1925-02-23

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and Health) dn the absence of the Prime Minister moved: When this House adjourns on Tuesday, February 24, instant, it stand adjourned until Thursday, February 26, instant.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Mr. KELLNER:: What is known as the
open rule mixture now prevails in some sections of the country but not in others. The bill is designed to make it applicable all over the country in the case of mixed cars.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSE TO SIT ON ASH WEDNESDAY

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House return to the order of Motions.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: A motion has just been passed that the House adjourn over Ash Wednesday. The government feels that it would be better to proceed with business on that day. I would therefore move that the motion for an adjournment over Ash Wednesday be rescinded.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: With the
unanimous consent of the House.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask if the consent of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has been obtained to this motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may reply
that it has.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Solidarity of the government.


Arthur Meighen: Is it the intention of
the government that the civil service shall work on Wednesday also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
EXPORTATION OF POWER Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:
How much power is under permit by the government of Canada for export to the United States in each fiscal year 1921-22, 1922-23, 1923-24, 1924-25, in terms of kilowatt hours and horse-power?
['1.\tHas an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Alberta for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Alberta, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?\n2.\tHave the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province therein?\n3.\tHave the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?\n4.\tHas approval been received from any of the last mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and if so, by whom has such approval been given?\nQuestions Nos. 44, 45 and 46 stand.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Company
Year
Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls	
Electrical Development Co. of Niagara Falls	
Hydro Electric Power of Ontario. (The two companies above named)	
Canadian Niagara Power Co. of Niagara Falls!	
Maine & New Brunswick Power Company	
Ontario & Minnesota Power Company	
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25 1921-22
Sherbrooke Railway and Power Company
Western Canada Power Company	
B.C. Electric Railway Company	
Cedar Rapids Mfg. and Power Company..,
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
Licensed to Export
K.W.	K.W. Hr.	Horse Power45,000	394,200,000	60,32245,000	394,200,000	60,32245,000	394,200,000	60,32235,000	306,600,000	46,91935,000	306,600,000	46,91935,000	306,600,000	46,91980,000	700,800,000	107,24145,000	394,200,000	60,32245,000	394,200,000	60,32245,000	394,200,000	60,32245,000	394,200,000	60,3222,500	21,900,000	3,3512,500	21,900,000	3,3512,500	21,900,000	3,3512,500	21,900,000	3,3512,611	22,872,360	3,5002,611	22,872,360	3,5003,000	26,280,000	4,0223,000	26,280,000	4,022100	876,000	134100	876,000	134100	876,000	134100	876,000	1345,000	43,800,000	6,7025,000	43,800,000	6,70210,000	87,600,000	13,40410,000	S7,600,000	13,4045,000	43,800,000	6,7025,000	43,800,000	6,7025,000	43,800,000	6,7025,000	43,800,000	6,70275,000	657,000 000	100,53775,000	657,000,000	100,53775,000	657,000,000	100,53775,000	657,000,000	100,537



Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Is Customs duty collected by the Canadian government upon goods originating in Canada, shipped via American atlantic ports to Canadian pacific ports?
2.	If so, under what authority, statutory or otherwise, is the duty collected?
3.	Is customs duty collected by the Canadian government upon goods originating in Canada and shipped through the United States on American roads to Canadian porta?
4.	What is the distinction between the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 hereof?
5.	How much duty has been collected at Canadian points on goods originating in Canada and shipped via American ports to Canadian ports?
0. Have any rebates of duty been granted to Canadian shippers since January 1, 1922?
7. If rebates referred to in the preceding paragraph hfreof have been granted, what are the names, with
addresses, of the persons, firms, or corporations, to whom such rebates have been granted, and the amount of the rebate in each individual case?
8.	Under what authority are rebates granted?
9.	Has the same practice been followed in regard to granting of rebates in each individual case?
10.	What are the reasons for granting of rebates in the individual cases hereinbefore referred to?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: (1) Yes, except when, the goods are forwarded from the port of shipment in Canada under customs supervision via the port of New York and transferred there, under the supervision of a Canadian customs officer and transported therefrom in British registered vessels, under regulations established by order in council.

Questions
(2)	When goods are otherwise shipped, they are regarded as importations and subject to duty under Canadian customs tariff.
(3)	No. When the goods are forwarded under Canadian customs manifests in sealed cars such seals remaining intact until the cars arrive at the frontier port of re-entry in Canada.
(4)	In the circumstances in question (1), the goods are not shipped under Canadian customs supervision, whereas they are so shipped in the circumstances in question (3). Regulations have been established by order in council for the shipment of such goods by rail under customs manifests in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (q) of section 2S6 of the Customs Act, respecting the powers of Governor in Council as follows:-
(q) Prescribing the rule and conditions under which goods imported in bond or duty-paid, and products or manufactures of Canada, may be transported from one port or place in Canada to another port or place therein, over any territory or waters outside the limits of Canada: provided that the goods so transported shall, upon arrival in Canada from any place beyond the limits of Canada, be treated with regard to the liability to, or exemptions from, duty, as if the transportation had taken place entirely within the limits of Canada;
(5)	No information available.
(6)	Yes.
(7)	Morrison Steel and Wire Company, Limited, Vancouver, B.C., duty and sales tax $3,510.52; Compressed Gas Company, Limited, Vancouver, duty $653,62.
(8)	By order in council under authority of section 92 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
(9)	Yes; refunds only authorized by authority of order in council.
(10)	As a matter of relief, the parties being unaware at the time of shipment that the goods when so shipped were liable to duty.


CANADIAN RAILWAY DATA
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What is the total mileage of railway operated by the (a) Canadian National Railway; (b) Canadian Pacific Railway ?
2.	In respect to each of the above railways what
is the (a) total number of employees of the headquarters staff;	(b) total salaries paid to such employees in 1924;	(c) average salary of such employees ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.
(a)	As at December 31, 1924-21,835
(to) As at November 31, 1924-14,025
2.	Canadian National.
(a)	2,684.
(b)	$5,047,118.
(c)	$1,880.
No information as to Canadian Pacific Montreal employees.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-WIRELESS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What Canadian National Railway wireless broadcasting stations have been installed?
2.	What has each cost?
3.	What has it cost to equip Canadian National Railway passenger cars with wireless?
4.	What purpose is the latter equipment proposed to serve other than the amusement of the staff, and some passengers?
5.	What revenue has been earned, if any, from each of such wireless stations?
6.	In what way is it expected that such wireless installations will produce revenue over expense?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Two; one at Ottawa and one at Moncton.
2.	The Ottawa station, $18,253.20, and Moncton, $22,500.
3.	Twenty cars have been equipped at a total cost of $10,843.39; average per car, $542.17.
4.	Equipment is placed on trains, not for the purpose of entertaining the staff, but to afford information and entertainment for passengers, and thereby attract passenger business to Canadian National lines.
5 and 6. No direct revenue, but the management have ample proof, based upon reports from the Traffic department, that the advertising obtained by the aid of these stations has resulted in increased earnings for the railways. During the month of January, 1925, ten programmes were broadcasted from the Ottawa station. The management received 3,122 telegrams, cards and letters acknowledging the broadcasts, or an average of 312 per concert. The acknowledgments were received from all sections of Canada, practically the entire United States, and Cuba.
The average number of communications received from the station at Moncton is 350. Those are received from the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland, New England states, Quebec and Ontario. In one mail recently, there were received at Moncton fourteen letters from the British Isles acknowledging receipt of the Moncton broadcast, and it is fair to assume that the interest displayed by the recipients of Canadian National Railway broadcasts will result in increased business to the railway.


EGGS, POULTRY AND LIVE STOCK-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many egg circles has the Live Stock branch organized in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	How many poultry clubs have been organized?
4.	Where are they situated?
Questions

5.	How many committees have been organized for co-operation in marketing of sheep and lambs?
6.	Where ore they located?
7.	How many live stock clubs have been so organized?
8.	Where ore they located?
9.	What is the personnel of the Live Stock division branch at Moncton?
10.	What are their names and respective salaries?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Twenty-one.
2.	Kent County-Acadieville, St. Louis, St. Ignace, St. Charles, St. Paul.
Westmoreland County-Havelock, Port Elgin, Chapman's Corner, Melrose, Bayfield, Great Shemogue, Murray Corner, Baie Verte, Barachois and Cape Bald.
Northumberland County-These are federated under the name "Botsford United Farmers' Egg and Poultry Selling Association," Secretary, Carl. C. Allen, Upper Cape, N-B. Rogerville, Miramichi Poultry Association at Newcastle, Neguac.
Gloucester County-Caraquet, St. Isadore, Paquetville, Pokemouche.
In addition to the above, there are now two province-wide organizations, i.e., Poultry Producers of New Brunswick and New Brunswick Poultry Exchange. The Miramichi Poultry Association and the Poultry Producers of New Brunswick are associations for the advancement of poultry interests by way of dissemination of literature, co-operative purchase of incubators, brooder stoves, and other supplies. The New Brunswick Poultry Exchange is for the co-operative sale of eggs and poultry supplied by egg circles (organized for operation this coming egg season).
3.	Seventeen.
4.	Kent County-Acadieville, St. Louis, St. Ignace, St. Charles.
Westmoreland County-Port Elgin, Chapman's Corner, Melrose Bayfield, Great Shemogue, Murray Corner, Baie Verte, Barachois and Cape Bald. These are Federated under the name "Botsford United Farmers' Egg & Poultry Selling Association," Secretary Carl C. Allen, Upper Cape, NJB.
Northumberland County-Rogerville, Neguac.
Gloucester County-St. Isidore, Paquetville, Pokemouche.
5.	Twenty-one.
6.	Kent County-Mt. Carmel, St. Ignace & St. Louis, Weldford, St. Paul, Rexton, Richi-bucto Village.
Northumberland County-Rogerville,.
Gloucester County-Tracadie & St. Isidore, Lameque, Six Roads, Upper Caraquet, Grand Anse, Bathurst & St. Therese, North Teta-gouche, Petit Rocher, Belledune.

Restigouche County-Nash Creek, River Charle, St. Quentin.
Westmoreland County-Botsford.
York County-Harvey.
7.	Twenty-one.
8.	Same as No. 6.
9	& 10.
J. K. King, District Sheep Promoter...	$2,280
G. R. Wilson, District Poultry Promoter	 2,400
A. Goguen, Poultry Promoter.... 1,440
E.	F. Pineau, Sheep Promoter		1,680
E. M. McKinnon, Egg Inspector....	1,440
Miss M. Fairweather, Clerk-Stenographer	 960


TAX FREE BONDS
Mr. HODGINS:: What are the names of individuals or corporations holding tax free Dominion bonds to the amount of $10,000 or over, and what amount is held by each such individual or corporation?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: The department has no information as to the names of individuals or corporations holding tax free bearer Dominion bonds. Information in possession of the department as to registered* or fully registered bond holders is confidential.


IMMIGRATION AGENTS
Mr. MILLAR:: -
1.	How many persons have been engaged (other than persons previously employed) by this government, or any department of this government, since it came into office in 1921, for the purpose of serving outside of Canada as immigration agents?
2.	What are the names of such persons?
3.	What remuneration does each receive?
4.	In what country does each serve in promoting immigration ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Twelve.
2.	(a) A. E. May, employed from 27th September, 1922, to 31st August, 1923, at salary rate of $2,400 per annum; (b) G. H. Mooney, employed from 6th July, 1922, to 31st August, 1923, at salary rate of $2,400 per annum; (c) A. E. Peddie, employed from 3rd April, 1922 to 31st March, 1923, at salary rate of $2,400 per annum, (d) John McColl, employed for various periods from August, 1922, to December, 1924, at salary rate of $2,400 per annum; (e) M. Mills, employed from 3rd* July, 1922 to 31st August, 1923, at salary rate of $2,400 per annum; (f) Geo. Whittaker, employed from 6th June to 31st August, 1923, at salary rate of $1,920 per annum; (g) J. C. Koehn, employed from 20th July, 1922, to 30th November, 1923, at salary rate of $1,800 per annum; (h) W. M. Ingram,

Questions
employed from 20th April, 1922, to 31st May, 1924, at salary rate of $2,400 per annum; the foregoing are not now in the service; (i) Geo. Hornsey, employed at salary rate of $1,920 per annum plus $500 living allowance; (j) D. Lothian, employed at salary rate of $2,040 per annum plus $500 living allowance; (k) Miss A. MacDonald, employed at salary rate of $1,920 per annum plus $500 living allowance; (1) G. A. B. Buchanan, employed at salary rate of $1,920 per annum plus $500 living allowance.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	(a) and (h) served' in the United States; (i) now serving in England; (j) and (k) now serving in Scotland; (1) now serving in Holland.


