayton) desired to speak to the question, but he is not present.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Arthur Meighen: I am not quite clear as to why there should be any amendment to the bill to accomplish the purpose. Has the bill not been interpreted to mean this already?


Thomas Andrew Low: It has been so interpreted by
the chairman of the Canada Grain Board, but some legal gentlemen have raised a question, on the interpretation and we thought it well to have the matter settled.


Arthur Meighen: What legal gentlemen?


Thomas Andrew Low: Legal gentlemen connected with the Grain Exchange in Winnipeg. The idea is simply, as I stated earlier in the day, to provide a means to obtain necessary information, as I stated, also the American vessel owners hesitated for some time about coming in this autumn but ultimately came in. The object of the proposed amendment is to provide that the shipper will be compelled to file a copy of the contract or charter. The words are very simple. The vessel-owner will not be called upon to file a tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand the minister to say that the American vessel owner on the Great Lakes will not be compelled to file his tariff?


Thomas Andrew Low: He will not be compelled to file his tariff, nor will any other vessel owner; but the shipper will be compelled to file the
contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is really an abandonment of the idea in last year's legislation to fix and control rates.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, so far as the vessel owners are concerned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is an abandonment of the idea of controlling rates on the Great Lakes?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, not at all. The main
object last year was to secure information in regard to the rates which they were charging and the space they were selling.

Inland Water Freight Rates


Arthur Meighen: The minister said that
was the main object. What good was that information going to be? How would it be used? Information is not a thing in itself; it is a means to an end. What was the information for?


Thomas Andrew Low: In order that the public might
know the rates that were being charged, and that the Canada Grain Board might have this information.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's answer to the question is that the information was wanted so that the public might have it and the Canada Grain Board might also have it.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What good was it to be
either to the public or the Canada Grain Board?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think anybody will
deny that it will be some benefit to the people of the country, particularly the grain growers, to know the rates that are being charged and the space that is being let from time to time.


Arthur Meighen: This information is of no use to them unless it serves some purpose. What is to be done with it?


Thomas Andrew Low: Information as to the price actually paid for some commodity sold throughout the country is of decided advantage. As regards the grain trade to-day, information concerning the iprice of wheat can be received by telegraphic communication.


Arthur Meighen: I am free to admit that
the people ought to know what is being paid, but they want to know it for a purpose. What good does it do to the western farmer to know that he is paying, say six cents a bushel for "wheat shipped on the lakes unless he can make some use of the information?


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my right hon. friend
attempt to argue for one moment that it is of no interest to the farmers of tlhe West to know the rate or the price of "wheat that prevails from day to day?


Arthur Meighen: I never argued that.
It is of great interest to them to know that, but I would not think it would be worth while putting a statute through just so that they should have that information. I do not think the fanners have had very much difficulty in obtaining 'that information all along. The farmers know that they are being charged this rate, and I 'have never heard the farmers complain of lack of information. What they are complaining about is that they are being 239
charged this rate. They thought the act of last session was for the purpose of enabling a government body to reduce the rate. Of course the minister contended that the old act was to regulate the rates, but he says now that it is just for the purpose of getting the information as to the rates. It is quite evident that he had abandoned all idea, if it ever did exist, of regulating the rates, because I do noit know how he could regulate rates with the interpretation of last October and with this new act which makes the interpretation law.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my right hon. friend
not know that the Canada Grain Board can say to the shipper that the rate is too high? If the rate reaches a point which they consider too high, they can intervene and fix the rate.


Arthur Meighen: I admit that the board
can say to the shipper that the rate is too high. This reminds me of the Shakespearian phrase:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
When they do say that the rate is too high, does that make it any lower?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Where does that quotation come from in Shakespeare? Can he quote it all?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot compete with
the hon. member on some things, but I am inclined to think that on that subject I can.
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Why, eo can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
Where does the hon. member think it is
from?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Owen Glendower.


Arthur Meighen: I fear he is wrong. I
si ould like him to look it up. Now, if we will come from Shakespeare to the bill-


William Duff: Shakespeare's name was Bill.


Arthur Meighen: So is that of the hon.
member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). How is the board going to fix the rate after the rate is fixed? What I mean is this:	When
the charter party is made, everything is completed, and the board is told that it is completed at a certain rate. What can the board do then?


Thomas Andrew Low: Should the rate have reached
a point which the board thinks too high, it can step in and fix the rate. Is there anything in this legislation that the right hon. member would like me to drop? If there is, I would be glad to hear it. I do not think



Inland Water Freight Rates
the right hon. gentleman opposed the old act of last year very strongly. Does he take objection to anything that I did in connection with that act last fall? One thing, at least, was accomplished, and that is that the rates of last year were lower than the rates of 1922. The act had at least that effect upon the rates. I should like to quote a few words from the Free Press of Winnipeg, of January 10, 1924. Speaking of the investigation that had taken place, this paper says:
As a result of the investigation the Dominion parliament passed the Inland Water Freight Rates Act of 1923 which requires vessel owners to file tariffs of the rates charged for the shipment of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur and gives the Board of Grain Commissioners power to fix maximum rates. This legislation, faithfully prepared, has been found in some details defective. But its effects on the whole have been beneficial, and in spite of a temporary difficulty owing to American vessel owners objecting to file their rates, a much larger tonnage of grain was moved on the lakes in the fall of 1923 than in the previous year, and at a substantially lower rate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would just
refer the minister to the Free Press on the cne hand to himself on the other and what he said only a few weeks ago on this very question of rates, when he admitted that there was a very substantial increase in rates in September, when he again admitted that there was a substantial increase in rates in October. There is no doubt about the truth of this thing.


Thomas Andrew Low: You cannot pick out one
thing. The average is the only thing that counts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Supposing we
ge't down to facts. What I said and what he agreed to was that ordinarily the rates from Fort William to Buffalo and from Duluth to Buffalo were the same.
The minister agrees. I showed that owing to this hastily rushed through and improvident legislation, American boats would not participate in that business. That was not business of a kind that was at all affected by coastal business one way or the other. It was a movement from a Canadian port to an American port, and American boats alwaj^s took part in that movement. They stopped for the simple reason that they would not submit themselves to Canadian jurisdiction as was contemplated by the legislation. While under ordinary conditions the rates were always exactly the same, in September last the Duluth-Buffalo rate ranged from 2 1-2 cents to 2 3-4 cents; and) on September 20 the Fort William-Buffalo rate had reached 5 cents. The admission was made the other day that the average of the Canadian rates for that

month was, from Fort William to Buffalo, 4.9 as I recollect it, and I am sure that is correct. The minister's admission was 4.5 as against 2 1-2 and 2 3-4 from Duluth. These were admitted facts. Then in October the Fort William-Buffalo rate reached its peak of 6 1-2 cents, while the Duluth-Buffalo rate was 3 cents. And that again is admitted. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) was here the other day and said he saw no sense in the minister's making out that the rates were low at that time when every one knew they were high. And why were they high? They were high simply because the American boats which had always been in the business and held down the Fort William rate to a parity with the Duluth rate would not enter our ports as a result of this legislation. What was done then? The result obtained last year was altogether in spite of this legislation, that is all. Under this legislation the American carrier had to file his tariffs and submit himself to the jurisdiction of the board so that the board could reduce his rates if they were too high. By filing his tariffs he would place himself in that position, and he would not do so. How was the difficulty overcome? Was it overcome by means of this bill? No; the thing was adjusted in spite of this half-baked and hasty legislation. Why, we had the nonsensical ruling which said that in addition to the carrier filing his charter party and tariff, a further burden was to be placed on the trade:	the shippers were to be put
in the position of defending the carriers' rates. We usually think there is an issue between the carrier and the shipper; here under this nonsensical ruling, which I admit had to be done under the circumstances as a result of this legislation- which was largely ludicrous-


Thomas Andrew Low: Why does my hon. friend not
quote some Canadian rates from Fort William to bay ports? If he does he will find they were lower than in the previous year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
knows very well that he could not affect these rates one way or the other by the ball; not one order was made, not a single thing was done. I took the place where the rates were affected by the bill, and they were affected just as I say, in connection with that movement. Why was this nonsensical ruling made? Why should the Canadian gov-emments's representatives have found it necessary to go to Cleveland begging and praying that the American owners of vessels should do something to get them out of the mess they put themselves in? That was not in connection with a domestic movement;

Inland Water Freight Rates
it was in connection with the very movement I am talking about. And everybody knows it. There is where the difficulty was. Does the minister want the committee to understand that the commission had to swallow itself, in connection with the domestic movement, and make this change? He knows very well that there is no difficulty in connection with the domestic movement; there is no difficulty as a result of this legislation, and the Canadian boats are looking after that traffic. If this act had done anything in connection with the domestic movement there would have been some order, some fixing of prices; there would have been something definite of the kind. The whole truth is that we had a piece of legislation which was intended to apply generally in ease of the situation; and so far as the movement to Buffalo is concerned, which represents a very large proportion of the trade as my hon. friend knows-some years indeed it is as high as 62 per cent-the prices were raised as a direct result of last year's legislation. It was the only thing that threw Fort William for the first time out of line with Duluth on the Buffalo movement. Why not admit it? It was admitted the other night. We have statements from hon. gentlemen to the left that the rates were increased and they remained at the higher level until the government swallowed itself and said to the American, ship owners that they need not file thedr tariffs; in other words, the American ship owners were virtually told that they could look upon the legislation of this parliament as a perfect joke.
_ Let me ask the minister this pertinent question: Why does he not confine his jurisdiction to the carrier and have him file the tariff? What is the good of getting after the shipper? He says that the shipper must file his charter party; but what is the shipper interested in? Why, he is interested in getting the lowest rate he can in every instance; he wants to get as low a charter party as he can possibly obtain. What therefore is the use of penalizing the shipper? It is the carriers that we should get after if we are to do anything, and if we do not get after them I do not see why we should keep up the sham.


James Alexander Robb: Hon. gentlemen will recall that the legislation of last year was the result of the prevailing high rates of the year previous and the discrimination then as between rates charged by Canadian vessels plying between Fort Wiliam and Buffalo and between Fort William and Port Colborne or bay ports. If it will help my colleague the Minister of Trade 2394
and Commerce (Mr. Low) to get his bill through and let us get on with the business of the House I will admit at once that the legislation of last year was not as complete as it might have been.


Arthur Meighen: What is meant by that?


James Alexander Robb: I will tell the hon. gentleman. The committee will recall that when putting the measure through last year I explained the situation to the House. And by the way, I may observe that I did not notice any opposition last year from gentlemen directly opposite; the opposition came from behind.


Arthur Meighen: That should be an everlasting lesson to us to oppose in the interests of the government.


James Alexander Robb: Hon. gentlemen will recall that it was stated last year on behalf of the government that the real force of the measure was in another bill put through. There were two bills running concurrently, one giving the government power to suspend the coastal laws and when we found that they were discriminating against Canadian ports we took power to suspend the coastal laws. My right hon. friend asked the minister (Mr. Low) a moment ago what was the object in gathering the information. It is so that the grain commission may be enabled to advise the government when there is unjustifiable discrimination against Canadian ports, and when the government are so advised they will be in a position to decide whether or not they shall suspend the coasting laws. That is all there is in it. The measure which my hon. friend is seeking to put through has been working successfully since last fall.