BOOT AND SHOE FACTORIES, QUEBEC
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	How many boot and shoe factories were there in the province of Quebec, in the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	How many of the said factories were there in the district of Quebec during the above mentioned years?
3.	How many, in the district of Quebec, failed during above mentioned years, and what were the liabilities of each respectively ?
4.	How many boot and shoe factories, in the district of Quebec, closed their doors and ceased to carry on business during the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?
5.	How many people were employed by said factories at the time of these failures?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	In 1920, 93 establishments; in 1921, 98; in 1922, 100; in 1923, 101. Information for 1924 not yet available.
2.	In 1920 there were 36 establishments in the district of Quebec; in 1921, 37; in 1922, 37; in 1923, 35. The district of Quebec includes Quebec city, Ancienne Lorette, Indian Lorette ana' Loretteville.
3.	No information regarding failures.
4.	Two establishments in the district of Quebec ceased operations in 1920 ; 2 in 1921; 4 in 1922; and 2 in 1923.
5.	There were 38 persons employed in the establishments which ceased operations in 1922. Similar information cannot be given for 1920, 1921 or 1923 as there were less than three establishments which ceased operations in each of those years.


WHARF AT MATANE
Mr. JONES:: 1.	What amount was paid for lumber in connection with the construction of a wharf at Matane, in tb-province of Quebec, during the last fiscal year?
2.	What amount was paid for stone in connection with the construction of the same wharf?
3.	To whom was the amount paid in each case?
4.	Was the lumber and stone purchased by contract?
5.	If so, was it let by tender?
Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay); The following information is in respect to the fiscal
year 1923-24:
1.	$5,117.63.
2.	$672.75.
3.	Timber:-
Alphonse Berube	$ 91 96
David Gauthier	
128	62Edmond Marquis	
365	15Simeon	Raymond	
56	02George	Philibert	
629	87Antoine Blouin	
123	33Francois Belanger	
106	72Jean Baptiste Raymond______	34	71Aime Michaud	
67	37Eugene	Harrison	
87	54Michel	Thibeault	
243	21Philippe Desjardins	
51 85Napoleon Thibeault	
357 66Chs. Luc Blouin	
75	66Francois McMullen	
332	86Philibert Gauthier	
166	08Napoleon St. Laurent	
138	48Samuel Belanger	
18	20Germain Gagne	
182	44Ferdinand Belanger	
56	45Jean Berube	
101	00Antoine Blouin	
61	73Louis Carrier	
133	68Louis Dionne	
357	06Francois Garon	
4	80Rene Gagne	
42	84Alexandre Joncas	
155	82Adhemar Joncas	
387	11Narcisse Michaud	
172	82Narcisse St. Pierre	
24	75Joseph Boufard	
25	41Charles Tremblay	
3	96William Gagnon	
23	94Louis Lapointe	
5	10J. Paul Cote	
37	61Camille McKinnon	
3	90Capt. P. Piuze	
13	49Philippe Gauthier	
10	59N. Lapierre	
4	60J. O. Roy	
8	49Octave Dionne	
11	05Edmond' Levesque	
190	87Alex. Joncas	
22	83

Stone:-
Odilon Murray	$ 30 75
Michel Philibert	
22	50George Tremblay	
47	25Thomas Fortin	
45	75Johnny Fortin	
91	50Luc Thibeault	
180	00Henri Garon	
60	00Hormidas Murray	
55	50
Questions

Stone-Concluded.
Alfred Garon, fils	 12 00
Chs. Emile Dionne	 127 50
5.	Answered by No. 4.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: In view of the special committee's report re old age pensions, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this session granting these pensions, or what will be done in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is under consideration.


GRAVES OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN FRANCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the action of the French government in proposing to remove the bodies of two hundred Canadian soldiers buried in the Canadian cemetery at Lieven, near Loos, in France ?
2.	Is this action not in direct violation of the agreement in existence that no cemetery containing more than forty bodies will be moved, as this cemetery was carefully selected, and what action has been taken by the Government, or the Canadian and British War Graves Commission, to regulate these matters?
3.	Has the Canadian government any check in the matter, and are they aware of these removals before they take place, and is the Canadian government consulted in the matter, and what action has or will be taken?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	It is presumed that the question refers to Corkscrew British cemetery which contains the graves of some 200 soldiers of whom however only 36 are Canadians.
2.	The government is unaware of any such agreement. The permanent establishment of cemeteries is subject to the French law of hygiene and the consent of communal authorities. There has however always been an understanding that cemeteries containing less than forty bodies must be moved.
3.	Under agreements with the French and Belgian governments the Imperial War Graves Commission, on which Canada has her own representative, is qualified to act in these matter's. Very few removals have been necessary and these have been made only in cases in which the sites for uncontrollable reasons have become definitely unsuitable. In the case in question it is understood that the burials were originally made among the coal mines and that the site is surrounded by railway lines. It became apparent that the graves could not be preserved in proper permanent honour in the original situation. The French authorities have insisted on removal and have refused in this instance to

give to the commission a perpetual concession of the site. The new location is in Loos British cemetery which is being made into a very beautiful cemetery where the bodies will rest in peaceful and dignified surroundings. Notification of such removals is given by the commission to relatives direct.


PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATIONS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Have examinations taken place since May 1, 1924, for the following positions: (a) Inspector of Penitentiaries; (b) Immigration Agents
2.	If so, what are the names of those who obtained positions by virtue of said examinations and do they sp ak the two official languages?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) No. Examinations have been held since May 1, 1924, for Emigration Agents, Grades 1 and 2, in;
1.	Great Britain, Ireland and United States.
2.	New England States.
3.	Hamburg, Germany.
2.	(a) Lt. Col. Eric MacDonald. Speaks English only.
(b)	I. Appointments have not yet been made to positions in Great Britain, Ireland and United States.
II.	, Emigration Agents, Grade 2, New England States were G. J. Charette, J. B. Riordon, and L. A. Delorme, all of whom speak the two official languages.
III.	No successful candidate was obtained in the Hamburg competition.


EXPORTATION OF CANADIAN GRAINS
Mr. CLARK:: Fiscal years	Bushels
1920		Not available
1921		 49,977,224
1922		 83,354,275
1923		 132,007,645
1924		 119,413,546


DUMPING DUTY ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	What amount of money was (Collected from brokers, wholesale fruit and vegetable jobbers or commission merchants during the calendar years 1923 and 1924 for dumping duty on fruits and vegetables?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the persons or companies from whom dumping duty was collected during this period ?
3.	What was the date of each payment and the kind and origin of the product upon which the dumping duty was paid?
4.	How many and upon what dates were claims made for the repayment of the dumping duties collected?
5.	What was the amount of each claim paid?
6.	What are the names of the persons or companies making the claims and what was the reason given for the claim in each case?


Jacques Bureau: Statistics of dumping duty collected are not recorded under the different items of the import classification, but only as total amount collected, there is therefore no separate departmental record showing dumping duty collected on fruits and vegetables.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SALARIES $10,000 AND OVER
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many officials of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of a salary of $10,000 and over per annum?
2.	What are their names?


George Perry Graham: This is a question similar to others asked and which, in the interest of the Canadian National Railway Board, it would not be in the interest of the railway to make public.


George Newcombe Gordon: Dropped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, answered.


REQUESTS FOR COPYRIGHT LICENSES
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many requests for license have been received by the Registrar of Copyrights, at Ottawa, for republishing Canadian works, under the provisions of the Act of 1921?
2.	By whom have these requests been made, on what dates, and for what works?
3.	Were the licenses granted, and to whom, and for what works?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	No application for licenses to re-publish works of Canadian authors under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1921, have been received.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MR. H. H. BREWER
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Was Mr. H. H. Brewer, assistant general manager
of western lines, Canadian National Railways, superannuated during the past year?
2.	If so, for what reason and at what annual retirement allowance.


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) On account of ill-health.
(b)	Was granted a retiring allowance by the board of directors which, in their judgment, seemed proper.


TRANSFER OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO THE PROVINCES
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Manitoba for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Manitoba, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?
2.	Have the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province herein?
3.	Have the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?
4.	Has approval been received from any of the last-mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and if so, by whom has such approval been given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer to the first question is no. That, I think, will answer the other three questions.


Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Saskatchewan for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Saskatchewan, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?
2.	Have the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province herein ?
3.	Have the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?
4.	Has approval been received from any of the last-mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and if so, by whom has such approval been given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer to this question is similar to that given to the last question. To the first question the answer is no, and that will answer the other three questions.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether the hon. member who placed this question on the order paper is present,

Questions as Orders
but the answer "No", to the first question does not answer the other three.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume the other three questions have reference to an agreement having been entered into with the provinces concerned; if there has been no agreement entered into the other questions would appear to be irrelevant.


Arthur Meighen: The irrelevancy is not for the government to decide. It is for the member who has asked the questions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to permitting the question to pass as an order for return. That is question 45 I understand.


Arthur Meighen: I was referring to question 44, not to question 45. I had not time to get my eyes down to No. 45.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same thing, only it relates to the province of Saskatchewan instead of to Manitoba.


Arthur Meighen: But it is just the last kind of question that should be made an order for return. Let the matter stand until the hon. member returns. The whole four questions might be allowed to stand, and perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow them to be dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was trying to oblige my hon. friend by allowing the question to pass in the form of an order for a return. I still think the answer given to the first question is the correct one-that no agreement has been entered into between the Dominion and the provinces named, therefore the other questions are irrelevant. There is no objection however, to allowing the three questions, 44, 45 and 46 to stand.


Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Alberta for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Alberta, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?
2.	Have the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province therein?
3.	Have the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?
4.	Has approval been received from any of the last mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and if so, by whom has such approval been given?
Questions Nos. 44, 45 and 46 stand.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- COLONIZATION DEPARTMENT Mr. WOODSWORTH:
1.	What was the cost of maintaining the colonization department of the Canadian National Railways m Europe in the years 1923 and 1924, respectively?
2.	What was the size of the staff employed in 1923 and 1924, respectively?
3.	What salary was paid to the manager of the colonization department of the Canadian National Railways in Europe in the year 1924?
4.	What sum was paid to the manager as expenses, travelling and personal, in addition to this salary?
5.	How many lecturers were in the employ of the Canadian National Railways in the winters of 1923 and 1924 in Great Britain, and what salaries were paid to these lecturers ?
6.	How many families have settled in Canada under the agreement made between the British government and the Canadian National Railways to settle British families on lands owned by the Canadian National Railways in Canada ?
7.	What expenses were incurred in securing the said families in Britain and settling them in Canada?
8.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to settle any additional families under the said agreement?
9.	How much money has been spent by the Canadian National Railways in connection with the scheme to settle British boys under the age of 17 in Canada?
10.	How many boys have been brought to Canada by the Canadian National Railways under the said scheme?
11.	How much money has the Canadian National Railways spent in Great Britain in connection with its correspondence lecture course on Canadian farming?

Mr. JONES:: 1.	How many persons of the electoral district of Restigouche- Madawaska have obtained employment in the inside service of the civil sendee, since January 1, 1908?
2.	What are their names and date of appointment?


GOVERNMENT TELEGRAPHS-RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton;):: 1.	What were the revenues from each of the following Dominion government telegraph offices, for each year, 1910 to 1924: Peace River, Waterhole, Dunvegan, Spirit, Sexsmith, Clairmont, Grande Prairie, Beaver-lodge?
2.	What were the expenditures in connection with each office for the years 1910 to 1924?
3.	What salaries have been paid to the operators for the years 1910 to 1924?


MANUFACTURE OF BEER OR LIQUOR
Mr. FANSHER:: 1.	Are the licenses granted to breweries and distilleries issued annually?
2.	How many brewery and distillery licenses were granted or renewed in the province of Ontario in the years 1922, 1923, 1924, and the present year to date?
3.	How many of these licenses were granted or renewed without the consent of the Ontario government?
Rules oj the Home

4.	Are permits or licenses granted annually to persons in Ontario giving them the right to manufacture beer or liquor to be consumed in their homes?
5.	If so, what was the number of such permits or licenses granted or renewed in each constituency in the province of Ontario from January 1, 1924, to December 31, 1924, and during this year to date?
6.	How many ships or boats were given clearance papers for Cuba and Mexico, from ports in the province of Ontario in 1924?
7.	How many of such ships carried liquor?


PASSENGER TRAFFIC BY PROVINCES
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	How many passenger trains were run each week in each province during 1924?
2.	What was the average number of passengers on each of these trains per province?
3.	What is the average cost per passenger per train per province?
4.	What is the average cost of these passenger trams per mile per province?


DOMINION LANDS-TRANSFERS TO ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Since confederation, how many acres of land belonging to the Dominion of Canada have been transferred to the province of Ontario, and on what dates were transfers made?
2.	What consideration was paid by said province of Ontario for said transfers?
3.	What was the cost to the Dominion of Canada of administering and developing said lands prior to the date of transfer?
4.	Since confederation, how many acres of land, belonging to the Dominion of Canada, have been transferred to the province of Quebec, and on what dates were transfers made ?
5.	What consideration was paid by said province of Quebec for said transfers?
6.	What was the cost to the Dominion of Canada of administering and developing said lands prior to the date of transfer?
7.	Were the rights of the other provinces of Canada to compensation reserved when the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec were extended?


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND RUPERT'S LAND
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	On what date and by what authority did the Dominion of Canada acquire the Northwest Territories and Rupert's Land, and at what cost to the Dominion of Canada as a whole?
2.	What has been the total cost to the Dominion of Canada as a whole in administering and developing said Northwest Territories and Rupert's Land?
3.	What portion of the Northwest Territories and Rupert's Land is still owned by the Dominion of Canada ?
4.	What portion of the Northwest Territories retained by the Dominion of Canada lies within the confines of each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
5.	What has been the total cost to the Dominion of Canada of administering and developing the last-mentioned areas?
6.	What portion of the lands referred to in paragraph four have been sold or otherwise disposed of since same were acquired by the Dominion of Canada?
7.	What have been the proceeds from (a) sales of said lands mentioned in paragraph four; and (b) revenue derived thereon from all other sources?


RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a revision of the rules is desirable, and that for this purpose a special committee should be appointed to consider and report upon such revision at this session.
He said: In rising to speak to this resolution may I assure the House that I am in agreement with what I take to be the general consensus of opinion, that in the main the rules and practices of parliament achieve the ends for which they were instituted. Coming to us as they do as the wisdom of long experience, they provide in some way or other for almost every contingency which might conceivably arise in the conduct of public business. Amongst other things they ensure a free discussion; they make for despatch and efficiency in matters of business; they ensure against snap verdicts; and in a very comprehensive way regulate the deliberations o|f parliament with a degree of speed, efficiency, fairness and harmony which is on the whole very satisfactory. But, in thus paying what I trust is due respect to parliamentary rules, I am not prepared to admit the improbability of improvement. By the very nature of the British constitution which we follow in our Canadian parliament, current necessities are the parents of precedents, and there are times when even parliamentary rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I will give at a later stage of my argument some of these instances in which parliamentary rules seem to work against the best interests of parliament. If it be admitted that there is even a possibility of improving to any extent any rule of parliament, then I contend that the means of making such an improvement should be provided for by the appointment of a committee, such as is proposed in this resolution. In recent years the desirability of revising the rules of parliament and in even going so far as to renovate the whole machinery of government has been apparent both in Canada and Great Britain. The British government in 1917 appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Haldane, which included within the scope of its reference the question of revision of parliamentary rules. It is true the inquiry undertaken by Lord Haldane's committee was very much more comprehensive than is suggested in this resolution, covering as it did the whole governmental institution in all its phases. The reference to that committee was as follows:

Rules of the House
To inquire into the responsibllitiea of the various departments of central executives, and to advise in what manner the exercise and distribution by the government of its functions should be improved.
That parliamentary practice and rules were included in this reference is proved by the fact that in a section of the report of that committee under the heading of Parliamentary Control, recommendations are made regarding alterations in parliamentary practice that would provide for a larger measure of control by parliament, especially in the matter of public expenditure. Then a select committee on procedure of the House in the British parliament in its ninth annual report in 1918 recommended radical departures from present practices, especially in dealing with the estimates in comlmittee of the Whole; but these are not the only instances where inquiries have been made with a view to revising parliamentary rules and procedure. I would draw the attention of the House to the Murray report on the reorganization of the public service of Canada which was made in 1912. This also includes a rather severe criticism of parliamentary practice in some very important particulars. Then in 1919 our Senate appointed a special committee to consider and report on the "possibility of bettering the machinery of government". The scope of that reference, it will be seen also, was very much wider than I am proposing in this resolution, but nevertheless it also includes what I am asking, namely; a consideration of the question of a revision of the rules. The committee of the Senate made use of the report of Lord Haldane's committee of the Murray report, and also made reference to the select standing committee of the British house to which I have referred, and seems to have agreed in the main that the recommendations of these bodies were desirable for Canada. I make reference, Mr. Speaker, to these investigations by committees of the British parliament and of the Canadian Senate to show that the desirability of revising the rules of parliament, is not merely a whim of my own or of some few members of the House.
Not only do these reports that I have mentioned, coming from these committees, indicate the need of modification and alteration in parliamentary practice, but they emphasize the need of improvement in matters much more fundamental. So far, all I think will be prepared to admit that no rules, whether they be parliamentary or any other kind of rules are perfect, so that I will begin by placing my request for a committee on the very lowest basis, which is this, that no rules are perfect, our .parliamentary rules are
not perfect, and that there is at least a possibility of improving them.
The attention which has been given to the whole question of government and parliamentary control by the aforementioned committees tends to show that a revision of the rules is advisable. I desire to point out some examples which, I hope, will appeal to all members of the House, as they are certainly familiar with the practices to which I will draw their attention. In pointing out some rules of parliament that, in my opinion, could stand revision, I do so without attempting to make any distinction whatever between rules and practices of parliament. If there exists any such distinction, I shall have to leave it to some legal mind to show where that distinction lies. So far as I am able to observe, the rules and the practices of parliament both seem to be one as regards the conduct of the House. The present practices of parliament prohibit to a very large degree parliamentary control over public expenditure. I should like, in this connection, to summarize the Murray report. It says that control of parliament over expenditure is negligible; that the theory of control is very complete, but the practice is of little value. Few, it seems to me, will assert that control of parliament over expenditure is anything more than a formality. It is not a real control. We have, of course, full liberty' to criticize expenditures, but we have no control over what they shall be. Mr. Lloyd George, on this question, has something to say which I think is worth quoting. Speaking in the British House of Commons,he says:
I do not think the present methods of parliamentary control are efficient, but that is not a change which has come about through the new administration. I have always thought that the methods of parliamentary control, and I speak here as a fairly old parliamentarian, rather tended to give undue prominence to trivialities-my right hon. friend and I have talked over this matter many a time-and on the other hand that it rather tended to minimise and ignore realities. Whether you can improve upon that I personally have never had any doubt, but I have always thought- I do not know whether I carry anyone with me on this except my hon. friend who sits there-that the French system was a more effective one-the system whereby ministers have to appear before parliamentary committees.
A select committee of the British House framed a questionnaire which they sent out to the leading minds of the nation and they received a reply which would seem to bear out the view of Mr. Lloyd George which I have just quoted. I quote now from the report of that committee:
The replies show, with few exceptions, a consensus of opinion that the present system of parliamentary control over expenditure is inadequate. In that view we concur. Indeed our terms of reference themselves, inviting proposals to render control more effective, in-
Rules oj the Howe

nation was caused when the leader of the Labour party (Mr. Woodsworth) forestalled the leader of the official opposition and moved an amendment to the budget-the only amendment that could be moved. Without debating the advantages which might accrue from a change in that respect, I draw the practice to the attention of the House in the hope that this is another instance where hon. members will agree that a revision might well take place. Surely it will be agreed that the Progressive party, the Labour or any other group has just as good a right as the official opposition to move such an amendment; and I think it will be also generally agreed that the present rule in limiting the amendment in this instance to the official opposition, forbids the fullest expression of opinion.
Then let me take one other illustration, the appointment of committees by the government. The government is always careful to have a large majority of its own supporters on each committee. This practice, of course, arises out of the two-party system, but in my opinion it might very well be dropped. Surely it might be better for the government to leave such committees more or less free from domination, and by so doing it is possible that ideas more favourable to a higher type of legislation might at least be reflected in the recommendations of these committees, even if such recommendations should be killed later by the government party on the floor of the House.
I think I have perhaps drawn the attention of the House to a sufficient number of cases to show the advisability of appointing a committee to inquire into the whole question of the revision of the rules, and I hope that what I have presented in support of my resolution will indicate the nature of the inquiry which I propose. If the House is of the opinion that no change is desirable or possible, then my speech will be at least a protest against its judgment. If, however, it agrees that improvements may be effected in some of our parliamentary practices, this resolution should be adopted and the committee asked for forthwith appointed. Such a committee might not bring immediate results, but by taking this step we would be at least ready to move forward when the proper time came, for the House would be in possession of all the information necessary to deal intelligently with the subject. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that my views will be favourably received by hon. members. No harm can possibly come by a committee of this House going into the question of a revision of the rules. If such a committee should find there is no basis for any alteration, that there is no room for improve-

ment, no harm would be done by the information being placed before the House. I hope, therefore, that this resolution will be adopted and the committee asked for appointed at thi3 session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection whatever to a committee being appointed to consider a revision of the rules if there appears to be substantial grounds for taking such a step; thus far we have had only the views of my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) in support of the motion. It would, I think be inadvisable to reach a hasty decision at any rate at this stage of the debate.


Arthur Meighen: Is the government satisfied with the rules as they are?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government feels there is room for revision, but it also feels that the time of the House is precious, and that the appointment of additional committees just for the sake of revision, be it revision of the rules or revision of anything else, is not a wholly wise procedure. If members of the House generally feel there are strong reasons for a committee to consider a revision of the rules, the government will not oppose such a committee, we are hoping, however, this session to avoid as far as possible any unnecessary extension or duplication of work.


Jacques Bureau: The rules are not the rules of the government, but the rules of the House.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: I gladly accept the invitation of the Prime Minister to express my views on this question. Ever since I came here I have had a growing conviction that our procedure makes for inefficiency and waste of time in several fairly important respects. I do believe, of course as the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has so well said, that most of our rules, having been based on long experience, are most excellent; that the worthy objects of freedom of speech, the saving of time, and the prevention of surprises and snap verdicts are very well provided for in the rules as at present existing; but I should like to submit very emphatically to the House that these rules have been built up when conditions were very different from what they are to-day, and very different from what they are likely to be in the near future. We ought to adapt our machinery to existing conditions, and not to conditions that have passed, and the time has arrived now, I think, when a revision of the rules, or at least some of the rules, ought to be undertaken.
Reference has been made to several matters which, in my opinion, are worthy of serious

Rules oj the Home
consideration, and I sincerely hope that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will join with those of us who are in favour of the resolution in order that he may be prevented in the future from being caught as he was last year. I think we ought to provide the greatest liberty to all the various groups in this House for the expression of their opinions.
There is another reason why the resolution ought to pass, and I wish to bring that before the House very briefly. There are three resolutions on the order paper which refer either to the work of committees in general, or to the rules of the House. They are No. 2, No. 6, and No. 14. No. 2 is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, one full day a week for the whole session should be set aside for private members, on which day notices of motion shall have precedence over other business.
This is a motion which will probably be debated shortly in this House, and it occurs to me that after a preliminary debate here, the subject matter of it might very fittingly be referred to the same committee which, if it is appointed will be charged with the revision of the rules.
No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Coote), refers to the consideration of the estimates, already referred to by the mover of the resolution before us. This is also a matter of 4 pm. a very similar character and might be more particularly inquired into by the special committee which is being asked for.
No. 14, standing in my name, refers to the size of committees. I have been collecting some information on this point which in due course I propose to submit to the House, and in that case too it seems to me that after a preliminary discussion here the best plan would be to submit the matter to a committee for further investigation.
There are, then, at least three resolutions already on the order paper, in addition to the one now being debated, which might very properly be turned over, after a preliminary discussion in this House, to committees. It would seem to me, then, entirely the part of wisdom that in view of these four different resolutions, which might be all solved in the same way, the government and the official opposition ought to agree with us to have this committee appointed. Let us not be afraid of undertaking a little extra work. Nothing will be done worth while unless we are prepared bo do some work and to put in some time here. It may be very nice for us to come down here and sit for a short time and get home again as quickly as we can, but I sub-27
mat, Mr. Speaker, that the country is going to suffer if that is to be the attitude of hon. members. In that connection I heard a little story the other day which might be worth repeating bo the House. I hope it will not give offence to any hon. member. It is the story of a couple, I do not know just where they lived but at all events they were Canadians, and were notorious for their idleness. A friend asked Joe one day how he and his wife managed to put in the time. "Well," he said "sometimes we sits and thinks; sometimes we just sits." I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not be guilty of the last practice in this House.
The Prime Minister has already intimated that the government has no objection provided there is a reasonable demand from this House for the appointment of a committee. I have submitted to the House that there are three other resolutions which, after a preliminary discussion in this House, which will come I dare say in the near future, might be very properly turned over for further inquiry to that same committee. It seems to me, then, that there is every reason why this demand should be acceded to and why the resolution should be passed, and no good reason that has been advanced, at all events so far why the request should not -be granted; and I hope that in further response to the Prime Minister's invitation a number of members in various parts of the House will express their views.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I
notice that we have 120 rules in this House, and that the British parliament gets along with 95 rules. I think it is just as well that we do n-ot. have too many rules, or rules too binding. That may enable us at times to get over difficulties in regard to procedure. I would not be in favour of having rules invariably strict and binding covering all the proceedings that take place in this House, because that might hamper freedom of speech, and restrain members from taking action that would really be in the interest of the whole country. We want to have the rules of the House broad enough and wide enough to make for the efficient conduct of our business, ratheT than to restrict the members to rigid rules. While it is no doubt absolutely necessary that we should have rules to guide our procedure in this House, it is undoubtedly true that the rules have a sort of stifling effect upon new members and often prevent them taking action. Many a time they might feel it in the interests of their constituents to speak, but they do not do so just because they are afraid they are not sufficiently well acquainted with the rules of the House.