John Millar: It will be remembered that there was complaint that the carriers were aiming to dictate, to the companies shipping grain just where they should insure their cargo at charges that were said to be double the ordinary rates. I have been told, I think by the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, that the effect of this legislation was to cut the insurance rate in two, that last season it was exactly half what it had been previously. Could the minister give us accurate information as to that?


Thomas Andrew Low: The rates are lower; and, furthermore, we have had no complaints, which is the best evidence that the legislation must be working satisfactorily.


John Millar: How much lower?


Thomas Andrew Low: I cannot say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the act is working satisfactorily why take out its very essence and render it virtually ineffective?

Inland Water Freight Rates


James Alexander Robb: It is working satisfactorily
under existing conditions. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) made the statement a moment ago. The shipper files the tariffs now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I apprehend it is working satisfactorily to this extent: There was discrimination during the year, and the act was ineffective. Just as I told the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who was the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the bill was in committee, it would not have the effect which he was suggesting; and it did not. What occurred? Why, there was congestion, and there were complaints about rates, and an effort was made to have the ship owners comply with the act. They blunt-.ly refused.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think if my hon. friend will make further inquiries he will find that there was no congestion of any kind at the head of the lakes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then why that hurried
trip to Chicago, or Cleveland, or Detroit?


Thomas Andrew Low: The minister did not go to
Cleveland, or Detroit, or any other American port.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was the chief commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Thomas Andrew Low: The chief commissioner is free
to go wherever he likes. Quite frequently he goes to Buffalo and Cleveland.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He went at the request of the government, simply because this act, passed last year, proved to be wholly abortive. Let us see what this change means. Last- year this clause 3, referred to in the resolution, provided that shipping companies, American, Canadian or otherwise, operating between *Canadian ports on the Great Lakes or inland waters, should file a tariff of rates. Then the Board of Grain Commissioners reviewed those tariffs, and the shipping companies were not allowed to make any changes without filing such changes immediately. If it was complained that the rates were too high, the Board of Grain Commissioners were empowered to' fix the rates, and a penalty was imposed for failure on the part of ship owneis to comply with the requirements of the act. That act did not work; we might as well admit it. The minister should come up to parliament and state frankly: This act was ill conceived, we could not apply it, and it was abortive. That was the net result. Now he tells us he is proposing this amendment in the interests of the shippers of grain. But this
(Mr. Stevens.]
resolution says, in effect, that he is going to relieve the shipping companies from filing tariffs at all. He says: We will wipe that out; that has proven to be a gruesome failure. Instead, he proposes this amendment:
-that every shipper (including a corporation) shall immediately after entering into any charter party, bill of lading or contract for the carriage of grain from Fort William or Port Arthur to any other port or place in Canada or the United States by lake or river navigation, and before the grain shall have been laden in pursuance thereof, file with the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada a true copy of the said charter .party, bill of lading or contract for carriage.
Now, there are not veiy many small shippers of grain who have a complete charter party. This amendment will simply make the individual who buys space in a vessel at anj time and who has that space to sell to the real shipper, file his tariff of charges. That is what it amounts to. I venture to say that not a single step will be taken towards controlling rates in the interests of the genuine shipper of grain any more than was done by the act of last session, which has proved to be a wholly abortive piece of legislation. Not only is that the case, but knowing from experience the uselessness of last year's act, the minister now makes it doubly useless by removing the penalty clauses, as is apparent on a perusal of the second clause of this resolution:
. 2. That the provisions as to posting up statements in detail of cargo apace, time of shipment and destination, as prescribed by section six, be repealed, and that the penalty clauses of the said act be amended.


Mr. CRERAR:: What is the original clause
6?


Thomas Andrew Low: The penalty clause is not cut out; it is contained in clause 8.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The penalty is in clause 3.


Thomas Andrew Low: It was covered by clause 3 when the vessel owner had to file the tariffs; now it is covered by clause 8.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What amendment is the minister making to the penalty clause? He is repealing clause 3.


Thomas Andrew Low: The penalty, so far as the vessel owner is concerned, will be cut out, because he is not now asked to file tariffs; the shipper is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is taking out the penalty against the ship owner now. Is he going to put in a penalty against the shipper?
Mr. LOW": Yes. The ship owner will not be penalized, for the obvious reason that he

Inland Water Freight Rates
is not being asked by this act to file tariffs, but the shipper is, and therefore the penalty will apply to the shipper if he fails to file his tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good. Let us suppose there is a shortage of shipping. The ship owner says, "I have space to sell." Thereupon the minister says to him, "All right, you can sell it for as high as you like, we don't care." But the minute the shipper buys that space the minister pounces on him and says, "You register what you are going to pay the ship owner." As to the ship owner-well, there seemed to be an inclination to deal with him under the old act. I admit it was wholly abortive, but the minister and the government claimed credit throughout the countiy and boasted of how splendidly it worked. Now the minister is going to repeal this splendidly working piece of legislation. I deny that it ever did work satisfactorily. But apart from that altogether, he is now saying to all the ship owners on the Great Lakes. " Charge whatever you like for your space, it does not make any difference; you can form a combine, you can boost your rates up to six, eight, ten cents a bushel."


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend knows that
that is not correct. The Canada Grain Board have control of the rates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me finish. The hon. memiber for Marquette, for instance, goes to the ship owner and buys space tlhe same as he buys grain or anything else. Buit the president .of the Grain Growers once he has bought that space, comes under this provision :
-shall immediately after entering into any charter party, (bill of lading or contract for the carriage of grain from Fort William or Port Arthur to any other port or place in Canada or the United States by lake or river navigation, and before the grain shall have been laden in pursuance thereof, file with the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada a true copy of the said charter party, bill of lading or contract for carriage.
Now, what protection 'has my hon. friend got?


Mr. KELLNER:: Would the president of
the United Grain Growers actually have to file that, or would it be the people he bought from?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we are repealing
that. Under the act as it stands, any shipping company or ship owner or person who carries or who offers, advertises or proposes to carry grain for hire-that is, the agent or anybody else connected with the operation of the ship -shall file his or ibheir rates. The minister
last year found that that provision of the old act was more or less a joke; it was ill-conceived, poorly drafted and did not work. He sent the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, together with some lawyers, I think he said, to the United States to plead with the American ship owners ho come and fie their .tariffs. The American ship owners laughed at them, just as we said they would; they did not file their tariffs. Then the differences were composed by some secret process that we are not aware of. Well, the minister reads the Free Press and says, "Now, look at what I did by my act last year;" and he pats himself on the back for the accomplishment and asks us to believe that the thing was sound because of its results- I am using his own words. He says that the Free Press indicated by its article that there was a slight reduction from the rates of some previous year. Having established that to his own satisfaction hie adks the House to repeal that clause, to release the ship owner from all penalty anid to compel the president of the United Grain Growers or any other big shipper, the moment he enters into a cargo contract, to file the rate foT the sipace that he has bought. Why, the shipper does not want protection against himself; he wants protection, if he wants it at all, against the unreasonable upholding of rates |by the ship owner.


James Alexander Robb: How are we going to determine whether the rates are unreasonable or not unless we have them filed and get the information?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend intimates
to the ship owner by this bill that he is free to fix any rate he likes. The ship owners of the Great Lakes, American and Canadian, the day after this measure passes may enter into a convention to hold the rates next season at 7 cents or 8 cents or any other rate they like to fix. My hon. friend has not taken any power to deal with them at all. It is not an offence; it is not even a moral offence, because the minister is repealing the only statute under which it was ever made an offence. This is the absurdity of the whole business:	The man who desires to ship his
goods over that route by these ships buys the space, then he has to file the contract. The thing is preposterous right through. I cannot for the life of me see what protection the minister seeks to give the shipper by this legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently
there is no policy, and it is quite natural- there is no room for one. As to this comparing of the rates of 1923 with those of

Inland Water Freight Rates
1922, let me ask, what was done in 1922? In that year we saw the greatest holding up of lake rates that this country had ever been afflicted with. In 1922 a big cut was made in the railway rates on grain, and where did it go to? In large part it went into the lake rates of 1922, which every gentleman in this House who had anything to do with shipping rates knows were raised tremendously. What was done? Nothing. That sort of performance cannot be indefinitely repeated. These rates would have come down anyway to a normal level. The rates of 1922 were on an abnormal level and they took up very largely the economies effected in the reduction of railway freight rates. What a farce it is for anyone to say that because the rates of 1923 were below those of 1922, anyone is to be praised for it. Where were the rates of 1923 in comparison with those of 1919 or of 1920? Although requests were made in 1922 by members of this House and by grain .hippers generally that the coastal laws be suspended, nothing was done at that time to bring these rates down to a point where they could be made a basis of comparison with the rates of 1923. In 1912 there was a quick solution of the whole difficulty that then arose. The coastal laws were promptly suspended. The excuse was made by this government that they had not the right to do what the former administration did, because, they said, the former administration acted under the War Measures Act. Well, they did not; that suspension was in 1912. Taking the domestic rate my hon. friend speaks of, and not the abnormally high rates of 1923 to Buffalo, the only consideration upon which a comparison of the figures of 1923 with those of 1922 may be based is the fact that the rates in 1922 were allowed to remain as they were on account of the refusal of the government to take that plain step which was open to them and which had been taken in 1912, namely, to suspend the coastal laws. There is no use in our hiding the facts from ourselves. That would be a further measure of relief to the shipper, yet what are we doing? For the first time I submit, Mr. Chairman, in the legislative history of any country we are making the shipper, the public who are using these public vehicles, subject to fines. We are striking out the old clause which refers to shipping companies; we are changing entirely the basis of the legislation. We are saying that what the government did last year was not right and are now writing *'shipper" for 'ship owner." 'We are saying there are to be no penalties whatever on the boat owners, but there are to be further restrictions, with the possibility of penalties, [Sir Henry Drayton.l
on the trade. Why, under this bill, before any shipper of grain can even commence to load it on the boat, he has to have somebody get a copy of his charter party and go and give it to the grain commission, and there it will be put in a dusty old file and remain, and no one will pay the slightest attention to it, and there will be no more orders or regulations or action taken than has been the case in the past. This ridiculous thing-well, there will be an excuse given for it; somebody's face will be saved-means just a little more trouble for the grain trade.


John Millar: In case the rates are found to be too high, and the carrier seems to be responsible, if the authorities endeavour to bring down the rates and the carriers defy them and say they will not bring them down, is there any penalty that this government can apply? Are the ship owners liable in any way under this act?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have power to suspend
the coasting laws. That would be a remedy.


John Millar: But you could apply no
remedy in the way of a fine on the carrier?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


John Millar: I think perhaps too much
has been made out of comparisons of rates. I have not the rates under my hand, but I remember the average rate for 1923 was very, very slightly over the average rate for 1922, if any.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not to Buffalo; that was admitted.


John Millar: That is one point, and an
important one too. I do not so much blame the minister for taking any measures he possibly could to keep the grain moving when it was coming down in an avalanche from western Canada. It would have meant a great loss if it had not kept coming down, but I do think, to use the phrase of the leader of the opposition, that any teeth that were in the act of last year have been withdrawn; at least it appears so to me. It seems to be entirely ineffective now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are not
even the gums left.


John Millar: It would appear that that
remark is pretty well justified.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is true.


John Millar: As there is no way of getting after the carriers, it seems to me you are going the wrong way about in applying the remedy. I repeat, the act of last year

Inland Water Freight Rates
did have a good effect on insurance rates.
I am quite convinced' that it brought about a cut of fifty per cent in insur-
9 p.m. anee rates, but if you are going to change the act to make it less effective, I am afraid it will amount to nothing, and we shall have the combine operating again as it did in 1922, and perhaps worse.


James Alexander Robb: Is not the best method of
getting low rates, to get as many vessels to come in as you can?


John Millar: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Now, what measure can you
suggest that will compel the boat owner to put his boat into your ports if he does not want to?


John Millar: Suspend the coastal regulations.


James Alexander Robb: We are doing that.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think
his legislation is really sensible? Does he not think it is perfectly laughable? A shipper who finds himself with grain at Fort William that he has to ship, because he cannot help himself, is held up, say for 6i cents, where the rate ought to be say 3J cents. And he dickers and does the utmost he can to save his own pocket, but the ship owner stands pat for 6i cents, and the shipper cannot get a better rate. There is a regulation the grain commission can make compelling the shipper not to pay more than 3-i cents. The minister has a law which enables the grain commission to fine the shipper for paying what he is held up for and has to pay. Evidently the minister thinks the shipper is so anxious to pay money out of his pocket that he has to be restrained by law. This is the law that is going through this House.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would like to say a word in
reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. He seemed to lament very much the fate of the poor grain broker at Winnipeg who had to file these rates. I can tell my hon. friend that we have had no complaints from the brokers, so they do not look upon this as involving a great amount of work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister submitted this resolution to the grain brokers?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then how could he get
a complaint if they know nothing about it?


Thomas Andrew Low: This procedure has been in
operation since last October.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh no.


Thomas Andrew Low: The shipper has filed tariffs
since last October.


Hugh Guthrie: Under what law?


Thomas Andrew Low: Under this act as interpreted
by the chairman of the grain board, who is a lawyer. The real thing that seems to worry my right hon. friend and his friends on the same side is that last year when we had the largest recorded crop, I think, in the history of this country, it moved as freely as in any other year when there was a smaller crop. What is worrying my hon. friends is the fact that there was no congestion at the head of the lakes. In reply to one hon. gentleman, I think it was the ex-Minister of Finance, may I explain that there is a penalty provided in the act when the shipper refuses to file a copy of his contract or rates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What act is that in?


Thomas Andrew Low: That will be in this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was it in the act of 1923?


Thomas Andrew Low: There was a penalty in the
act of 1923 applying to the ship owners. The ship owners are no longer compelled to file their tariffs. This act will not apply to them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the act that is
to be?


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend asks what benefit is to be derived from the act-


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister answer a question? If, for example, a railway company charges more than the railway commission provides for passenger rates, is it the passenger who is fined or the company?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have control over the
passenger and freight rates and in this case-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Control over
the shipper.


Thomas Andrew Low: The chairman of the grain board has the same powers he had under the act of last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To be applied to the
shipper and not to the ship owner.


Thomas Andrew Low: To the ship owner; if my hon. friend will only wait till the bill is brought down.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said it did
not apply to the ship owner just now.


Thomas Andrew Low: When the ship owner exceeds a rate that the grain board think is just, the board have the right to step in and fix the rate
Inland, Water Freight Rates


Arthur Meighen: And fine the ship owner if he does not comply?


Thomas Andrew Low: The American ship owner would probably not come in under, those circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: He is not to be fined
under the act as it will be amended?


Thomas Andrew Low: Did we fine him before?


Arthur Meighen: You could under the other act, but it was not workable.


Thomas Andrew Low: How could we collect the fine?


Arthur Meighen: What is the sense of providing to fine a poor fellow who is mulcted?


Thomas Andrew Low: We had control of the rates, just as we had control of the freight rates last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You did not have any control.


Thomas Andrew Low: The result shown in the latter months of last year, I am sure, would convince any man that we had. We were threatened with a congestion at the head of the lakes, but there was no congestion. I am assured there was none. I received hundreds of letters and telegrams in regard to the matter, but I felt assured that there would be no congestion. As a result of the legislation the grain crop of the year 1923 moved perhaps more freely than in any other year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I became a little apprehensive, after listening to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), lest as a shipper of grain I might land some day in gaol, or be under the penalty of a heavy fine. I think the legislation last year was not very well considered. It was perhaps due to the fact that it was passed, as I understand, in the closing days of the session, in response to a widespread and popular demand that something should be done to control lake rates. After a study of the legislation that is at present on the statute books and which the minister is proposing to amend in the resolution we are now considering, I have come to the conclusion that the legislation was only effective in one way, or it could be effective only in one way. It is true it provided that rates should be filed by the vessel-owners with the Board of Grain Commissioners. It empowered that board, if they thought those rates were excessive, to establish a maximum rate, and it provided certain penalties in the event of the vessel owner violating or refusing to comply with the regulations in this respect as laid down by the Board of Grain Commissioners. That provision, it
[Mr. Low.J
seems to me is wholly inoperative, and would be wholly inoperative. As is well known, the American vessel owners refused to file their rates with the Board of Grain Commissioners to meet the provisions of the law. I need not enter into the reasons that led them to that action. At any rate, they refused to file their rates, with the result that for weeks American boats refused to come to Fort William and Port Arthur for grain cargoes. But while the law was on the statute books, hastily considered perhaps in its passage through this parliament, it was necessary to provide some relief, in view of the heavy movement of grain from the western provinces, and I must commend the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners for the versatility he displayed in getting round a difficult comer. It was a construction put upon the law that I do not think had ever been placed on a law before, but at any rate-


William Richard Motherwell: Did he get results?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At any rate it got results.
Instead of insisting that the vessel owner should file his tariff with the Board of Grain Commissioners as the law provided, the construction was placed upon it that the shipper might file the rates. Consequently since the day that construction was put upon the law last autumn the shippers have filed the rates with the Board of Grain Commissioners, and (he minister in the resolution we are now considering simply seeks to make legal a practice which has been in effect for the last seven or eight months. That is the real effect of this legislation.
Now we come to the point as to how effective this legislation, even when it is amended, will be in the control of rates on the lakes; because, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has pointed out, that is the real thing we are endeavouring to secure. I do not think that this parliament can pass legislation that will control rates on the lakes, or that it can pass legislation under which any constituted body in Canada could go to the vessel owners and say, you must carry grain at such and such rates. It cannot be done, unless the arm of authority is to extend in a way that, as far as my knowledge goes, it has never been extended before. It certainly could not be made to apply to American vessel owners. They are citizens of another country, and as such we have no jurisdiction to say to them, you must come and carry grain from Fort William to Buffalo, and you must carry it at this rate. That is an absolutely absurd proposition, and could not be enforced. We might, by the power of

Inland Water Freight Rates
legislation fix the rates at which Canadian vessel owners should cany grain from Fort William, say to Buffalo or to Georgian bay ports or to Montreal. Indeed, I believe that provision is in the law now. But if the government attempted to do that, there is one recourse open to the vessel owners. They could tie up their vessels and refuse to put them into commission for carrying grain, unless the legislation went so far that vessel owners could be penalized for their refusal to carry grain for rates fixed by the Board of Grain Commissioners. So that it seems to me when you boil the thing down in this way, and take the amendment which the minister proposes to put into effect, this legislation has only one virtue. It is not very difficult or onerous for shippers of grain to file their tariffs, or the rates at which they make their charters with the Board of Grain Commissioners. Those charters are filed with the Board of Grain Commissioners, in this sense, that the charter I will make to-day with the vessel owner to carry grain to Buffalo or Col-borne or anywhere else is not divulged to my competitor in the trade.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The rate ought
to be posted.	,
Mr. STEVENS. The minister indicates that the main virtue of this legislation is that it gives the information to the public. He told us that fifteen minutes ago.


Arthur Meighen: The only virtue.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I may be wrong in my
recollection. Those tariffs may have been available to the public; I am not prepared to say at the moment, but the virtue in this legislation is that the government through the Board of Grain Commissioners are daily in touch with the rates that are being charged on grain, say from Fort William to Buffalo or to bay ports, and if the rates to Canadian ports exceed the rates to Buffalo, the government can go to the vessel owners who alone can cany that grain under the coastal laws, and say to them: You must reduce your rates or we will suspend the coastal laws and bring in American boats into competition with you m carrying grain from one Canadian port to another. When you boil it down that is the only virtue in the legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That virtue does not
exist in this legislation and is not connected with this at all. That is a separate act altogether.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is true; but under
that separate act the government have the authority to suspend the coastal regulations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We always did it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
not think that if the rates are too high, the government is 'likely to know that anyway. It was never concealed from us.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not want my right
hon. friend to get the impression that I am arguing as to the extent of the virtue in this legislation, I am stating what I think is the only virtue in it. Under clause 6, which the resolution that we are considering proposes to repeal, it was obligatory upon the broker who was the agent through which the charter was made, to post publicly in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange the details of the charter. That, I believe, was also suspended in its operation, and for the very good reason that it is not just nor right that one firm's business *should be exposed to the gaze of another within half an hour of the time when the charter is made.


James Alexander Robb: If my horn, friend buys
100,000 bushels of wheat on the market in Winnipeg, his competitor knows what he pays for that wheat, and the man who has *the wheat to sell back in. the country knows what the wheat is worth. Is there any reason why the man back in the country should not know what freight he has to pay on it.


Mr CRERAR:: The minister is not quite
correct. The price at which 100,000 bushels of wheat is bought is not necessarily known to the trade in Winnipeg. It is true that prices for future months are posted on the board every few minutes and every one knows what these prices are. But no one knows what premium I may pay for cash grain an hour or five hours from now. The same thing holds true in respect to rates. I d'o not think that is an unreasonable provision, and I cannot see where this is going to bring one iota of protection to the owner of the grain who ships it from the country noint. We are seeking to get some effective control over those rates, and there is no question in my mind that

Inland Water Freight Rates
Canadian vessel companies have ait times charged extortionate rates from Fort William for carriage eastward. The only remedy that the government has now short of passing legislation that will absolutely compel them to accept certain rates and to operate their boats under those rates, is the suspension of the coastal laws. My advice to the govemmeint next autumn or at any future time is this, that the moment the rates from Fort William to Georgian bay ports get out of line with the Buffalo rates, they should suspend the coastal laws.


James Alexander Robb: Is it not fair that we should
create machinery first to get the information as to the rates?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I have said that is the virtue in the resolution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While I agree with all
that my hon. friend has said as to the facts, the deduction that this is going to effect that, is without foundation. Take, for instance, my hon. friend's operations. He makes a charter rate for a ship in September. He does not want, and he should not be asked, to divulge to the public what, as a shipper, he paid for that charter. Why should he?


James Alexander Robb: Why should we publish statistics stating that we are going to ha've so much wheat? If it is published to the world how much wheat the farmer has, why should he not know who wants to buy the wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is published is
simply the market quotations that everyone pays or wants to deal at on the open market. But if I make a special deal in wheat in connection with a special order I want to fill, and I pay one, two or three cents' premium for it, that is nobody's business and it is not posted on the market.