Rules oj the House
Two years ago the leader of the Progressives, then the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) moved an amendment to the amendment to the budget which was ruled out of order. I think it was very desirable that such a thing should have been allowed, if it was deemed necessary to do it. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) also referred to the methods followed in criticising the estimates. I do not know whether any rule to improve the present method can be adopted, but I am prepared to say that those now in vogue are very unsatisfactory. I cannot but feel that very often the whole procedure is something in] the nature of a farce. It cannot be argued that we do criticise the estimates in any intelligent manner, and I should like to see some improvement inaugurated which would bring about better results.
There is another custom that I should like to see changed and that is the practice under which the government feels bound to look upon it as a motion of want of confidence if any recommendation they bring forward is voted down by the House. I think that practice has a stifling effect upon hon. members on their own side, and that it is possible to have a free expression of opinion, and even an untrammelled vote, without it being construed in any such manner. It is quite a common thing, even upon some very trifling matter to hear the assertion, "If this is rejected we will have to go to the country." As if going to the country were a very trifling matter. It is a serious thing.


Mr. SHEARD:: Yes, surely.


Robert Forke: I am not at all afraid of any such appeal. I want to tell my hon. friends who are interjecting irrelevant remarks that I am quite ready to go to the country at any time.


Mr. HOCKEN:: How would June suit you?


Robert Forke: Any time will suit me.
Whenever the government is ready I am sure I am equally prepared, so there need be no trouble in that respect; in fact I should like to know as soon as possible what the circumstances are going to be. There need be no compulsion about going to the country as far as I am personally concerned.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: The hon. member says
"hear, hear." Probably he feels just as independent and just as happy as I do?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Just a little more so.


Robert Forke: In regard to the question of a majority in the different committees the present system might be justified when there were only two parties in the House. But I am perfectly confident that in the future there are going to be more than two parties-there will be three parties, and perhaps more. I think it is rather too much that the government should have a majority on all the different committees of the House. I think there would be a greater likelihood of obtaining an unprejudiced opinion, one of more benefit to the country, if the different parties in the House were more equally represented in the different committees. I am not going to take up any more time, I merely say that I am prepared to support the resolution of the hon. member for East Calgary.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) appears to have overlooked the fact that I also had a resolution on the order paper dealing with the orders. It is No. 22.


William Charles Good: I beg your pardon.


Alan Webster Neill: It differs in some respects from the present resolution, but possibly it might be combined with that of my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine). The difference consists in this; that while my hon. friend's resolution seeks to refer the matter to a special committee, I am proposing to have a reference to the select committee on Standing Orders. That is the committee, I understand, that is presided over by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin). We all know that hon. gentleman's thorough grasp of the rules of the House, and it seems unnecessary that another committee should be appointed. There are plenty of committees already, and the hon. member for Shefford very efficiently presides over the selelct standing committee which now is the body appointed to deal with such matters.
My resolution deals with the proposed changes in an entirely different aspect from that of the present motion. I do not ask for, nor do I approve of, what I might call the fundamental changes that he suggests; for example, in proposing to aLlow hon. members in committee of the Whole to move for the increase of a vote. That would produce chaos more or less; it would lead to what is called log-rolling. A section on one side of the House would agree with another section, perhaps on the government side, for an increase of a certain vote. The man on the government side of the House dare not vote against a motion in the interest of his own constituency perhaps, and yet he might be acting contrary to the settled policy of the

Rides oj the House
government. Whatever administration is in power ought to be in control of the finances of the country; otherwise it would practically be impossible to carry on the government. I think it would be a great mistake to do away with that provision.
The hon. member also spoke about the impossibility of having a resolution of a certain character presented because it would be out of order, inasmuch as it would pledge the government to expenditure of public money. That also, of course, is objectionable for the reason that I have already given. Under the change proposed we should find members of the House who bear no responsibility for Canada's finances, voting for untold expenditures. Besides, the difficulty complained of is not so serious as it would appear to be because it can easily be overcome by asking the government to inquire into or take note of a particular situation. So that there is no hindrance in any sense to a full debate in the House on any given subject.
Another suggestion of the hon. member was that we should do away with the government majority on committees. Well, I do not think the leader of the opposition, or any hon. member who has had any experience in the cabinet, would agree to a suggestion of that kind. A government must have some measure of control over a committee corresponding with the control which it exercises in the House.
Now, turning to my own resolution I propose to deal primarily with three separate conditions, although I have also embodied a general clause. The first one governs the rule under which these regulations are formed and presented. I sent this resolution in to the Clerk early in October, and yet it 'bears the number 22. I have another one that I sent in in December, and possibly it may never be reached. I quite understand that the Clerk must maintain some order of precedence, and he takes the notices of motion in the order in which he receives them. I do not quarrel with that either; there must be some way of establishing precedence in placing the notices of motion on the order paper. But what I sought to change was the method by which past governments, or the government of the day, arbitrarily say in the House "There will be no more private members' days", which kills all the resolutions then on the order paper. I do not think that is a fair or desirable position. What I suggest as a substitute is of a two-fold character. We know that many of these resolutions are put on the order paper more or less as an expression of opinion, and really are not intended to be 27|
taken up. We can easily conceive of a case in which the government itself might have a notice of motion put on the order paper dealing with a matter which they did not want discussed and by the compliance of the member in whose name notice was given it would be passed on every occasion when it was called. In this way it would be possible to prevent that subject being discussed in the House. There is something wrong with rules which make that possible. I do not say this is being invoked to-day by the present government, but it is possible to do it. Now, my suggestion is that the resolutions should be-placed on the order paper as they are at present, but that when a motion is called and the member in whose name it stands is not prepared to go on with them, the motion should be dropped from the order paper. That does no injustice to the member concerned; he can give two days' notice and the resolution is restored to the order paper again but at the foot of the list. But it does ensure that a member who puts a resolution on the order paper in a bona fide manner and with the desire to go on with it will have some chance to proceed. Last year I had a resolution on the order paper but it was never reached because batches of these resolutions were called again and again, in some cases as many as six times, and the hon. members in charge of them did not take them up. Then, along about the time when he saw his opportunity was lapsing a member would get up and speak. My suggestion would be that if a member was not prepared to go on with a motion he has given notice of from two to three months, and even as long as four and five months beforehand, he cannot very well complain if his motion is dropped and he has to begin all over again. That would ensure whatever member was ready at least a decent chance to present his resolution. The suggestion I was going to make in that regard is this:	Instead of saying that on a
certain date all members' days would be cut off I would have it provided that, one month, if you like, or two months, after the opening of the session, no more notices of motion should be accepted. We should then know what to expect; but the motions that were then on the order paper would be afforded one opportunity at least of being dealt with. That, would ensure that every motion could be-heard; and yet it would not prolong to. an extreme degree the period within which those motions could be discussed. I merely-throw this out as a suggestion to be discussed by the committee.
Rules oj the House

I wanted to call attention to the necessity for the other change which is set out in my resolution:
2. Consider the advisability of changing the rules of the House to permit of debate on a motion to accept or reject an amendment made by the Senate to a Bill passed by the House.
I am aware-at least I am informed-that debate is allowed on a question of that kind provided it is what is called an order of the day; that is to say, if a day has elapsed between the time the message has been received from the Senate and the time when it is discussed in this House, then it becomes an order of the day and can be debated by any hon. member. But we well know that the most of these amendments made or rejected by the Senate come into this House in the very closing days of the session, when all rules are practically suspended, and nine times out of ten they never become an order of the day. I have a distinct recollection of a case a couple of years ago when a most important bill dealt with by the House and of great interest to many hon. members was rejected either in whole or in part by the Senate, and it was brought down not as an order of the day but simply as a message, and the minister in charge had the alternative of moving the acceptance or rejection of the amendment, and his speech was the only one allowed; the matter was not open to debate. I think that practice should be changed.
Those are practically all the precise amendments I propose, but I have a clause in my motion which would allow any question in connection with these subjects to be considered. If the government would allow the amalgamation of the resolution of the hon. member for Bast Calgary (Mr. Irvine) with my motion it might be a settlement of the whole question. Perhaps the hon. member for East Calgary would agree to the matter being referred to the select committee on Standing Orders instead of a special committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly the views of all hon. members would be satisfactorily met if the government were agreeable to the appointment of a special committee, associating with the work of that committee his Honour the Speaker of the House. If hon. members are prepared to accept the following amendment, I would be prepared to move:
That the said resolution be amended by striking out the words "a revision of the rules is desirable, and that for this purpose", in line two, and substituting for the words "and report upon such revision at this session" in lines three and four, the words "jointly with Mr. Speaker the desirability of revising the rules of this House and to report to this House this session".
Then the motion would read:
That in the opinion of this House a special committee should be appointed to consider jointly with Mr. Speaker the desirability of revising the rules of this House and to report to this House this session.
It would seem to be appropriate that Mr. Speaker should be a member of any committee that is called upon to consider a revision of the rules.


Arthur Meighen: It seems rather anomalous that a motion to amend the rules should be moved by an hon. member who in moving it is out of order in violating the rules as they exist. I may take occasion to offer a few remarks on the rules as they are, and on some of the observations that the mover of the main resolution has made, as well as on some observations made by other hon. members.
The last revision of the rules of parliament took place in 1910. I believe that revision was made by a. special committee acting with the Speaker of the House of that time. There was a subsequent change of the rules in 1913, but that change was specific and did not involve any general revision. The rules therefore as they stand in substance are of fifteen years' duration, and it would be indeed surprising if in that period of time there were no way in which they could be improved. I am not one of those who feel that our rules are fundamentally wrong or that there is any grave injustice liable to be done to any section of this House on account of any of the main rules, or indeed minor ones, as they exist today. The mover of the motion bases his attack upon the existing state of affairs upon the inability of the third or fourth party in this House to move a sub-amendment in the budget debate; that is, to the motion tlo go into Ways and Means for the purpose of discussing the budget. This has already received some attention at the hands of parliament. Perhaps I cannot add to what I said at the time it was under discussion before, but I must say, as representing one of the three major parties here, that I have never felt in any discussion disability because of the rule as it exists, and I would deprecate a change in this respect; because a change allowing a second motion on an amendment to Supply, or Ways and Means, will undoubtedly lengthen the session of parliament and cause a loss of time. I do not know really what is going to be gained. It is true that in that special debate the exact position of each of three or four parties cannot be stated in the form of an amendment, only the position of two, the mover of the motion -that is the Finance minister-and whichever party chooses or has the opportunity to ad-

Rules oj the House
vance its amendment. I presume it would probably be the decision of Mr. Speaker that if the official opposition choose to avail itself of the occasion, it alone should have that privilege. I think only on one occasion in the three years that now have elapsed since this government came into power has the official opposition chosen to avail itself of the occasion. This has meant that other parties have exercised the right. Now last year, when the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) chose to move an amendment, I was favoured with a great deal of sympathy from the press of the country in having been out-manoeuvred by one of the newer members of the House. But I must frankly say that I felt myself wholly unworthy of that sympathy, and that it was unnecessary. There are numerous appropriate occasions when the position of any party in this House on the budget or on any other subject can be stated in the form of a resolution or amendment. The House goes into committee of Supply scores of times each session and on each motion for Supply it is open to any member representing a party, or any member representing only himself, to move such an amendment as he may choose; consequently there is really no disability. There is nothing gained by having them all on the one motion; they can come again. But the opportunities for delay are multiplied if amendments, sub-amendments, substitutional motions, and so forth, are allowed u,pon a motion for Supply. May I add, that I do not want to take any step-I hope I will be considered as sincere, especially as I am in opposition- I do not want to take any step which gives encouragement to multiplication of groups in this House of Commons. That may be an unpopular assertion, and I will give my special reasons for saying so. I do not think the group system is consonant with the British system of parliamentary government. I know I am powerless to prevent it; I do not pretend to stand at the shore and with a wave of my hand drive back the billows; but I think my influence and that of those who have regard for our institutions should be exerted to the utmost of our power toward this end. I do not think the multiplication of groups is consonant with the British system in any country; I do not believe it has worked successfully at all in France where the British system has been copied; but of all countries in the civilized world where there is embodied in it real peril to the state, none is so conspicuous an example as this Dominion. The group system in this Dominion is almost inevitably certain to become a system of sectional representation. I do not think the liability to sectional representation runs nearly as dangerously in the direction of occupational division as in the direction of geographical division. Speaking at this time I put myself in the judgment of hon. members when I say that after the next general election, this House of Commons, in so far as it is a collection of groups, will, in the main, represent geographical divisions. Here we have a country whose portions are widely separated, consequently, the points of view of whose peoples are widely different. We have a country further separated in its sections than any other country in the world to-day, and I do not exaggerate when I say that group representation on geographical division in this House spells more than difficulty, it spells very grave danger to this Dominion. Consequently, merely to accommodate the situation and to encourage representation by groups is no argument to my mind for amending the rules in this respect.
The hon. member further urges that there should be more latitude in the way of permission to private members to move for the expenditure of money. To this I am wholly and decisively opposed. Were I in the government I certainly would have offered much stronger objection than I have so far heard from any member of this government. I do not believe the confidence of the solid people in the country can be preserved if the right of private members of committees is to be countenanced to come into parliament and put parliament in the position of voting against appropriations here and there when they know that the vote itself does not mean commitment of the government, does not mean commitment of the treasury. It is inherent in our present system o.f government, if it is to be a success at all, if there is to be anybody at the helm steering the ship of state, that the government and the government alone should initiate expenditure. When I say "initiate expenditure", I mean to take such a step as commits the honour of parliament to that expenditure. You cannot beat the devil around the bush by having a committee come in and declare the moral liability of the nation, to be followed by a hasty motion to accept, with the government thereby finding that parliament has given it a mandate. This simply means the undermining of governmental responsibility. If we are to amend the rules further than we have done, I am certain this is going to result in an impairment of confidence in parliament, and, indeed, in the management of our country generally. I go further. I think the rule as it exists has been interpreted too generous-
Rules of the House