James Alexander Robb: Is it not posted every day
how much wheat is running on wheels towards Fort William?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Why should the other fellow
not know what is going out?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has nothing to do with the question. I do not think any shipper should be asked to reveal what he pays for a charter. If we can work out an effective scheme of showing what the prevailing rates are, that would be useful. But the minister himself admits that the legislation of last year was absolutely abortive and useless. The present minister comes to us to-day and says that by his action of last fall he ironed out 
difficulties, and that the wheat moved smoothly and rapidly through Fort William. How did he iron them out? He violated, broke and disregarded his own law, just as we told him last year he would have to do, a law that was ineffective and useless when it was passed. What I am complaining of is that, instead of coming before parliament and frankly admitting that in their haste and desire to do something that would make a show at the tail end of last session, in puitting through a hasty piece of legislation, they had blundered, they come before parliament and ask us to substitute the shipper for the ship owner, and I say to this committee that it is a piece of ridiculous absurdity. Tiie mmiste. ought to abandon this resolution and repeal the act. He ought to rest his case upon the release of the coastal laws where the real remedy rests and always did rest. Let us go back to 1922 when there was a congestion which, if I remember aright, was at the easterly end. Ships were tied up at Port Colborne and other points and were held there so long that they had to raise the rates to make up for the trips they lost. The government appointed W. T. R. Preston, I understand, to wander over the country for about three months, during the very period when the congestion was occurring, when rates were soaring day by day. Instead of taking time to draft an order in council to appoint W. T. R. Preston, they could, with the same time, have suspended the coastal laws. What was the result of Preston's three or four months' operations? That year the shipper of grain paid as high, I think, as 22 cents. Let me read what the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) said in regard to this last year:
Now, what happened? I am not going to review the whole situation because there will be other opportunities of doing that, but we know that at the beginning of the season the rates had been fixed at three cents per bushel from Bay ports to Buffalo. Then came this enormous crop, and we had that famous meeting that took place in Toronto in May, 1922, when half a dozen shipping companies got together and formed what you may call a combine, because there is no other name that would be appropriate for it, and they agreed to fix the rate at seven or eight cents immediately after.
And so forth. In fact the rates went, at the latter end for a short period, much higher than that. The government appointed W. T. R. Preston, and after he had wandered over the country for a time, they passed this abortive law of last year. Now they come before parliament and, instead of admitting that it was wholly useless, they try to substitute something that will be worse. I predict that nothing but mischief and heart

Inland Water Freight Rates
burning can come from this resolution, and I ask the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to mark my words. It is a subterfuge. It is simply drawing a smoke screen in front of the whole public.
It is a difficult problem and we know it; but the courageous thing for the government to do, and the proper attitude for parliament to take, is here and now to notify the ship owne's on the Great Lakes that the moment there appears any evidence of excessive rates the coastal laws will be lifted. But do not let us pass any such legislation as this behind which they can shelter themselves perhaps for months while we go through the tedious process of breaking down red tape and hampering and embarrassing shippers. Let me again point out the absurdity of this legislation. The ship owners can fix any rate they like, and so can ship agents and brokers; but the man who buys space, the owner of the grain at the seaboard or at the lake port, must file a tariff. The thing is preposterous; it is an utterly absurd piece of legislation which no parliament should enact. I dislike very much to see parliament taking up its time in passing absurd legislation of this kind. If any good could be gained by it, if any result could be obtained, then although I might not agree with it I should at least be inclined to respect the minister's efforts. But the sole object of this legislation, so far as I have been able to discern its object, is to enable the minister to retreat from a position which he can no longer hold. The former minister's legislation of last year was not only abortive but it was mischievous; and now instead of repealing it my hon. friend substitutes the present measure, He suggested a moment ago that this would be an improvement, but I submit that it cannot possibly be that; all that it can do is to embarrass the shipper. Let me say in defence of the shippers, a great many of whom I represent, that it is unjust to ask them to state the price they pay for their charter. What right have we to demand that? If the shipper is held up by a common carrier he has some grounds to claim protection from the public. But the purchaser of this particular commodity, the shipper who buys space, is the victim in this instance; he is not the offender, he is not the one who is holding the thing up. So why demand from him information as to what he pays for his space?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Has the hon. gentleman any suggestion as to how parliament could exert any influence over the vessel owners and demand the information from them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My attitude in regard to that question was expressed last year and I will state it again. By all means, if we can design a workable scheme to control the ship owner so as to ensure that he will not charge an exorbitant rate, let us do so. But experience teaches us that it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to draw up legislation that will control this situation.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: This is the only experience we have had.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we had the experience of last year's abortive effort. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who was Minister of Trade and Commerce last year and who fathered the original legislation, to-day admits that the only weapon that is available is the suspension of the coastal laws; in other words, it is applying the principle of competition. That is the only weapon we have. As I pointed out last year, unless you can devise some legislation which is clearly and definitely effective or which is likely to prove effective then let shipping be free, with the understanding that the moment the rates charged are demonstrably unreasonable and unfair the coastal laws shall be lifted to allow competition to have free play. I know of no other way of meeting the situation.
To come back to the suggestion that this shall be secret. The minister has already assured us that the one outstanding virtue of this legislation is that everyone will have this information. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) questioned that, and the minister emphatically replied that undoubtedly everyone must have it, because that was the virtue of the bill. I agree with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar): why should any shipper's charter party be given to his competitor? It is unfair. Suppose a shipper is farsighted enough to make a good charter party now for a September ship which he knows he has a contract to fill in Europe. He wants to safeguard his business and he makes a charter now for 3 cent; and the rate advances in September to 4 cents. But he does not want every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country to know he has that advantage, and I do not think it is anybody's business to know it. He has a right to take advantage of that situation if he so desires as a purchaser of space. But that is a wholly different thing from ship owners getting together and fixing an excessive rate, and _ I again warn the committee that if this legislation is passed it will constitute an invita-
Inland Water Freight Rates

tion to the ship owners on the Great Lakes to get together and fix a rate at the very-highest point possible. We shall have to wait until the bill itself comes down to be able to see the exact provisions of the individual sections; but the resolution which is before us would undoubtedly indicate that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know that I
can quite agree with the rather sweeping assertions of my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens). As I said before, there is no particular hardship on the shippers of grain in filing with the Board of Grain Commissioners the rates at which their charters are made. But while the legislation was ineffective in some respects, noticeably in this, that it could not exercise any control over American vessels, it did have one very excellent advantage in its insurance clauses. If I remember rightly, before this legislation was passed the rates of insurance on the lakes were in excess of 30 cents per $100 value of the grain. As a result of the legislation that insurance ring was broken, and I have been informed that insurance has been written recently as low as 3 cents per $100 from Fort William.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
effect of section 7?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do you not think it might be just as well to keep that section and get rid of all the rest?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What I am seeking to
point out is that the legislation was not so utterly valueless as my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) argues.


Arthur Meighen: What about the $2,500,000 the farmers lost in excessive rates during the first part of the year? That was a high price they had to pay for this government's blunder.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are remedying that
now, or at any rate the minister I think is trying to do so.


Arthur Meighen: But he cannot hand the money back.


Thomas Andrew Low: Grain was not shipped to any great extent until about the first of October so that there was no money lost to the shipper.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not prepared to substantiate the minister's assertion in that respect. I have not the rates with me but I think the absence of the American boats in the early part of the season did have some effect on the rates. At any rate, this insurance provision was of definite value in the 
bill and unquestionably it saved hundreds of thousands of dollars to the farmers of western Canada last year in the shipping of grain to Buffalo and other eastern ports. I see no way whereby this parliament can exercise control over American vessels, and without question the American vessel is necessary to move our grain crop from western Canada. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre says that the vessel companies, American and Canadian, might get their heads together and fix minimum rates at which to carry grain. That is possible. If that is done I do not see that this legislation will give the Board of Grain Commissioners any control over it, unless they are armed with authority to compel Canadian vessel owners to put their vessels in commission on the Great Lakes, and under this legislation, as I interpret it, they have not that power.


Arthur Edward Ross: What was the insurance rate before the act came into force?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My memory is that it was about 33 cents per $100.


Mr. CARRUTHERS:: I should like -to ask the hon. member for Marquette, as a grain
expert-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


John W. Carruthers: Or rather, as a
shipping expert-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Worse still.


John W. Carruthers: -wihat he would think of the government building and operating a line of large grain carriers to Georgian bay ports, and in that way holding some control over even the American lake carriers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the suggestion is
worthy of very serious consideration. The government merchant marine is to-day operating some boats on the lakes carrying grain, and if we are -to have shipping combines in Canada whose excessive rates will take a toll off Canadian grain as they have unjustly done in -the past, then I think parliament will be justified in sayin-g to the government:	We will provide you with the
means to enable the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to put ships on the lakes to carry this grain at a fair rate.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Mr. MILNE:: A statement was made
some time ago that as not very much grain was moved until October, the fanners of the West had not lost a great deal in 1923. I have here a report prepared by the Bureau of Statistics, from which it appears that the

Inland Water Freight Rates
highest average rate in the last ten years was in 1918. The average for 1923 was 4.07, and for the high year, 1918, 4.32-a quarter of a cent lower than at the very peak prices. For the month of October the rate was 4.53. For the year previous, when we had so much trouble about freight rates, it was 3.88. The statement was made a little while ago that the government had control of the rates, and that just as soon as they found them unreasonable they would exercise their power of control. What does the minister think would be an unreasonable rate on the lakes if rates are to be allowed to soar away up beyond the peak rates of 1918, when we were in the midst of a great increase in the prices of everything? If they maintain that such rates are not above what is fair and reasonable, I should like to know where they are going to draw the line.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is a matter for the grain board to determine. They have power to fix rates when they think they are too high.


Arthur Meighen: And if the rates go
above that maximum, under this amendment, they will fine the shipper for paying them.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think the ex-Minister of
Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) argued that the effect of this act was to make the rates higher in 1923 than they were in 1922. Let me make a comparison. He said certain months before-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say
that.


Thomas Andrew Low: What did you say?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want
to be drawn into a comparison of one year as against another; that is nonsense. I want to take the actual movement made in the same conditions and year. The fact is that the ordinary movement to Buffalo from Fort William on the one side and from Duluth o.n the other is exactly the same, but I showed him that under this legislation with no American boats out of Fort William that rate was about twice as much as from Duluth.


Thomas Andrew Low: I know that the information,
I am going to give my hon. friend will not please him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My information is correct; that is the only difference.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me quote the rates between Canadian ports-from Fort William to Georgian bay ports. Everybody will admit that in 1923 we had one of the largest, if not
the largest, crops in the history of this country.
In the month of July there was practically no wheat moving. Let us take the month of August, when the act of last session may be presumed to have become effective, and see what is the difference between the rates in 1922 and in 1923. During the month of August 1923 the rate was one-fifth of a cent per bushel higher than for the corresponding month of 1922. In view of the fact that we had such a large crop, that is not a very great increase; it cannot be attributed to the act.


Mr. SHAW:: Can the minister state how
much grain was moved in each of those months?


Thomas Andrew Low: I will look that up. In the
month of September, when perhaps we heard more about the effect that this act would have upon the movement of grain than at any other time, the rate was just one-half cent a bushel higher in 1923 than for the corresponding month in 1922.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the average?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is to Canadian points?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.
Mr. LOWr:	My hon. friend likes to refer
to Canadian points frequently, but when that does not suit him he would rather refer to American points. We are anxious to build up the trade of our ports, therefore we are more concerned about the rates between our own ports.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will not the minister
admit that the rates were very much higher in 1922 than the regular prevailing rates?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am merely showing that the
effect of this act was not to raise the rates in 1923.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Andrew Low: In October 1923 the rate was
only two-fifths of a cent per bushel higher than in the corresponding month in the previous year; in November 1923 it was 2 cents per bushel higher than in November 1922; in December 1923 it was 2 cents lower than in December 1922. During the whole season of navigation the rate of 1923 was from one-tenth to one-half a cent per bushel less than for the year 1922.


Mr. SALES:: How do you arrive at those
figures?

Inland Water Freight Rates


Thomas Andrew Low: I will be glad to send the
figures across to my hon, friend.


Thomas Sales: I will be glad to see them.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister read
those figures over again? I think his calculation is wrong.


Thomas Andrew Low: They are all on Hansard. Now, the one regret of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) seems to be that the broker will be put to some little trouble by the proposed amendment. And he laments too for the shipper, who is always able to look after himself. I do not think that many hon. members will object to the shipper being compelled to lower the rates at any time through the efforts of the Canada Grain Board. The brokers at Winnipeg are finding no fault with the requirement to file their tariffs; in fact they have filed them since last October. The hon. member (Mr. Crerar) knows the feeling of the brokers of that city and he corroborates my statement that they do not object. I assume my hon. friends will take the matter up further when the bill is before the House, and I shall be glad to discuss it with them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as insurance is concerned I have no objection at all to the provision made in that regard. That meant something; that is something within our jurisdiction. My hon. friend says this legislation did not cost the farmer one cent;
I showed the other day that it had cost two and a half millions. I think it probably cost more than that, but I like to be within the mark in these matters; I know it is at least that. We all know that the prices the farmer gets are based on Fort William and Port Arthur and that the furtherance costs from Fort William and Port Arthur take account of the difference in cost between those points and Liverpool. Is there any dispute about that? Part of that cost, the cost based on Fort William and Port Arthur plus the cost o: transportation to Liverpool, is the lake rate. I have already pointed out that in connection with the Buffalo movement, which is a very large movement and on which prices are frequently based, there was in September a range of from 2 to 2f cents before to an average as given by my hon. friend of 4.90 cents and a price of 5 cents, as quoted by me, on September 20th. In October the range of prices from Fort William had been advanced from 5 to 5| and 6J cents as against 3 from Duluth.
[Mr. Sales.!


Thomas Andrew Low: The rates to-day are perhaps
the lowest in the history of shipping, and they are exceedingly low to Georgian bay ports. Will my hon. friend give this act any credit, or will he say it has nothing to do with it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not the slightest.


Thomas Andrew Low: Or is the result attributed to
the act only when the rates happen to be a little higher? The fact is that the rates to-day from Fort William to Georgian bay ports and American ports are lower than they have ever been, or at any rate lower than tney have been for a number of years.


Mr SPENCER:: Is that not because there
is very little grain moving?


Henry Lumley Drayton: And a lot of
boats off?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the act had to do with it, what about the high prices last year?


Mr. GRAHAM:: If the act is responsible
for high prices, it must be responsible for low prices.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is the point I wished
to make.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was one
definite thing this act did, and if the Minister of Railways had been in the chamber he would have known it: it kept the American boats out of business for over two months and as a result shoved up those prices, which came down as soon as the American boats came back.


Thomas Andrew Low: The American boats only come m when they have no cargoes to carry from their own ports. They seldom come in before October.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The American
boats come in as it pays them to come in. If our rates are high, they come in at once, and their coming in is one of the things that keeps rates down. I say that the farmer's prices-and I thought everybody knew this-are based on Fort William-Port Arthur plus the cost of moving the grain from there to Liverpool. I do not think my hon. friend will dispute that, but he has to dispute it in order to contend successfully that he has not raised the price to the farmer. He says there was not much movement during September and October. Well, let us see. In September 1923, we had marketed deliveries by the farmers at country points

Inland Water Freight Rates
of 83,353,614 bushels of wheat, and of .other grains, 10,664,015 bushels; in October, 115,139,096 bushels, and of other grains 19,702,989 bushels. Of course the question is how much of that grain was actually sold by the farmers in those two months.


James Alexander Robb: No, the question is how much
of it reached the lake ports in those two months.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will take
that up afterwards. If the farmer has sold bis grain, on what were his prices based? If the minister will consider that for one minute he will see how absurd his proposition is.


James Alexander Robb: There are farmers selling
their October wheat to-day on the basis of Fort William, but that does not mean it has reached Fort William.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon.
friend knows that the farmer's price is fixed when he sells it-never mind when it is shipped or whether it has reached Fort William or not. I am talking about the losses caused to the western farmer as a result of this legislation. As I have said, his prices are fixed on Fort Wiliam and Port Arthur, plus the cost of getting the grain to Liverpool, whether or not it has actually arrived there. So that the minister was ill advised in his interruption. Now, I do not think there is much doubt that everything that was actually shipped to the hikes had been sold by the farmer. Things nay have changed very much since, but from my experience when I was on the railway board I would say that at least 50 per cent of the unshipped balance would be sold by the farmers long before it ever got to Fort William.


Thomas George McBride: Does my hon. friend
think that the Canadian vessel owners on the Great Lakes should have any protection over the American owners?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is another
point. I am trying to get at a matter that is challenged, and one that I think is of interest to any one who is growing grain.


Thomas George McBride: That is not an answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not answering my hon. friend now. I am trying to explain a calculation, and I am not going to be turned away from it. Now suppose we assume, against what I know to be the ordinary rule, that they still have 50 per cent; that is 50 per cent forwarded, and 50 per cent still held by the farmers. It would work out that there had been sold by the fanners at the end of October 135,294,000
bushels of wheat and 20,585,000 bushels of other grains. Now the difference between those rates from Fort William to Buffalo, on the one hand, and Duluth to Buffalo on the other, ranges from the Buffalo price of 2| cents up to 24 cents to the Canadian price of 5 cents. The average 4.9 cents is admitted by the minister for the whole month. That produces a difference in price _ greater than 2 cents a bushel, but let us cut it. down to 2 cents a bushel, and if we were to give the real thing it would) be a good deal more. In October it ranged from 5J to 61 cents from Fort William, as against 3 cents from Duluth; the difference is 31 cents, but let us cut that down to 2 cents, for I want to be conservative. Cut that down to 2 cents instead of what the admitted figures show, and we have an actual loss to the Canadian grower of grain of $3,100,000.
Suppose you take it another way. Take it on the stuff moved, and my hon. friends are going to find themselves in precisely the same difficulty. There is a movement in September of 19,114,671 bushels of wheat, and 3,729,526 bushels of other grain; in October there was a large movement of o2,000,000 bushels, ex-Fort William and Port Arthur, when we were told there was nothing doing. In October there was a movement of 52,981,781 bushels of wheat, and 7,020,312 bushels of other grains. While we got relief in November because the government read into the Act, instead of the word " ship owner or - ship broker" the word "shipper," making all the charter parties under which the November shipments moved considerably higher that what the real rate was on the former basis if the charter parties had not been made, there was moved in that month 77,436,635 bushels of wheat, and 14,761,979 bushels of other grains. Now, how any one knowing anything about this business can seriously.say that the tragedy which happened in those two months, which effect was carried into November, and I am charging nothing up for what was carried into November, cost the country nothing-well, he must have a great idea of the common sense of this House.
Now, what is the whole defence of my hon. friend?' He has none in connection with that heavy movement to Buffalo. He has none in connection with the one thing
10 p.m. where American competition is absolutely vital, and that is the one movement where it is. He has not one defence. He goes back to Canadian points where we have the benefit of American competition, unless the coastal laws be suspended,
Inland Water Freight Rates

and what can he show there? He shows that in August, 1923 the rates were one-fifth of a cent up as compared with August, 1922; in September. 1923, half a cent up as against September, 1922; October, 1923, two-fifths of a cent up as against October, 1922; in November, 1923, two cents up as against November, 1922.


Thomas Andrew Low: If I quoted two cents higher for the month of November I must have made a mistake.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to point out that that must be wrong.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is two cents lower.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Two cents lower. Now what is the basis of comparison? The basis of comparison is with a year that- why, are our memories so short that we do not know what happened in rates in the autumn of 1922? Are our memories so short that we do not know the attempts that were made to get the rates upon a proper basis? Are our memories so short that we do not know the charges that were made, that the lake carrier was taking up all the economies effected by a reduction in railway freight rates? Are our memories so short that we do not know that a roving commission was appointed because these rates were so tremendously out of line, that roving commission being composed of Mr. W. T. R. Preston? We remember that. One useful thing was done; Mr. W. T. R. Preston again was enabled to draw something out of the public treasury, and the grain rates were still allowed to go on. Very useful I It was simple and easy to do just what was done in 1912, suspend the coastal laws at once, but if that had been done Mr. W. T. R. Preston could not have drawn down anything. But that is the basis that is chosen for comparison, and choosing a basis of 1922, with the rates then charged, was an insult to the intelh'genee of this House.


Thomas Sales: May I ask under what authority you suspended the coastal laws in 1912?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We did not have much trouble about the authority. We were the administrators of that act, and we did not twist its meaning upside down either. We simply said: That act will not be enforced by us.


Thomas Sales: Then you had no authority?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly. We had authority to step in at any time. Why not?


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was anything
done because we did? Was any claim of wrongdoing made in consequence? Not the slightest.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend suspended the coastal laws in 1912 just as we did in 1922, near the close of navigation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the year
1912, when we had a precisely similar situation to that which confronted this government in the year 1922 we suspended the coastal laws.


George Perry Graham: At what date?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the autumn of 1912; I do not remember the exact date.


James Alexander Robb: Just for the last trip, exactly as we did in 1922.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In 1912, not at all. not in the slightest. In answer to the hon. member for Saltcoats, if it was perfectly all right to suspend the coastal laws for the last trip, it was perfectly all right to suspend them before.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend the ex-Minister
of Finance bases his case entirely on the American vessels refusing to come in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think I can quote a few
figures that will explode any idea that the coming of American vessels into this country during the fall of 1923 had any bearing upon the raising of those rates, if my hon. friend is willing to admit the facts. In 1922, we find that 432 vessels came into this country with cargoes. In 1923, we find that 427 vessels came in, just five less than in the previous year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us have
the figures for September and October. They are the only figures of any importance.


Thomas Andrew Low: This Was between the first of
September and the close of navigation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the minister the figures for those two months I mentioned?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
only thing of the slightest importance.


Thomas Andrew Low: It simply shows that there
was only a difference'of five in the number of vessels coming in, in the fall of 1923, as in the fall of 1922.

Inland Water Freight Rates


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, they all
came later on.


Thomas Andrew Low: A difference of five vessels
would not make a loss to the farmers of the Canadian Northwest of 15,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite true, but
that is not the point at all. The point is that in this movement for September and October the boats were not there and the rates were up.


Thomas Andrew Low: The whole point is that the
act of last year did not work out the way some hon. members prophesied. There was no congestion at the head of the lakes. More wheat moved during the fall months than moved in any previous fall for many years, and the whole reason why hon. members are arguing as they are to-night is because events did not happen, as they had anticipated.