iy. In fact, I feel that the interpretation already given goes far to impair the efficacy of the rule, and that accounts for much of the difficulty into which we have been plunging; accounts, indeed, for the general losing of control of the financial policy of this House.
Another argument urged by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) is this, that there should be, on the part of the House, power to move amendments, especially in the estimates, without involving the fate of the government itself. That power exists. I do not think I differ at all from the viewpoint of the Prime Minister, if I understood correctly his utterance of some months ago, [DOT]when I say that an adverse vote in committee of this House on any estimate does not involve the fate of the government. If it did, the government- would not be here today. I do not find fault that the government chose to ignore the vote. [DOT] It merely means this, that it put on the government-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the vote?


Arthur Meighen: A vote of last session. I do not recall at the moment just what it was. It put on the government the consideration of the question whether that vote properly interpreted meant a withdrawal of the confidence of the House of Commons. The government of the country done must be the judge whether it should so interpret the vote as a want of confidence on the part of the House or as something of minor consequence. This is the function and prerogative of government, and if you attempt in any way to circumscribe it, then you withdraw from government the right to determine when, and when not, it enjoys the confidence of this House.


Mr. HOEY:: That was the procedure
followed by the Labour government without changing the rules.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Springfield (Mr. Hoey) is quite right. In fact, t'he Labour government very frequently in the short course of its existence chose to ignore adverse decisions, especially on estimates, and to conclude that it still enjoyed the confidence of the House, and in the course it so pursued, I do not recall that it was subjected to criticism by either section of its opponents in the Commons in England1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
right hon. friend must have had the Labour government in England in mind when he referred to an adverse vote on estimates. I do not think this government was subjected to any adverse vote.


Arthur Meighen: I am not absolutely
positive that it was in estimates, it might have been on something else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should be
pleased if my right hon. friend would give it.


Arthur Meighen: I can locate it. It was
last session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope he will. I do not think it occurred.


Arthur Meighen: It occurred all right, and I think hon. members of the House remember it as well as I.
Now I come to the suggestion by the hon. member for East Calgary that the rules should be amended so as to provide that the government should not have a majority on all committees of this House. If I were a member of the government I would feel bound to oppose the suggestion, and consequently I could not consistently support it now. I do not want ever to be a -party to the withdrawal from any administration of the measure of responsibility that an administration only can carry, and when I do not want to be a party to that, I must be a party to giving the government such rights as will enable it properly to carry that responsibility. Consequently it seems to me right and proper that any administration should have a majority on the committees of this House. What I complain of under present conditions, and I am not sure that it can be remedied, is this. Under the group system as we have it to-day the opposition not only is in a minority but it is almost extinguished in all committees of the House. There is only one opposition; hon. members to my left stand in holy horror at the mere intimation that they are an opposition of the government. So that so far from having nine-twentieths of the membership of a committee we are reduced to three-twentieths, and the government virtually has the other seventeen.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What about the want
of confidence motion moved by the Progressive party in 1922?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the Progressive party ever moved anything which this government would interpret as a want of confidence motion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But that motion was an amendment to the budget.


Arthur Meighen: That may be; but
even the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is authority for the statement that an amendment to the budget is not necessarily a want of confidence motion.

Rules oj the House


Mr. SPENCER:: Does the right -hon.
gentleman include the Banking committee in that general statement he makes? Did we not find in that instance the government and the official opposition lined up against the rest of the House?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I would include anything so far as the present situation in this House is concerned. Of course, it sometimes happens that when hon. members opposite me, and hon. members to my left, start out down the same path, with the same catechism and looking to the same goal, hon. members to my left, being still bereft of responsibility, pursue the path on which they set out while hon. members opposite retreat and join our ranks. That has very frequently occurred. But that does not make hon. members to my left the opposition, for they are always quite content that their cousins across the floor shall remain in power. And the last designation that could ever be applied to them would be to call them a section of the opposition. This is a disability under which we suffer by reason of a conjunction of affairs which is in no way creditable to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Forke: Is it the duty of an opposition always to oppose?


Arthur Meighen: Always to oppose mis-government, yes; and that is all we do. Hon. members to my left had ah opportunity to become the official opposition and to choose when they would oppose, but memories of the days of old and of gallant battles together prevented -their assuming any position of the kind. But what I refer to is a disability which I do not know that it is in the power of the government to cure consistently with that measure of control which appertains to and should be enjoyed by all administrations.
The hon. member for Comox-AIbemi (Mr. Neil) takes a -much more moderate stand, and in the main I agree with what he says. I do not contend that the rules are perfect in every respect, but it seems to me that there might be an amendment to ensure better expedition at -times. The feature of the rules to which the hon. member refers as admitting of judicious amendment is one that might well be considered: that is to say, the presence of a motion standing in the name of a private member precludes the debate of another motion covering the same ground, and consequently it may foe used, as I myself am suspicious it has been used, as a means not of ensuring but of preventing debate on that very subject. I hasten, however, to assure hon. members to my left that in respect of my resolution now on the order paper the government has not asked that it be put on to ensure that at shall not be discussed-. The hon. member for Co-mox-Albemi suggests this remedy: First of all, he would prevent a private member's resolution being retained after, I think he said, two -months; and secondly, he would have a resolution automatically dropped after it had 'been twice passed without being debated. I am not sure that either method would appeal to me as the best. The refusal of a private member to take up a resolution on the order paper' d-oes not seem to me to be necessary at any stage of the session; I think he -should have the right to go ou, and if he fails to do so it is his own fault and he should take the consequences of any criticism -that might ensue. And) ithe compelling of a resolution to be dropped after being called twice without response would only put the -member in this position, that after -two days' notice he could put the resolution on the order paper again and then assert all the autocratic power which he exercised before.
Mr. NEIL-L: But at the foot of the list.


Arthur Meighen: Y'es, at the f-oot of the list, but he would have attained his end. I would suggest this as preferable, namely, that after a resolution had -been called once or twice then it could be open to any member of the House, when the same motion was called again, to proceed to discuss it, whether in support or in opposition of the subject. This would prevent its acting by way of estoppel, as otherwise it would do. As respects the amendment. I have no objection to it; but it is not because I have faith in -the primary and fundamental proposals of the hon. member for East Calgary that I take that position.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Anyone who
takes even a casual look at the architectural structure of this chamber must conclude at once that it was dedicated -to the medieval superstition of a two-party government. It is a two-party chamber, and the conception underlying its arrangement arises out of that idea, an idea that dates back to the time when the two parties composing parliament were so destructive to each other's policies and so bitterly opposed that they actually had to have a club lying on the table to keep anything like peace between them. And not only the architecture of the chamber, but the arrangement of its furniture as well, points to the same fact. I think it is a mistake that the arrangements of this House should con-
Rules of the House

demn the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition to the uncongenial task of looking each other in the face all the time. It seems to me that for the expeditious passage of business through the House it would be more reasonable for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to be further down the chamber. And when we come to the rules and practices, and the traditions of the House, some improvement might also be effected. But the really serious thing about parliamentary practices such as those with which we are encumbered is that they defeat the very purpose of parliament, namely, the transaction of public business in the interests of the people. We are the representatives of the people here and our business is to transact the public business in the interests of those people, and it would seem to me that the rules of the House are not conceived at all with that end in view. In fact, if I rightly judge the procedure of the House, the rules are meant to foster a procedure which in its working out obstructs public business instead of advancing it. In the passing of the estimates so far this session we have had examples of that. No impartial observer could honestly say that the passing of supply so far has redounded to the credit of the rules and practices of this House. There has been a lot of time wasted already by frivolous questions put to the minister, not with the object of eliciting information regarding his department, but obviously in an attempt to hamper him. The passing of Supply is one of the principal reasons for our being here-to superintend <he expenditure of the people's money; and any change in the rules that will make our superintendence more thorough is, I think, greatly to be desired, therefore to my mind the resolution of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) is a timely one.
It seems to me that the objections raised against it are all based upon the assumption that we are destined for all time to be pinned down to a two-party system. Even the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) appears to d'esire-almost unbecomingly as an independent-to bolster up that system. I do not propose to pay unreasoning deference to the two-party system, notwithstanding the view of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). He reminds me somewhat of a certain lady with a broom, when he says that he is going to stand against the emergence of the group system. I think that is a rash challenge. After all, what does the group system signify? It signifies the futility of the system that preceded it. It means that the system which has obtained' hitherto has 
been ineffectual in giving expression to the will of the people. Apparently there are a good many hon. members who do not realize that the government of this or any other country is an exceedingly more complex thing than it was when the old-party system was first started, that immensely complex character of our civilization to-day necessitates a variety of economic and political expression, and that it is certain, especially in a country like this, that we shall have in the future groups in this House. As to the prediction that the group system will lead to sectionalism, I would say that sectionalism as it obtains in Canada to-day is the fruit of the system that is being superseded. The group system has not yet been given a trial in this country. There are three groups in this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are five.


Thomas William Bird: Well, there are numerous nascent groups as well as the actual. That is significant too, for a lot of those little buds and sprouts may eventually reach full development. But it is futile for the leader of the opposition to blame on us what is evidently the outgrowth of the effete two-party system which has been trying to run this country. He says that it is contrary to the British system. Well, so much the worse for the British system. But what is the British system? It is a conception that exists in the right hon. gentleman's mind as regards the best kind of parliamentary government which will further the peculiar political ideas for which he stand's. His so-called British system has no other existence. It is purely a figment of his imagination, something that in all its traditions and rules and practices is the best fitted to bolster privilege in this country. The greatest political genius could not evolve a party system better designed to uphold special privilege in this country. I repeat, if the coming group system is contrary to the British system, then so much the worse for the British system. But it is not contrary to the true British system, because that system is born of a spirit which always proves itself capable of the fullest adaptation to the changing conditions of the people; anything that shuts its eyes to developing conditions is antiquated and is contrary to the British system. And the aspersion cast upon the group in this corner of the House that we are always kowtowing to the party opposite ranks with the assertion that the group system is contrary to the British system. Our purpose in being here is to prove that the differences and distinctions that are supposed to exist between the parties under the old system are purely make-believe, and

Rules oj the House
I think the interruption of the hon. gentleman was a timely one. You have to get back into our committee rooms to find out just where the kowtowing is done. After all, the people are not interested in knowing just how many times we vote with the party opposite or with the party on our right; but they are interested! in the fidelity with which we try to carry out their will, and no matter whether in the banking or any other committee where we have been face to face with the machinations of special privilege this group has never been found wanting yet. The distinctive thing about this group is that it has stood four square many a time against special privilege in opposition to the solid support given to special privilege by the old two-party system.
Therefore I think the resolution is a timely one. The present development of our parliamentary system has been through the gradual accretion of rules and practices that had been adopted for some particular reason or another, but it is only rational to suppose that periodically this growing tree should need a certain amount of pruning in order to serve its purpose-that of facilitating the business of the people.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House have been founded not on imagination but on practice, and have come down to us in the main from the Mother of Parliaments. It will be found that every rule, though it may not be perfect, is based on experience, and nearly every session we discover additional reasons for certain rules that we had either lost sight of or were not aware of before. So they cannot be altered lightly, and I do not think this House has any idea of altering them lightly.
My hon. friend (Mr. Bird) who has just sat down spoke of group government, in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen); but I suppose the people will say whether we are to have group government or not. Personally I am in favour of the two old parties, or of two parties at all events, not the "old" ones because I think they are as young as those that are called younger; but I am in favour of two parties as the best system of government. But that is for the people to say, not for me.


Robert Forke: Of course, you mean your
own party to be one of them.


George Perry Graham: I was just going to make
an explanation. So far as the interests of the country are concerned the group system would not make very much difference so long
as the Liberal party had a majority over the other two.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is probably one
reason why you feel better about it than the leader of the opposition.


George Perry Graham: I am closer to it.


Arthur Meighen: Just the same, exactly.


George Perry Graham: The suggestion has been
made that the Progressive party has favoured this government. Well really I do not see how they could help it, and I am in earnest in that. The progressive measures of this government, though called Liberal, are still Progressive, a great many of them, and although on occasions the Liberal government and its supporters could not see their way to go all the distance with the Progressives, sometimes perhaps only a short distance, at all events the government went further than hon. gentlemen opposite, and consequently if the Progressives voted at all they would have to support those who came nearer to their ideals. I do not see how a Progressive could go home and ask Progressive electors for their support if he had done anything else.
I just want to mention one or two other matters, and first as to sectional discussions. I agree with the leader of the opposition to a large extent that all over Canada, even among members of the two former parties there is a disposition to form ourselves into geographical units. Deputations come to the government every day from different parts of Canada, with sectional views; I am not using the word in any derogatory sense, but we seem to have got away from the idea of the old Fathers of Confederation that we are to make a great Canada of this country by, if you will, a policy of compromises, so far as that is necessary, between the different parts of this country. I think we are making a mistake; I do not say it is the Progressive party that is doing it, but day -by day ministers of the crown are approached from the angle of only one part of Canada. This is right in a sense, because each part of Canada has its own difficulties and peculiar problems, but after all, the government and parliament ought to do the same thing, and that is to take into consideration all these sectional viewpoints, and then arrive as closely as possible at a common working basis for every province in the Dominion of Canada. That is the only way we can manage to make Canada great and bring prosperity again to this country, and *when there is prosperity in a country, contentment follows. I do not want to- go any further along that line except to relate a little incident that occurred eight
jRules of the House

or ten or eleven years ago. Three gentlemen -I think I have repeated this in the House before-were sitting in a car, one of them the late Sir Wilfrid, and each was asked to suggest what might be a difficulty in the future in Canada. Sir Wilfrid thought that the great desire of Canadians, and 5 p.m. it was a question they would be called upon to deal with practically, ought to be to get a united people, free from prejudice one against the other, throughout the Dominion of Canada. Another suggested that our problem of the future would be our Imperial relations. I had the honour to suggest, that I thought perhaps one of the things we would be called upon to discuss in a few years in a practicable way would be the differences that might arise in this Dominion between the east and the west. These are all practical questions, and we cannot approach any of them from an absolutely sectional viewpoint. If we do we are doomed for failure. I would like in the years that I have to be in public life, and they may be a great many-


Mr. BELAND:: We hope so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: -I would like if we all
could broaden out a bit and try and see the other fellow's viewpoint on these great national questions.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: With the government giving the lead.


George Perry Graham: That is what this government is doing strongly.


Arthur Meighen: A lead downhill.


George Perry Graham: We are trying to look
at every part of Canada with a vision that will not hide the other parts of Canada. As to questions, for instance, affecting the west particularly, I believe the people of Canada will say that we have not looked on those questions with a narrow vision; and the same with the east and the same with the centre. Perhaps everybody is to blame by having a slightly sectional view, and if you will allow me to say it, I think perhaps we have been doing it in the last year or two more than ever before, that is, getting up and defending not Canada with all her works but that little part of Canada in which we live. While that is necessary, the vision will have to broaden out if we are to have a greater Canada.
Perhaps I am getting away from the rules a little. As to the responsibility of the government, I have always taken strong ground. I do not know whether I am an old Tory in doing so or not, but I have always taken

strong ground on the responsibility of government, to a large extent, for what emerges from parliament. True, I would not interfere with the right of parliament to be supreme, even though a government can be put out by parliament under our constitution, which cannot be done in the United States.
The leader of the opposition has referred to committees bringing in reports. I am free to admit that we ought to be more careful with those reports.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: We get a number of men
on a committee, and I put myself in with the rest, and they work on a certain question day after day and become absolutely enthusiastic over it, perhaps to the neglect of other questions, and then bring in a report which will meet the views of the men who have been pursuing this one question in which they have become enthusiastically interested. Now this House should not approve of that report without the closest scrutiny, because it might involve something that would be of detriment to the entire Dominion of Canada.
As to referring the estimates to a committee, that is a question that is debatable. You will say:	You have done it yourself. Yes,
we are trying an experiment, but, remember, that experiment is not with the general affairs of Canada, but concerns only two institutions, mercantile enterprises upon which Canada has entered. They are not quite in the same class with the ordinary expenditure, of a government. The government has to take a stand in the House as to what wiii be considered a want of confidence motion. I do not say that defeat in Supply, unless it might be on a vote involved by some large question of policy on the part of the government, ought to be taken as a want of confidence vote; but if it involves defeat on a large question of policy for the government, for which we are asking money, I would say it ought to be taken as a want of confidence motion. There is this point to consider. Put a government in a position such as I have indicated, and if you were to take the view that no vote in committee or even in the House should be taken as a vote of want of confidence, unless the mover should so declare, it would be impossible for any government to carry on its business. The position of that government before the country would be so humiliating that they would have to resign. And the mere fact that a member says "I am going to move this resolution; I am sorry to put you in a predicament and humiliate you before the country but I do

Rules oj the House
not mean it as a vote of want of confidence'' does not relieve the situation. In the great majority of instances my own view, as the result of years of experience, is that we cannot help but regard the vote as one of want of confidence.
Now. I would suggest that one or two amendments might be made, not to the rules but to the standing orders. The hon. member for Nelson (l\lr. Bird) suggested the point that in committee of Supply there should be nothing placed in the way of hon. members getting all the information that is necessary. But perhaps we all overstep the mark sometimes by prolonging discussion without getting any information. I am not sure that there might be two ways of curtailing that practice. One would be to not have any Hansard at all in committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: The other would be to limit the number of speeches a member could make on any one item.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear. hear.


George Perry Graham: It might be said that that would be curtailing the existing privileges, seeing that the discussion in committee is meant to be conversational rather than oratorical; but we are getting into the practice of delivering long speeches in committee of Supply without getting the information we want. That is just a thought that I throw out-that the number of times a member could speak on any given item might be limited.


Mr. MANION:: Sometimes long speeches are made by the minister.	.


George Perry Graham: I am coming to that. There is no special rule for the minister. I am the greatest sinner in the House in regard to lengthy speaking. I have made the longest speech that was ever delivered in the House of Commons, so I can talk freely of myself. I am not sure that the work of parliament would not be expedited if the length of our speeches even with the Speaker in the chair were limited. There is no question to my mind that if parliament were deeply interested in any question it would admit of exceptions being made to this rule unanimously. If there was some subject demanding a longer period than that named in the rules parliament is not critical to that extent, but by unanimous consent either the leader of the opposition, or the Prime Minister, or any member who had some topic that required quite a length of time to develop would get permission from parliament to speak at greater length. But this
change would curtail the amount of time we use in discussing some of the minor questions at least.
I want to conclude with this other reference:
I am a kind of ritualist, I would not want to get away from any of our rules lightly because there is reason for them all; and unless some good reason could be given for any deviation I believe that making as little change as possible in the general rules will conduce to our conducting business with decorum. It is true we cannot get away from the fact that conditions have changed. The rules were largely made,-some of the sections at any rate-with the idea of there being only two parties in the House. There may be some reason for having a number of minor changes because nothing develops the need for changes like experience, and experience may have shown that we ought to have some changes. I am quite willing for a special committee to look into the rules of the House and advise with Mr. Speaker to see if there be a necessity of revising the rules in some respects; but I would suggest to the committee that they do not enter upon the work of revision with any idea that they are going to tear the rules of the House all to pieces and substitute new rules, because the old1 ones have done splendid service. With the exception perhaps of needing some slight revision I would not like to see the principle of those rules altered very much.


William Irvine: I do not intend to delay the House more than a few minutes in replying. I think the discussion has perhaps taken a course that would have been more appropriate in a committee that had met to consider the revision of the rules but that was doubtless due to the method of presentation which I adopted. It was necessary for me to give some indication of what I understood to be the possibility of revising a rule of the House with some definiteness. I therefore presented my own ideas on those matters, but not with any hope that hon. members would agree with my particular suggestions. I only used those in the way of illustration in trying to establish the need for a special committee. Some hon. members, however, appear to have concluded that the debate is on the nature of the amendments that may be made, rather than being as it is a debate on the advisability of appointing a committee. My object in using those illustrations was merely to set forth the need for the committee.
I do not intend to enter into the arguments that have been advanced, further than to make a comment on the observations which have been offered in regard to the group system. I
Rules of the House

had no intention of course of introducing that idea in proposing the argument, 'but I can see how it is certainly relevant to the discussion. The right hon. leader of the opposition does not believe that the group system is going to have any future, and he does not think that it ought to. I do not know, of course, that it is going to have any future or not, I hope that it will. But there is one way of getting rid of some of the groups in this House, and that is for the Conservative party to join .-.he Labour party, or for the Liberal party to join the Progressive party.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: I do not hear the Conservative party very loud in their expression of willingness to come over here and join the Labour party. They cannot expect that we will go over there and join the Conservative party or cross the floor and join the Liberal party, because whether we have an idea or not we think we have and that is the same thing, so far as the reason for the existence of a group is concerned. As to the sectional idea and the geographical ideas, which have been mentioned, these exist whether you have one party, two parties or one hundred parties; and I venture to say that one of the problems which the government party have to deal with at the present time, is that very sectional problem. That would be no more difficult to deal with under fifty groups than under one group. We do not create any sectionalism by merely representing it. If it were not there it could not be represented. To try and hush those things up by maintaining, through artificial means, the two-party system is not, in my opinion, the way to meet the situation.
I want to make one remark in reference to what was said by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He very properly pointed out that there was a reason for every one of the rules of this House. I am sure I never doubted that, but it is just possible that some of the reasons which once existed for those rules are not very relevant now, and it is also just possible, as was pointed out I think by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), that some of the reasons for these rules might be very much opposed to the best interests of the people to-day. But it certainly was not my intention to give the impression that I looked' upon those rules lightly, or thait I had sought to slight them in any way whatsoever, nor do I look forward to any tearing up of these rules on the part of the committee which I hope will be appointed. I certainly doubt whether any committee would be prepared to go very far beyond what was

suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighem) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I agree with the proposals that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni made. I would be willing to go much further myself, but I do not expect the House will accept my leadership in such a matter. If it did, it would certainly go much beyond the stage marked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I have been very much pleased with the discussion as far as it has gone. I certainly am prepared to withdraw my motion in preference to the amendment which was movedl by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I think his amendment covers thoroughly rvhat I was seeking to establish. Therefore, in favour of the amendment of the hon. Prime Minister, I ask leave to withdraw my motion.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I desire to make a few remarks from the point of view of a young member coming into the supposedly complicated maze of parliamentary procedure, coming here as a freshman in knowledge of the procedure and in knowledge of the parliamentary difficulties which I suppose we will be confronted with. From my personal experience

and I have taken some part in the activities of parliament -I have not found that the rules fetter one's activity. I have not found that there has not been almost every opportunity offered for any proposal or any idea which I had wanted to place before parliament, or that I was confronted) with any serious obstacle. I believe, however, that a committee such as outlined by the Prime Minister to look into this question and to inquire into the problems and matters which the various speakers have referred to would be advantageous to the members of the House and to the procedure in the future. But if this committee approaches its task with the idea of enabling the government- and the Progressive party to carry on before the country the appearance of -being opposed to each other, while at the same time they are conducting the business in the House, in the corridors of the buildings and in the policies of the government in a way which finds agreement, but which, in the idea of the party in this part of the chamber, is opposed to the proper procedure of parliament, then I would not be in favour of very serious activities on the part of the committee. In other words, it would appear from the remarks of members of the government and some of our friends to the left that the real intent behind this resolution is to enable these parties to join more closely in that

Mountain Freight Scale
matrimonial relationship which does not seem to have a legal status. When it comes to the encouragement of sectional or group representation in parliament, I would be opposed to it. I do not think that my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) can claim to be entirely a representative of labour. Over one-half of my constituency is largely labour, and I believe I have the honour of representing labour in the House of Commons and of speaking in their best interests. This idea of representing a class group in my judgment is a mistaken one. A member entering parliament has the obligational responsibility of representing all classes in his constituency, and the truth of the matter is that the two old parties are non-class, and they attempt to, and in fact do, represent their constituents as a whole, and are open in mind and conviction to the interests of all the sections of the constituency, with the idea of harmonizing these interests and expressing the will of the majority of the people in their ridings. But if this committee carry on their work in such a way as to make more easy the co-operation between the government and my friends to the left, or if they carry on their work with an idea of developing group government or sectional interests, then I say that history has proven that the policies and practices of the old party system really are the best for the advancement of our democratic institutions. There is no doubt about that. Some constitutions are made specially for group governments. Take France or the United States for example; there the constitution is framed in such a manner that members stay there for a certain length of time, and no matter how a vote goes in congress in the United States, or in the Chamber of Deputies in France, no matter whether adverse or favourable, the government continues and remains in power, subject to certain methods by which governments are changed; but they are not the same principles as we have here. In fact, in my judgment we have the most democratic method, the most efficient method of enabling the will of the majority of the people to be made effective immediately in policy and in legislation; and so I repeat, in carrying on the work of this committe so far as the rules of the House are concerned, I hope that the committee will have regard for experiences of the past, and that they will be imbued with a solemn and strong conviction to maintain the principles, the rules which we already have, and that they will not take any action which will tend to develop a group system of government.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.
Motion as amended, agreed to.