Milton Neil Campbell: I was rather surprised
to hear the minister state that the act should get credit for the substantial drop in rates towards the latter end of the season.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am arguing to-night that the act of 1923 did not have any effect in raising the rates over the rates of 1922.


Milton Neil Campbell: It would be a remarkable thing if the rates were raised over 1922, because in 1922 the average rate to Buffalo was $4.49, and in 1921 it was only $2.15, less than half. The year 1922 was one of very exceptional conditions. It was not merely the extra volume of grain handled over the year before, but the amount of ore and other freight carried down the lakes from lake Superior to lake Erie was just about double that handled the previous year. I notice in the scale of rates for last season, in the week ending October 13, the highest rate was 5i cents and the lowest 4^ cents. That runs up until we come to the week ending October 27, when we find a 6J cent rate. Then in the next week ending November 3, the rates began to drop a little and we find the rate as low as 3J cents.


Thomas Andrew Low: What points?


Milton Neil Campbell: Fort William to Buffalo. My information is that that was the very week in which the American boats first came in, the week in which this particular legislation was suspended, or an interpretation put on it that meant its suspension. The following week, November 4 to November 10 there was quite an influx of American boats and the rates dropped 2jf cents. In spite of 240
the colder weatheT the. following week, ending November 17, we find a rate as low as 2 cents, and that continues on into the week ending the 24th, when we find a 2 cent rate still in effect, in spite of the colder weather. I think it is quite obvious then that what fixes the rate on the lakes is the amount of competition, and this is largely American. That is determined largely by the amount of freight brought down. Iron ore seems to be the largest commodity handled on the lakes, and I would like to read the figures in millions of tons of the freight handled from lake Superior to lake Erie from 1919 to 1923. The
figures are:
Year	Tons
1919		 41,000,000
1920		 51,000,000
1921		 23,000,000
1922		 42,000,000
1923		 55,000,000
We will notice that there was a substantial increase in the amount of ton freight handled in 1923 over 1922, and this might have some effect on the grain rates, but I would like hon. members to notice that the small amount of ton freight handled in 1921, namely 23,000,000 tons, resulted in an immediate drop in rates on grain. The average price per bushel for delivering our grain from the head of the lakes to Buffalo was as follows:
Year	Cents
1919		 3.73
1920		 5.70
1921		 2.15
1922		 4.49
1923		 4.42
I have here a chart prepared by the Bureau of Statistics with a line, showing the tonnage of ore handled, and below it, grain rates on the lake, one being the rate to Buffalo and the other the rate to the bay ports. In studying this chart hon. members will note that the line of the grain rates goes up automatically with the line of the ore: that is when the amount of ore increased the rates on grain automatically increased. When the amount of ore decreased the rates went down. So that it seems to me for years back the determining factor in fixing rates on the lake has been competition, and the competition again has been determined by a number of other things, but largely by the quantity of iron ore that is handled.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think I said that ore and coal had an effect on the rates as regards American boats.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think there is no
question about that, so far as the ore is concerned. I am not convinced that coal has any effect on rates at all. Last year the ruling

Inland Water Freight Rates

rate on coal was 45 cents, compared with an average of 80 cents a ton on ore and $1.45 on grain. This would appear to indicate that coal is carried for ballast at less than the usual price. The figures I have before me are too lengthy to weary the House with; but, according to the information I have, I am convinced that the return cargo has little or no effect on rates. A vessel leaving the head of the lakes loaded with grain simply bases her rates on what she can profitably make the return trip on. If she can get a cargo of coal coming back, it is so much to the good; but I think it has no effect whatever on the rates. This leads us to what appears to me to be the solution, and the only practical solution, of the whole question ; that is the suspension of the coastal laws. So long as the American vessels are prohibited from taking part in the trade on the lakes, as between Canadian ports we will always have the recurring period of high rates, during which period the farmer is held up. I quite agree with the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that the farmer's price back in the country is based entirely on the prevailing price on the particular day he sells, and not particularly the day on which the grain is shipped. He brings it into the elevator; the price the elevator man pays is based on the rate on that particular day, and it would make very little difference whether there was much grain being shipped in August or September. The rate is the factor that determines the price the farmer receives. As long as these coastal laws are in effect we are going to have these conditions repeatedly. If the government want to face this question courageously they have to suspend these coastal laws. I agree with the ex-Minister of Finance that if the laws were used as a club, and if the government were always prepared to use these laws as a club, it would not be necessary to suspend them at all. Our experience in the past has been that governments never do that. They wait until the harm is done, until the farmer has paid the high rate of the season, and then at the end of the season they permit a few American boats to come in, load up and remain in Canadian ports so that they can go out with the first break up in the spring. That is no suspension of the coastal laws at all. It is simply permitting American vessels to come in, store our grain and save us from storage at the head of the lakes.


James Alexander Robb: Why is it necessary to suspend the coastal laws to allow an American vessel to come in to Fort William and Port Arthur in order to go out in the spring.
nvir. Campbell.]
Why is it necessary to suspend the coastal laws at any time?


Milton Neil Campbell: Surely the minister
does not suggest that an American vessel will come in during August, load up with grain and wait until next spring?


James Alexander Robb: But under our laws, without
a suspension of the coastal laws, an American vessel has the right to come in, load grain and ship it to Buffalo, but it has not the right to come in and ship it to a Canadian port.


Milton Neil Campbell: I quite agree with that, but a large part of our grain goes to bay ports.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend said just a
moment ago that the government allowed these boats to come in, store the grain in the winter and ship it to American ports in the spring.


Milton Neil Campbell: 
George Gibson Coote: Last year there was a good
deal of discussion here in regard to tne coastal laws and their suspension, and the statement was repeatedly made that the government in 1922, did not have any power whatever to suspend the coastal laws. I was pleased tonight to hear the Acting Minister of Finance make the statement that they did suspend the coastal shipping laws in 1922. I agree with him in that. I think they did, but I want to point out to the committee just how slow they were in applying the remedy in 1922. As early as July 7 in that year Mr. James Stewart wired to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce asking that the coastal shipping laws should be suspended because he was being charged a higher rate from Fort William to Port Colbome than Canadian vessel owners were charging from Fort William to Buffalo. Mr. Stewart kept on sending 240i
wires occasionally to the department. I notice on August 29, he sent the following wire:
J. A. Robb,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa.
Buffalo now two cents Port Colborne still three and three-quarters. We respectfully ask for suspension coasting laws immediately as American tonnage offered for Port Collborne at two cents. Kindly confirm so as enable Canadian milis compete with Buffalo mills.
A little later on, on September 8, Le wired again:
Have had no reply respecting permission load American bottoms for Port Col'bome. Combine has already cost us about fifty thousand dollars and respectfully poinit out we now consider ourseUves free use any reasonable method expose and rectify situation.
I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in reading many of these communications, but I have quite a number of them from grain shippers applying to the government for a suspension of these laws. I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a statement made by the Secretary of the Dominion Millers' Association, Mr. C. B. Watts, who, I presume, would be an unprejudiced man in regard to this matter. This is a letter to the Hon. Charles Stewart, Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, it is dated November 4, 1922:
Possibly you are not aware that as high as eleven cents per bushel is being paid to take wheat from Fort William to bay ports or Goderich a government boat, Pathfinder, having been relet by James Richardson and Sons at this figure, due to load in a few days.
The normal freight this time of the year would be four cents, but the general bid rate now is 8 cents.
Further on in his letter he says:
The extra freight, be it 4 cents, 6 cents, or 7 cents per bushel is that much money taken out of the pockets of the western farmers, or equivalent to over $400,000 to possibly $600,000 or $700,000 on shipments the last week in October alone of 10,910,000 bushels.
Further on he says:
The rail freight from the lake ports to Montreal is only 8% cents per bushel, no less than 17 cents per bushel I know and it is reported that 18.J cents per bushel, has been paid from Buffalo to Montreal by water.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just told us that the rates last year in August were one fifth of a cent higher than in 1922, in September, one half of a cent higher, in October, two fifths higher. But in the year 1922 in these very months the government were receiving wires from shippers at Fort William asking for the suspension of the coastal laws. The government apparently thought that they had not the power to suspend the coastal laws in 1922 and they came to parliament last year and got legislation to enable them to do so. But although the rates

Inland Water Freight Rates
were higher in 1923 in these three months than they were in 1922, the government so far as I know did not suspend the coastal laws. These shipping laws are kept on the statute books for the purpose of building up a merchant marine in Canada and I want to quote one paragraph from a letter from the secretary of the Marine and Shippers Association to the minister:
The coasting law is the only solid foundation on which the shipbuilding industry of Canada rests. Destroy confidence in it and you prevent investments in Canadian ships. Without a rigid coasting law to parallel that of the United States Canadian tonnage would have to take the only means open to it to enjoy equal rights with that of the United States and no more building would take place in Canada.
James Whelan, president of the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, in a letter to the government at the time when there was some talk of suspending the coastal shipping laws
says:
Looking to the future we are justified in anticipating a large expansion in the Canadian West with future crops constantly increasing far beyond the amount of the present bumper one.
Although they had a bumper crop to handle in 1922 the Canadian producer was being robbed as was pointed out in Mr. Watt's letter to the government. The government sat here apparently thinking they had no power to act although I find in some correspondence I have here that in November they did allow the American boats to load wheat and bring it down the lakes on their last trip. I urge the minister to remove the coastal shipping law from the statute books because it has been abused shamefully by the ship owners. It has been retained in the belief that it would build up a Canadian shipbuilding industry, and the owners of Canadian shipping and those engaged in the industry have used their power to bleed the Canadian producer. I do not think that term is at all too strong, and if this coastal shipping law has been abused in that way the proper thing is to abolish it. According to a pamphlet issued by the Toronto Board of Trade about 50 per cent of the money invested: in the Canadian shipping industry is American capital. So that apparently we are bleeding ourselves for the benefit of these American millionaires. The farmers are getting tired of this sort of thing and it is not to be wondered at. If the government had done their duty in 1922 and promptly suspended the coastal shipping law when asked to do so by Mr. Stewart possibly there would not now be so much agitation for the abrogation of that law and there would not be all this discussion to-night. The suspension of that law in .the summer of 1922
[Mr. Coote.l
would have brought the Canadian ship owners to their senses and taught them that there is some authority in Canada over them.
I think the minister deserves some credit for the action he took last fall when he found that the legislation which had been enacted was not effective. Either he, or the Board of Grain Commissioners is to be commended, whoever it may be that took the action, in endeavouring to circumvent that legislation. I think the first mistake last year on the part of the government was the failure to promptly suspend the coastal' shipping law. But when it was attempted to regulate this shipping combine by making the shippers file their tariffs the government should have confined that legislation to Canadian vessels. Had that been done they would not have got into the trouble in which they found themselves, as I understand that the American owners of vessels would have come in and carried grain to Buffalo if they had not been asked to file their tariffs.


Thomas Andrew Low: Would not that have been a
discrimination against the Canadian shipowners?


George Gibson Coote: It might possibly be called
a discrimination, but we are suffering from discrimination now on the part of Canadian vessel owners, because Canadian vessel owners carried grain in 1922 from Fort William to American ports at a cheaper rate than they would carry it to Canadian ports.


Thomas Andrew Low: The object was to get the
Americans as well as the Canadians to publish their tariffs, and there was nothing wrong in that. It is true that the provision has not worked out as we expected but it was considered at the time advisable. I asked the chairman of the board to put the broadest interpretation he could on the act-


Henry Lumley Drayton: In other words, to say that black was white.


Thomas Andrew Low: -and to write and let me know what his views were and he told me that it was quite proper under the act to ask the shipper to file the information which we required. It did1 not matter where we got the information if we got it.


George Gibson Coote: That may possibly be all
true but if this legislation passed a year ago had applied only to Canadian vessels the Americans would have come in and we should not have suffered1 from these high rates which were charged in August, September and October of last year. I am glad that the minister and his board did place the broadest

Inland Water Freight Rates
interpretation they could on the act and that they did the best they could at the time. I still think, however, that the legislation of last year was faulty and I believe that while we are dealing with this legislation we should take every means possible to get it right. If the minister wants to have the tariffs submitted, he should compel not the shipper but the Canadian ship owner to furnish the necessary information. We are protecting the Canadian ship owner with the coastal law and apparently the government will not be in any hurry to suspend it.


Thomas Andrew Low: The Americans were required
to give their tariffs as well as the Canadians.


George Gibson Coote: I think there is considerable
force in the argument of some hon. members to my right that the minister is asking the wrong man to file it, and if the penalty clause is invoked and the shipper is fined we shall have a peculiar situation to say the least. It is because of that.. that I suggest to the minister, if he persists in this corrective legislation which is made necessary because of the coastal law, that it is better to compel the ship owner to file the tariff.


Thomas Andrew Low: Then we are getting only half
the information we require. The Americans will come in and not be subject to the same regulations. Is it right to ask the Canadian vessel owners to do something which we are not asking the foreigner to do?


George Gibson Coote: You are allowing the Canadian ship owner now to do something which you will not allow the foreign shiip owner to do; you are allowing him to carry grain to Canadian ports but not allowing the American ship owners to bring grain to Canadian ports. So that the discrimination against the Canadian ship owner which the minister suggests is more than offset by the privilege which the Canadian ship owners enjoy. If the minister thinks this legislation compelling the filing of rates is necessary, I am not going to labour the point at all.


John Millar: I will not say offhand that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) were wrong in the point they raised, but I very reluctantly accept their attitude towards publishing rates on the Great Lakes. Sometimes the farmer is urged to be businesslike, to keep in touch with the world's markets, to know the cost of carrying his grain, so he will know what his grain is worth when he is
selling it. I believe that is sound advice. But how is the farmer to know what his grain is worth if he does not know the cost of carrying it to Liverpool?


Thomas Andrew Low: The rates will be posted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh no, that is
done away with under this amendment.


John Millar: That is the very point
which the member for Marquette and the member for Vancouver Centre objected to. I think they argued it would be unfair. Apparently they did not object to the publication of the higher rates,-what they termed the regular rates. That is, it is all right for the farmer to know the higher rates, but if his grain is being carried for two or three cents less he must not know that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I make my position clear? I object to the shipper, the individual who buys this space and ships his grain, being compelled to file rates. I do not object to the ship owner or carrier being compelled to do so.


John Millar: I am very glad the member for Vancouver Centre takes that stand. He has no objection to the farmer knowing from day to day if necessary, the cost of carrying grain across the Great Lakes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Millar: That I believe is advisable. But since it is admitted by the hon. member I will not carry the point any further. Another defect in the proposed bill is this. As I understand the minister, he expects that the Board of Grain Commissioners will from time to time get information from the shippers of the charters they have made, and on that information they will base their action if the rates seem to them to be too high. As we heard, men make a practice of engaging space, not intending to use it themselves, but to resell it at a profit. Now, as I understand this proposed legislation, is it not possible that there will be a missing link, that the carriers might not be charging too much, although the shippers might be paying too much, and the Board of Grain Commissioners, in theory at least, might too hastily penalize the carriers whereas they might not be to blame? Is it not necessary to know exactly what the carriers are charging? Is not that the important information?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is the information we will have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not necessarily.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, certainly; it is the contract made with the vessel owner.
Inland Water Freight Rates


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is the rate paid by the shipper, whether he purchases from the agent or from the vessel owner. There might be two or three intermediaries.


Thomas Andrew Low: The information will be published anyway.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not under this resolution.


Thomas Sales: Not unless you insert here
after " every ship-including a corporation-" the words "or broker."


Thomas Andrew Low: When the bill is completed
it will provide for the posting of rat*s.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What rates?


Thomas Andrew Low: The information rates suplied by the shippers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That information is perfectly useless.


Thomas Andrew Low: A copy of the contract made
with the vessel owner.


John Millar: I think the minister misses my point.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I do not.


John Millar: Let me try to make it
plainer. A contracts for space on a boat; he turns round and sells that space to B, who is the real shipper. B must post the rates with the Board of Grain Commissioners. But what about the rates that A has received?


Henry Herbert Stevens: And made a profit on?


John Millar: Yes, he may have made a big profit.


Thomas Andrew Low: If he makes a contract with the vessel owner it will be published.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not under this resolution.


Thomas Andrew Low: If not, we will try to cover it,
and will be glad to receive any suggestions from hon. members to that end. We desire to make the bill effective.


Thomas Sales: The member for Qu'Appelle
(Mr. Millar) raised a very important point. In the return to an order of the House of March 24, 1924, is contained a telegram from Mr. A. E. R. Schneider of the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, in which he replies to the secretary of the grain commissioners to the following effect:
Believe American vessel owners will object filing tariffs in accordance with provisions section 3 but see no objection filing copy of charter, personally believe charter should be filed with hopes this will expose and stop speculation on part of vessel brokers who are responsible to neither grain shipper or vessel owner and who have done tremendous harm to vessel interests, some of these vessel brokers not being satisfied with 
their proportion of about half million dollars a year on insurance, commissions and charter fees try and scalp the market on rates, this is pernicious practice and should be stopped, charters can be made between vessel owners and grain shippers direct in which case both are responsible to each other and any default on either side can be properly taken care of.
If the word "broker" is inserted as I have suggested, we will have the original charter between the vessel owner and the first party filed; then we will have the full information. Unless that is done the pernicious practice which this gentleman complains of will continue and we will not know what the man between is getting, and the minister's object will not be accomplished. I am bound to say that, like my friend from Maoleod (Mr. Coote), I have a little sympathy with the minister in what he tried to do last fall. He had rather a lawless gang to deal with. We are trying to pay interest on a lot of watered stock in some of our steamship companies. Last week I happened to be on a visit to Kingston, and I saw a lot of old boats tied up there-I see the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) is in his place-and I asked: "What are these?" The answer was, "This is the graveyard of one of our lake steamship companies." One of the steamship companies, Mr. Chairman, out of which one of those men is reported to have made about 85,000,000. We are trying to pay interest on watered stock by way of those exceedingly high rates.


George Gibson Coote: And we are doing it.


Thomas Sales: Yes, we are doing it by
paying these exceedingly high rates charged on our lake shipping by a lawless gang. I think it must be admitted that the minister had a rather hard task to handle that gang. I find on reading this return that the minister corresponded with American vessel owners with a view to chartering vessels in September.
I do not blame him for overriding his laws.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite right.


Thomas Sales: I do not blame the late government for suspending the coasting laws.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was doing the right thing.
Mr. SALE'S:	Was not this doing the right
thing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite admit
that if parliament makes an idiot of itself it should be put right at the earliest possible moment.

Inland Water Freight Rates


Mr SALES:: I remember the Minister of
Railways (Mr. Graham) using a very striking phrase; he said, "The man who does not make mistakes does not do anything; he is dead."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure
that this government is very much alive, if that is the test. They do nothing else but make mistakes.


George Perry Graham: I am sorry I cannot return the compliment.


Thomas Sales: They freely admit to-night
that the legislation was not effective.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not "freely."


Henry Herbert Stevens: If they freely admitted it
we would admire them.


Thomas Sales: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce (Mr. Low) will get freer as he gains experience, and if he is going to do anything effective he will make mistakes occasionally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But his predecessor made
the blunder.


Thomas Sales: I was in the House at the time, and I thought it was an honest endeavour to meet the situation. But the minister had a very awkward task on his hands and I think he showed considerable firmness and a determination that these rates were to come down one way or another. I am bound to admit, with my hon. friend (Mr. Coote) that the government in 1922 should have suspended the coastal laws. They were asked often enough to suspend them and I do not know why they did not do it. If they would say to-night that at any time when there is a discrimination of half a cent a bushel- because that is as much discrimination as should 'be allowed between the rates of the Canadian and the American steamships- they will immediately suspend the coastal laws, I think my hon. friends here and our farmers in the west would be satisfied and that the suggestion would act as a very effective club. There would be no hesitation or wondering about it; it would be an effective way of securing action should that discrimination occur.


Thomas George McBride: I have been in the steamboat business now for nearly twenty years, but after listening to what has been said here to-night I am commencing to think that I do not know anything about steamboats. I suggest that the government charter a number of the steamers that they have in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to these
prairie farmers who are so anxious to get into the steamboat business and give them a chance to demonstrate that they can put them on a paying basis. If they are sincere in what they say and can manage steamboats as well as their remarks would seem to indicate, why should they not take that proposition over? I do not see why we should have ships of the merchant marine which cost this country so many millions of dollars lying idle when there is a body of people so anxious to get into the steamboat business.
A great deal has been said about the coastal laws, and hon. members advocate their suspension. How would that work out? Will the Americans abolish their coastal laws? Not by any means. You cannot run a Canadian steamer from one American port to another American port; at least, you cannot do it on the Pacific coast. If the Canadian coastal laws were suspended, it would mean that the Americans would run their boats between their own ports when they could get a good revenue by so doing, and when work was slack they could switch over and run our Canadian boats out of business. There is no question about it; if the Americans keep their coastal laws in force we have got to keep ours. If some of those men who are talking so much about the steamboat business went into it they would soon get sick of their job. a great deal sicker than they are of raising wheat.


Thomas Sales: Impossible!


Thomas George McBride: Running a boat on the lakes is entirely different from running a boat on the ocean. You have got to figure your interest, your depreciation, your insurance, with respect to the running of the boats during the open season; the rest of the year they have to be tied up.


Thomas Sales: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Thomas George McBride: Why, certainly.


Thomas Sales: What experience has he had in running boats on the lakes?


Thomas George McBride: Running steamboats on
the lakes and running them on the coast is the same thing; a steamboat is a steamboat no matter where it is run. I might say not on'ly have I constructed steamers but I have operated them. I do not claim to know all about the business but I do claim to know a little and I can assure you there is not the money in steamboat work that some people think there is; it 'certainly takes a great deal of capital to build boats. This

Inland Water Freight Rates
government, I think, knows that from past experience. Let these men who talk so glibly about the steamship business take some of the boats of the merchant marine. I suggest to the Minister of Railways that he give them a good charter; that ihe let my hon. friends have some of these boats for, say, a thousand dollars a year, provided that they keeip them in proper repair and insure them, and give these gentlemen a chance.


George Perry Graham: Carried.


Thomas George McBride: Now I would suggest to
you gentlemen who know so much about steamboats that you take up the business try it and see what the results are.