MOUNTAIN FREIGHT SCALE
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the mountain freight scale should be abolished in so far as it is reflected in standard mileage rates, class rates and commodity rates.
He said: We have in Canada five rate territories. For the purpose of our discussion this afternoon three of them are important: that is the Atlantic territory, which includes territory from the Atlantic to as far west as Sudbury; the prairie territory which begins at and includes Port Arthur and reaches west to points just east of the Rocky mountains and the Pacific or mountain territory which commences at the western boundary of the prairie territory. The other two territories are the Superior territory and the British Columbia lakes, but these two latter are not so important for the purpose of our present discussion. All articles of freight in Canada fall into the general Canadian classification of ten classes. There are six additional classes, running from one and one-half times the first class up to four and one-half times first class, and all articles of freight in Canada come under those sixteen classes. Of course, as there are different rate territories with rates varying in one territory as compared with another, it will be seen that even with a uniform classification freight rates in one portion of Canada are higher or lower, as the case may be, than in another. Generally speaking, freight rates in the Atlantic territory are lower than freight rates in the prairie territory, and freight rates in general in the mountain territory are higher than in the prairie territory.


George Perry Graham: Would the hon. member
estimate that per mile, or how?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: During the
discussion I want to give to the minister and the House my reason for thinking that there is that difference. I am not going to rely upon mileage comparisons of rates because mileage comparisons are somewhat tricky, but I will take the declared opinion of the Board of Railway Commissioners over the last twenty years. I also intend, in the course of my argument, to develop reasons why the Board of Railway Commisisoners cannot deal with this question satisfactorily and really give us the equalization that we ought to have in Canada.
Mountain Freight Scale

Various protests have been made from time to time with regard to this discrimination between the different territories, but the discrimination has been allowed to continue. The Board of Railway Commissioners has dealt with the question time and again, and in connection with various rate cases it has declared that unquestionably in its opinion, there was discrimination, but it was not unjust nor unfair. The Railway Act, of course, states that there shall be no unjust nor undue discrimination, and the board in its investigations and findings has found that although there is a lower rate in eastern Canada tnan in the west and a lower rate on the prairies than in the mountains, the discrimination was not unjust nor undue because of conditions obtaining in those various territories. The mountain scale, until recently, has been looked upon as distinctly a British Columbia handicap or problem, and it may be that prior to a few years ago, before the Panama canal was opened and elevators were constructed at Vancouver and before the trade on the prairies began to move more directly through British Columbia, out on to the Pacific, to the Old Land and to the Orient, it was not such an important question for the prairies. The prairies right through to the Peace river country had been looked upon largely as tributary to Fort William, Port Arthur, Montreal and eastern Canada generally. But the development during the last years, the opening of the Panama canal, the jelevator construction at Vancouver and making possible thereby the shipping of grain by that route, has made this question one of vast importance for the prairie provinces as well as for British Columbia. So within the last two years, we find Alberta associating herself with British Columbia in a protest against some at least of those mountain rates. The western rates case began in 1911 and judgment was delivered on April 6, 1914. The complaint was:
1.	That the tolls charged in the provinces of western Canada, (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) are higher than those charged in eastern Canada, (Ontario and Quebec), and
2.	Of unjust discrimination by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in tolls from Vancouver, British Columbia, to interior points in the western provinces as compared with the tolls charged to the same points in eastern Canada.
The Board of Railway Commissioners de-Lvered its judgment, and on page 156 of Canadian Railway Cases, volume 17, we find this:
On the issue of discrimination there is no doubt whatever that disparity of rates exists. While the railway companies plead a greater diversity of traffic, better traffic conditions and return loads, and a lower wage

schedule in the east than in the west, there is to my mind no question but that those different factors and their effects are of necessity mirrored in the companies' returns, and are more than compensated for by the long average haul and lower terminal expenses that obtain in the west.
Practically the same thing was said afterwards in the judgment delivered by the board in eastern rates case on June 6, 1916. The reference is to Canadian Railway Cases, volume 22, page 41. The judgment states:
While, as has been set out at greater length in the western rates case, differences of conditions do exist between eastern and western Canada, and while western freight rates have already materially been reduced, the general schedule there obtaining is still higher, notwithstanding the fact that certain western rates that may be instanced are lower. There is no doubt but what the act requires and the general public interest of the country as a whole demands, that, if practicable, eastern rates should be advanced so that the different schedules may more nearly approach a parity.
I am aware that an absolute parity is impracticable, but, as conditions become similar, a reasonable parity ought to be obtained.
The next case to which I refer is the 40 per cent increase case. During 1922, before the committee on railway transportation costs, it seems to me that the railway representatives made a strenuous effort to convince the committee that rates after all were very nearly equal as between eastern Canada and the prairies prior to the 40 per cent increase. In the 40 per cent increase caise, the judgment, which was delivered in December, 1920, has this to say:
Allowing for the undoubted fact that a very large proportion of the traffic both east and west is on the commodity basis, I am still forced to the conclusion that the rates in western Canada average considerably greater than in the east, possibly around 15 or 18 per cent.
In coming to this conclusion I am stating nothing new, as this fact has always been recognized and particularly by Sir Henry Drayton, the then chief commissioner, in the Eastern Rates case, so called In re Eastern Tolls. 22 Can. Ry. Cases, at page 41, where the following statement appears:-
"While, as has been set out at greater length in the Western Rates case, differences of condition do exist between eastern and western Canada, and while western freight rates have already materially been reduced, the general schedule there obtaining is still higher, notwithstanding the fact that certain western rates that may be instanced are lower. There is no doubt but what the act requires and the general public interest of the country, as a whole, demands, that, if practicable, eastern rates should be advanced so that the different schedules may mare nearly approach a parity".
As a 40 per cent increase was given in eastern Canada and a 35 per cent in western Canada, that still left, in the opinion of the board, a considerable difference. Previous to this increase the difference in the two rate scales was approximately 15 or 18 per cent. Since that time there has been some reduction in rates both east and west. We had a.

Mountain Freight Scale
reduction in grain rates after the committee had reported to parliament in 1922, and then we had other reductions in the east which brought the rates down to within 17J per cent of what they had been previous to the 40 per cent increase, and in the west to 12i per cent above the rates in existence previous to September 1920.
The committee on railway transportation which considered the question whether or not it was advisable to reinstate the Crowsnest pass agreement had strong representations made to it in 1922, when it was pointed out that in the event of the rates being lowered on grain the Canadian Pacific Railway might be unable to pay its dividends. I submitted figures to the House last year to show that notwithstanding the reduction the Canadian Pacific Railway had better earnings in 1922 and 1923 from grain in western Canada than it had the previous year. This was no doubt due in part to the fact that we had splendid crops in western Canada during those two years. Figures were submitted, taken from the files of the Board of Railway Commissioners, relating to the net and gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the west. Going back to the years 1916 to 1922 we find that the operating revenues in the east amounted to $226,500,000 while in the west they amounted to $356,500,000, the west being 57^ per cent higher than the east. The operating ratio in the east was 73.3 and :n the west 57, while in the prairie west it was 54.5. The net earnings of the west were $92,500,000 greater than those of the east, or 154 per cent; that is to say, the net earnings in the east amounted to $60,000,000 and in the west to $152,500,000. From the years 1916 to 1920, before the period in which the increase ^ took place, the operating revenues were, in the east, $370,000,000 and in the west $442,000,000; so that the west was $72,000,000 more than the east, or 20 per cent. And this embraces the prosperous manufacturing war munition period an the east. I have not the division of operating revenues for the years 1922 and 1923; I have already stated that during the grain moving months there was a higher gross earning and a higher net profit than in the summer months for the year 1921.
I have here a statement for the year 1924 of the operating expenses and the net revenues of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I want to put this statement on record because some people seem to think that there was something unholy done to the rest of Canada in the reinstatement of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain and that it wiped out forever any discrimination between eastern and western rates. This statement shows that for the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, July and August the Canadian National Railways, except for the month of March, had a very small net revenue; March was the only month in which they had a net revenue of over $1,000,000. In February they had a loss of $768,000; in May they had a loss of $433,000; in June there was a loss of $974,000. In September, however, they had a revenue of $1,515,000 and in October, $4,161,000, while in November there was a net revenue of $3,367,000. I shall now give the Canadian Pacific Railway's net and gross revenues for -the Pleven months of 1924; I am simply going to give the totals, and if the House has no objection I shall hand the statement to the reporter afterwards, because I should like to have it inserted in full:
Month	Gross revenue Net revenue
January	
$13,000,000	$ 709,000February	
12,000,000	938,000March	
14,000,000	2,000,000April	
13,000,000	1,000,000May	
14,000,000	1,000,000June	
15,000,000	2,000.000July	
14,000,000	2,000,000August	
14,000,000	3,000,000September	
15,000.000	4,000,000October	
19,000,000	7,000.000November	
17,000,000	6,000^00
The grain traffic represents about 45 per cent of the total business of western Canada, according to Mr. Lanigan of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If you segregate the month during which the grain traffic moves, you will find there is a tremendous increase in the total revenue and in the proportion of net to gross revenue. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the various judgments handed down by the Board of Railway Commissioners we have the proof that the prairie west has been paying more than its share of profit to the railways. That the Canadian Pacific has a greater mileage in the three prairie provinces is not in itself an explanation of the fact that its net revenues are greater, because we know that the cost per mile of construction in eastern Canada is very much higher than that in the west. In the eastern rates case the railways applied for a general increase in rates, and the Board of Railway Commissioners decided they would have to take into consideration the position of the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk was an old-established railway, and the board decided, in a general way, that they would accept the valuation of the Grand Trunk as a basis on which to fix rates, and let the newer railways take their chance, as they would not have come into the territory unless they were
Mountain Freight Scale

willing to compete with the railway already established there. It was admitted that a remunerative rate scale for the Grand Trunk would be all right for the Canadian Pacific, because the Canadian Pacific was in fact in a more prosperous condition at that time than the Grand Trunk. The claim was made that the capital charges of the Grand Trunk were no less than 8131,395 per mile of line. This value was not accepted by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and they made a comparison with various other lines to ascertain what might be a fair valuation. They found that the Glen Tay-Agincourt line of the Canadian Pacific cost altogether $13,144,685, or $71,547 per mile; the Intercolonial, according to the government statistics of 1915, cost $75,066 per mile, including equipment and terminals; the National Transcontinental cost $76,632 per mile; the Ontario Hydro-Electric line from Toronto to Guelph cost $100,000 per mile, including terminals. In its judgment, which will be found in volume 6 of the board's judgments, pages 153 and 146. appears the following:
If the cost of the National Transcontinental were applied to the Grand Trunk mileage, adding a conservative estimate of $10,000 a mile for equipment, a vaule of $86,632 per mile is arrived at.
When we compare that with the general cost of lines on the prairies, we find that the government guarantees ranged from $13,000 to $20,000 per mile. We know that was not the total cost, but we know also that when the government had something to do with building the mountain section they had to give a higher guarantee altogether. When the Grand Trunk Pacific bill was put through the guarantee for the prairie section, which was supposed to cover 75 per cent of the cost of the line, was $13,000 per mile, but in the mountains the guarantee was $30,000 per mile. I understand that this limitation regarding its mountain section, was afterwards wiped out. It is recognized that there is no comparison between the cost of building railways on the prairie territory and in the mountain territory, or the railways east and west of the prairies. So I submit that the tremendous earnings of the Canadian Pacific on the western prairie lines, is not explained by a greater mileage. This is offset by the fact that the cost of construction is much lower. This 'bears out the statement, which has been made time and again by the Board of Railway Commissioners, that in general the rates are higher in western than they are in eastern Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing for the moment that there was anything unjust in this, but I do say that so far as that portion of the

prairies is concerned which is so situated geographically that it ought and does use the Pacific coast ports, if in the past it has been impossible to give that section rates based on the local cost of construction and of operation, it is absolutely unfair to continue charging us the mountain scale of rates-rates which are in excess of those on the prairie territory-where the grades are 'better and the cost of construction no higher than the maximum in eastern Canada. In 1907 when the British Columbia coast cities applied to the Board of Railway Commissioners to have the mountain scale wiped out, one of the arguments used in rebuttal was this: Vancouver and the Pacific coast cities have certain advantages due to water competition, they have low through rates westbound, and they should not complain if they have the disadvantages of their geographical position when they are shipping inland, over mountain, grades that cost more to construct. But so far as the province of Alberta and parts of western Saskatchewan are concerned, we are not allowed the advantage in our rates of the lower cost of construction and the lower cost of operation of the prairie lines, and we have heaped upon us the disadvantage of the mountain scale rates when we want to do business with that part of the country that our geographical position puts us in a position to do business with.
I should like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I had just finished giving some proof that the prairie provinces had been paying their share of railway profits, and possibly a little more, during the past twenty years or so. I should like to supplement that evidence by quoting an article from this morning's Ottawa Citizen:
New York, Feb. 22.-Over sixteen hundred members o,f the New York Traffic Club, and the largest gathering in the history of the organization, were present at the annual banquet in the Commodore hotel here last night, where E. W. Beatty, K.C., president and chairman of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was the chief speaker. The guests included the executives of many of the larger United States railroads. W. A. Schumacher, president of the club, was in the chair.
Mr. Beatty was accompanied by W. R. Mclnnes, of the C.P.R., Mr. Beatty largely devoted his remarks to a review of Canada's railway history, which was, he said, the story of great achievement, mistakes, failures and political and economic complications end-