Arthur Edward Ross: A reference has
been made to boats at Kingston, and I would not like the hon. gentleman who made that reference to think that those boats were fit for service. Kingston has a very good harbour, to which unserviceable boats can be brought in the fall, put on the beach and left there. The boats that the hon. gentleman saw during the course of his pleasant trip to Kingston and down the river were not serviceable 'boats. I do not think he could get the impression that they were. When this great combine that he speaks about was formed there was more money in the United States than there was in Canada and the best boats in the Canadian service were bought at that time by the American interests-and I am not going to say that some person did not make some profit. Anyway, these 'boats passed into the American service.
The trouble at present in regard to carrying grain is this: We may have sufficient Canadian bottoms to carry what grain may go from Canadian ports to Canadian ports, but those boats could not by any means handle the grain passing from a Canadian port to an American port, therefore we are bound to use the American boats. The act which came into force last year and jto which I referred in my address previously, was an act which was introduced by the present government without any reference to the companies or any person else connected with the service, and the result was that there were bad points in it which could have been avoided had the government taken the proper course. After the act was passed the government went into consultation with the representatives of the steamship companies and told them that the time had now come when they were going to make them "eat crow," and the American steamship owners left them without a service. I am not going to find fault with the government for upset-

ting that law, but I .think they made a mistake in not doing it sooner. If there was not the expected congestion in regard to this transportation of wheat it was because the people did not buy the wheat, being afraid they would not be able to get tihe service. If the government had earlier seen the mistake they made and had attempted to rectify it, I do not think there would have been any increase in rates. Once they realized they had made a mistake after the rate pressure got upon them from Winnipeg, they got the benefit of cheaper rates. I for one would not find fault with breaking the law. They did not do it soon enough in my opinion. I think we should do away with the whole thing now, and I think we would get a better service.


Thomas Sales: Irrespective of the coasting
law?


Arthur Edward Ross: Do what you like
about that. That is something you have in your hands and can make use of if necessary, but I do not think the act passed last year or this amendment will be any good.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to point out to the committee that the coastal shipping law does possibly more harm than the high tariff. We had a good deal of discussion in this House the other night in regard to shipping Canadian wheat from Halifax and St. John. Let me now read a letter from one of the biggest grain firms in Canada, which shows that this coastal shipping law is driving our wheat, to the United States, so that it cannot get to Halifax and St. John. It is from James Carruthers and Company, Limited, and is addressed to the Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa. It is dated November 30, 1922:
Yours of the 28th to hand and note all you say about the suspension of the coasting law in reference to American vessels to load grain in Fort William for winter storage.
There has been so much delay in getting this matter fixed up-
That is, negotiations had gone on from July to November.
-we don't believe there will be any American boats load cargoes of Manitoba wheat this year for Canadian ports as shippers could not ascertain just what the ruling was and according to the wires we received from Winnipeg there have been no charters made, in fact nearly all the cargoes are going to Buffalo and other American ports.
It is too bad this matter was not settled some time ago as it would have enabled us to bring more wheat to Canadian ports and we would have been able to ship it out during the winter months from St. John and Portland.

Inland Water Freight Rates
That is what goes on every year, because we have not enough Canadian boats to carry our Canadian grain down the lakes. Approximately 50 per cent of it must go to American ports, chiefly Buffalo, and then through American ports on the Atlantic seaboard. Once it gets to Buffalo it will never get to St. John or Halifax; it is physically impossible, and that fact must be remembered when considering the coastal shipping law.
Now just one or two remarks in regard to the speech which has been made by the hon. member for Cariboo (Air. McBride). First of all, I would like to suggest to the Minister of Railways that he should get into consultation with the hon. member for Cariboo, and possibly he could induce him to manage the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, so that it would show no further losses. It is too late an hour for us to enter into
11 p.m. any discussion of the profits which the ship owners on the Great lakes made in the year 1922, but those profits could, I think, quite properly be called unholy profits. They were profits altogether unheard of before in the shipping business. This shipping combine which bled us in 1922, and again I think in 1923, was one of the worst combines that ever existed in Canada, and I do hope that the minister, if he will not suspend the coasting shipping law, will devise some legislation to control this combine, but I repeat, he will not handle it effectively unless he suspends the coasting shipping law.	We have
monkeyed with these shippers long enough. They have had their chances to bleed us and they can now stand a little American competition. At one time it was the proud boast of British sailors that they could compete with the world, but apparently our Canadian sailors are not made of that kind of stuff, and they must have this kind of protection.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would just like to say a
word in reply to the ex-Minister of Finance, who has spoken frequently of the shipments to Duluth. During the year 1922-1923 we had the largest quantity of grain in any year since 1917-1918. My hon. friend says the rates were higher because of a lack of boats to dhip the grain, particularly to the port of Duluth, and yet we shipped to Duluth more grain in that year than in any of the previous seven years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is a little mixed. We do not ship to Duluth, but to Buffalo.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend quoted Duluth time and again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I was
doing was this, and surely everybody knows it except my hon. friend. The usual rate Fort William-Buffalo corresponds to Duluth-Buffalo; that is the usual thing, but-and I will say this again to my hon. friend, because he has evidently not followed what has been said this evening-by reason of the fact that the American boats could not get into Fort William, their rates, which were practically the same, were almost doubled out of Fort William; that is the Fort William rate was just twice as much as Duluth. I did not say there was no movement. Good Lord, there [DOT]7as movement; I have shown it. The wheat was there and it had to be moved, and the movement took place, and unfortunately there was a direct loss of $3,100,000 to the Canadian grower, on the lowest possible computation.


George Perry Graham: This is a very important
matter and there are a few things I was going to say, but I shall defer my remarks for the present. Is it not possible that we could now let this resolution pass so that the bill may be introduced?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Carried.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Low thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 213, to amend the Inland Water Freight Rates Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 190, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.
On section 1-Guarantee only on authorized issues.
George Perry Graham: Some days ago we discussed this bill, and after full consideration we decided to drop the following paragraph in section 1:
(4) Nothing herein contained shall he taken to authorize the guarantee of any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by this act or some other act of parliament.
The question was raised whether that subsection did not give the Canadian National Railway Company a power which we did not intend to give them. To make sure, for the present at least we wish to drop this section. We are dropping this subsection and section 2 will become section 1.
C.N.R. Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would
leave the bill without mucli introduction. You had better follow the usual form and say, " This act may be cited as the Canadian National Railway Guarantee Act of 1924."


George Perry Graham: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuii, Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 187 to amend 'the Dominion Lands Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Pelletier in the chair.
On Section 1-Rights of way across school lands.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would
like the minister to explain this bill.


Charles A. Stewart: The amendment is as set out in the section here. It is confined entirely to giving the privilege of selling school lands for the purpose outlined in the amended section. Formerly we only had the privilege of selling school lands for school sites. If other portions of the school lands were to be sold, they were sold under the provision of the act, and had to be advertised and sold by public auction. We have the consent of the governments of the three prairie provinces to this amendment to the Dominion Lands Act. We are acting as trustees for school lands. The western provinces are vitally interested in anything that is done with school lands.


Edward Joseph Garland: The act
states that the school lands may be sold at a price to be fixed by an officer of the department. Will there be any regulations governing the price? Just on what basis will the price be set?


Charles A. Stewart: In case the lands are to be sold by public auction, an upset price is fixed by the valuator before the sale is undertaken, and that upset price is published on the day of the sale and made accessible to bidders. The lands are never sold below that upset price. The same process would be followed here by the officers of the department to fix the price of these lands for sale in this way. It is simply to 
enable the department to deal more expeditiously with applications for the various purposes set out in the act and for no other. We are confined to those purposes. For example in many cases I receive applications for sand and gravel. Those are not included, and I did not think it was necessary to include them. I put nothing in here except cases of frequent occurrence. There is always that difficulty about the disposition of these lands, unless it be for school purposes, and we have the authority to sell for school purposes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under this section you
would have authority to sell the right of way for a railway, a tram line or an electric or telephone pole wire, or any other right of way, or easement, or for any project, or for a reservoir, church, cemetery or hospital site. That is a pretty wide power.


Charles A. Stewart: No. The
section reads:
(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act, the minister may sell school lands required as right of way for any project or for reservoir, church, cemetery or hospital sites, at a price to be fixed by an officer of the department as the actual market value of the land, and upon such terms of payment as the minister may prescribe.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am questioning the advisability of passing legislation authorizing an officer of the department to sell school lands for a right of way or for any such purpose. That I call in question. I do not know whether the rest of it is as objectionable. For instance, as regards a church, cemetery or hospital, I do not see so much objection, although I cannot see any objection to the minister calling for tenders for such lands in order to get a reasonable price. This lends itself to what I might term serious errors, if not worse.


Arthur Meighen: What was the method
before? We did not have to sell everything by auction.


Charles A. Stewart: Everything
except sites for public schools.


Arthur Meighen: Or churches.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: I think some plan was
effected whereby the auction could be got over in the case of small acreages for cemeteries.


Charles A. Stewart: Cemeteries, sand pits, churches.


Arthur Meighen: Was a method not
arranged to get over it for small acreages for

Dominion Lands Act
those purposes by the province appointing a valuator and the Dominion appointing a valuator to arrive at a basis that was suitable to both? I am pretty sure that I made that arrangement.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
knowledge of it if my right hon. friend did so. It is not in the statutes.


Arthur Meighen: It would not be of value if it was not in the statutes. Perhaps I am thinking of something else, but I had a recollection of that and I never ran against this difficulty. How is it coming up now?


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite
prepared to strike out the provision as to the right of way to which my hon. friend objects, but it arose- chiefly over the purchase of a right of way for the reservoir line built from the Lake of the Woods to Winnipeg. It crossed a number of school sections and they had a good deal of difficulty. I can quite conceive, however, in connection with a project like that for a railway that, perhaps, it is just as well that the statute does not provide for giving control to the minister, and I am willing to strike that out. If a small site is required for a church, there is, of course, no competition, and the same is the case as regards a school site or a cemetery site. These are the only sites that I am interested in having added to the list that the minister may deal with.


Arthur Meighen: How is the school site
dealt with? By valuation?


Charles A. Stewart: In the same way, but the valuation is made by an officer of the department, which valuation fixes the upset price of the sale. I move to strike out the words " as right of way for any project or "-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I see the note on the
opposite page reads:
There is no way in which strips of land across school lands required as rights of way for drainage, irrigation, pipe line, reservoir or other projects.
Just leaving the other projects out, would it not be as well for the minister to substitute at least a right of way for water supplies or drainage? There would not be much use in building a reservoir if there was not a pipe to draw the water out.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
anxious to take power to deal with what would involve the crossing of half a dozen sections of land, school lands for example, without consultation, at least, with the provincial authorities or the actual owners of the land.


Arthur Meighen: That is the only objection. For the small parcels, this is all right.


Charles A. Stewart: What we
want to deal with is those little acreages of land required for such purposes. The other matter can be one of agreement between the federal government and the provinces.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The only thing I thought
was that the limitation that was suggested was a little too narrow and that it would leave the bill up in the air. If the minister wants this for reservoir purposes, he would get it for reservoir purposes, but he would be deprived of any outlet for his reservoir. He might just as well get a pipe for the reservoir, or not build the reservoir at all.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Monday, June 30, 1924