Mountain Freight Scale
ing with the most unique situation existing in the world to-day. He traced the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and said that the success of the company had provoked similar but over-ambitious enterprises. He referred to the Canadian Northern which, he said, while a great conception, carried to physical completion, had failed because it was built before its time and could not be operated successfully through the dislocation of war time.
"If," said the speaker, instead of turning its prairie lines into a portion of a transcontinental system, the owners had been content to make as their termini the mountains on the west, and the Great Lakes on the east, they would have been the wealthiest men in Canada, and Canada would not to-day be facing the railway burden it is compelled to bear."
The mountain scale, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat higher than the prairie scale. In 1907, by the judgment in connection with the British Columbia Pacific Coast Cities versus the Canadian Pacific Railway, the mountain scale on part of the mileage was reduced to within 100 per cent higher than the prairie scale and to about one and a half times the prairie scale on about 500 miles of the mountain mileage. At the time of the western rates case in 1916, the mountain scale was reduced to from one and a half to one as compared with the prairie scale on its full western mileage.	Since that time, in 1922, I
think it was, the mountain scale was reduced somewhat nearer to the prairie scale, but it still is somewhat higher than the prairie scale. As I have pointed out because of the development of trade routes via the Pacific coast and through the Panama canal, and the development of trade with the Orient, we are face to face with a problem where the prairies, being denied rates equal to those in the eastern part of Canada, where the cost of construction and operation is lower, have to pay higher charges when they want to ship over grades just as favourable as those in the east.
Of course, it is to Alberta's advantage to do business with British Columbia. The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are largely complementary. We in Alberta grow wheat and produce cheese, butter and other commodities for export, and British Columbia requires a great many of these commodities. British Columbia manufacturers on the other hand, are able to cater to the market on the prairies, and if there is anything in the home market idea, and I think there is, it is to the mutual advantage of British Columbia and Alberta that they have favourable interprovincial rates, and thereby each helps in the development of the other. I think that the main hindrance to getting an equalization of rates has been the attitude taken by the Board of Railway Commissioners, that the railways must have their dividends. That principle broke down when they sought to apply it to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the 28
Canadian Northern. Though some compromise had been made in 1916 between the rates that were absolutely necessary on the Canadian Pacific and the rates necessary to keep the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern afloat, the railway commission were not able to save those railways from the financial difficulties into which they finally drifted.
Professor MacGibbon, of Edmonton, has written a book entitled Railway Rates and the Canadian Railway Commission, in which he says:
Xhe fundamental holding of the board is that there shall be a fair return on the funds actually invested in the enterprise. This position is emphatically taken in The Dawson Board of Trade vs The White Pass and Yukon Railway Company case.
The board had ordered certain reductions on the Yukon Railway, and the Yukon Railway appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council granted a rehearing. The company also applied to the board for the rescinding of its ord'er providing for a reduction in rates until such time as the rehearing was completed. The board in granting a stay until the rehearing said this:
The board never intended to deprive those carriers of the opportunity of earning, first, not only enough to pay the interest upon their bonds, but, secondly, to pay a fair return upon the actual capital that went into the road and that is now outstanding in the form of stock. No controlling commission has got, it seems to us, the right or the jurisdiction to make an order that would have the effect of destroying the earning power of the capital that honestly went into the facility-
And so on. A little further on in the judgment we find this:
Had the management been as economical then as now, with the large earnings in those days, no doubt substantial reductions could have been made without hardship upon the stockholders; but this matter can be dealt with only upon conditions as they exist today.
In connection with the same principle in the western rates case we find this:
The whole question is or should be what rates are fair? In considering this question of course surpluses earned by past operations may be evidence to the facts that the rates under which they were earned were exorbitant. Any industrial enterprise has the right to a reasonable surplus over and above its fixed charges and dividends. A railway is also entitled to a reasonable surplus. . . . To my mind it is quite impossible for the board to deal with rates in the west on the hypothesis that the Canadian Pacific is the only railway that should be taken into consideration.
Subsequent to that, however, in 1920 order No. 308 already referred to, was issued', in which the same position was taken that rates should be fixed and guaranteed that would enable the Canadian Pacific to pay 6 per cent, and then a surplus of 2 per cent to cover what might be called contingencies.

Mountain Freight Scale


Arthur Meighen: Who made that ord'er to which the hon. gentleman refers?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It was ruling No. 308 of the Board of Railway Commissioners in connection with the 35 and 40 per cent increases.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member is mistaken. I remember the order of 1920 or 1921.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In connection with the 40 per cent increase?


Arthur Meighen: No. I remember a reference back by the Governor in Council in which the railway commission was instructed to disregard the Canadian National Railways, and make rates only on such a basis as they felt fair to the Canadian Pacific, but there was no stipulation that there should be a definite earning capacity.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is true, however, and has been stated a number of times. I was going to read the order in council to which the hon. leader of the opposition refers. The idea in the western rates case, as well as in the 35 and 40 per cent increases, was to enable all the railways to carry on. However, an appeal was taken to the Privy Council in this case and on October 6, 1920, the Privy Council, in ord'er No. 2434 dismissed the appeal, but in doing so expressed the following opinion:
tt hafc constitutes a fair and reasonable rate should not be arrived at without reference to the requirements of the Canadian National system, and your committee recommends that the order in this case be referred back to the board to be corrected in its findings in such manner as to determine what are fair and reasonable rates without taking into account at all, for the time the order shall be in effect, the requirements of the Canadian National system.
As far as I can find out that is the first time that principle was applied. Previous to that an attempt was made to ascertain the breaking point between the needs of the three systems. Now, I want to say this-it may be heresy to some but it seems to me to be common sense-I do not know that any railway corporation, or any other kind of corporation, should have its dividends guaranteed at the expense of the people of the country. I am willing to admit the importance of the Canadian Pacific, and the importance of the other railways of Canada; but when we find the president of the Canadian Pacific to-day contending for his dividends and his surplus I must say I cannot see that that concern is of any more importance to Canada than the industry of agriculture or the manufacturing industries of the Dominion. Such treatment might be justified under normal con-
IMr. D. M. Kennedy.]
ddtions, but during the last few years conditions have been abnormal; and if the Board of Railway Commissioners tries to fix rates on a basis that will guarantee its dividends and a surplus to the Canadian Pacific, it can only do so at the expense of the other industries of Canada. And what condition are these other industries in? I know that agriculture is not in a position to stand it; and I am told that in the case of a great many other industries not only are they earning no dividend's but that through the deflation of the last few years they have experienced a loss of from 50 to 75 per cent on their capital investment as well. Therefore, as far as I can see railway dividends should be no more sacred than dividends on capital invested in agriculture or in manufacturing concerns.
I have here a copy of the U.F.A. published in Calgary on February 2, 1925, on page 15 I find it stated:
Canada's railways must have a living profit.
Then it is stated in an advertisement:
No greater catastrophe could overtake Canada than the weakening of the present strong position of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
That seems to me an extraordinary statement. When you place dividends on one corporation representing an investment of less than a billion against those of all other industries representing almost twenty times that amount I say it is an utterly ridiculous statement. I believe we have to get away from the idea that the dividends or the interests of any corporation are to be held sacred. I am willing to give the Canadian Pacific-and any other corporation in Canada for that matter-all that we are entitled to as agriculturists and nothing more. I believe that we ought to have equality in so far as our treatment by the government of the country is concerned. I do not believe the Canadian parliament has any right to hand over authority to a commission of any kind, be it a railway commission or a tariff commission, to especially look after one industry when that can only be done at the expense of the rest of the people of the country.
There is another objection that I have to this mountain scale: It has overflown into the prairies. I suppose if we had never had the mountain scale through the Rocky mountains and out to the coast we should not likely have had it in the territory between Edmonton and the Peace river country. But we have a railway there built some years ago, and its grades are just as low as the grades of the Canadian National railway through the Yellowhead pass, 4/10 of one per cent grades, except crossing to the Smoky river and the

Mountain Freight Scale
Peace river. The grades are heavier there but only for a distance of ten miles in each case. I would like to see the rates of this railway come down also. I know there are difficulties in connection with this matter, but I do not think it is fair that we ought to guarantee, before rates are reduced in any particular whatever, that the railways are going to be taken care of in every instance.
The evidence taken before the committee on railway transportation costs in 1922 seems peculiar. The Canadian Pacific representatives were there arguing that they could' not accept, certain reductions without a loss of dividends. One gentleman came from Saskatchewan and' argued that he had done his last year's work without any wages, and his sons had done the same; they had nothing to show for it so far as dividends were concerned. An hon. member from Nova Scotia said that every other industry in the country was just in the same position and yet in spite of that we had the argument that the dividends of the Canadian Pacific Railway should be guarded. I read a few days ago a declaration,-I think ic was an enunciation of the policy of the Conservative party,-by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), in which he went on record as favouring subsidies for the railways in order to take care of the long hauls and the difficult rate situation in Canada. Well, I am not very fond of the subsidy question, though it may be necessary. I would rather see the rates reduced and' then have the question dealt with after we saw the result, than to start in with an offer of a subsidy in order to get the rate reduction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said nearly enough on this question. Possibly I have brought the few points I had in mind before the House, and no d'oubt some other hon. members have something to say on the subject. In view of the fact that it has been found difficult to equalize the rates between the western provinces and the east, owing to water competition in the east, and because of the difficulties of these provinces to-day, it is imperative that we should get the advantage of the favourable rates through the Yellowhead pass to the Pacific coast. It might have been all right to hold the rates up somewhat in d'ays gone by, when we had grades of 2 or 2.2 per cent through the Rockies, but the country has borne that long enough, and I think it is time to wipe out the mountain scale altogether in the mountains and on the prairies.
The resolution calls for the abolition of the mountain scale in so far as it is reflected in 281
commodity rates, class rates and standard mileage tariff. I have argued that we ought to have the same rates west as east on commodities moving from Alberta, be it grain or butter, or whatever the commodity may be. If it is justified in this instance, then it seems to me to be justified all along the line. If it is not justified all along the line, it does not seem to me to be justified in that particular instance. Therefore, I have framed the resolution as it has been framed, that we ought to have a writing down of the mountain scale to the prairie scale at once, and as rapidly as possible get to a complete equalization of rates from east to west.


Arthur Meighen: If it is a fact that the through commodity rate from the western coast to the east is lower than the prairie scale, would' the hon. member be in favour of raising it up to the prairie scale?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I did not quite catch the question.


Arthur Meighen: If it is a fact that the through commodity rate from the Pacific coast in the mountains to the eastward, covering the principal part of their traffic, is lower than the prairie scale, would my hon. friend be in favour of having it raised to the rate in the prairie section?
Mr, KENNEDY (Edmonton): I think the hon. gentleman refers to the rates going right through, where there is water competition. No, they cannot raise it. The railways would lose the traffic.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is in favour of discrimination against the prairies on that point?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, that is not the position.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I was going to ask the question my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just asked.


Arthur Meighen: I helped you out.


George Perry Graham: This question of freight
rates is most embarrassing and most technical. Although I have been in the Railway department at different times for a great many years, I profess to know mighty little about it. It is something any person can take up in his own locality and feel that the rate is not fair. At the present time railway rates are not in a satisfactory condition-everybody admits that. The Railway Act says there should be no unjust discrimination, and it is claimed there has been discrimination.
Mountain Freight Scale

That matter is before the courts now. I think it is a serious mistake at this moment for any member of parliament, or parliament itself, to take too severe an attitude towards the railways. As far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, there can be no question about there being no dividends on that road, and I want to call attention to the fact that every man in this House is a joint proprietor of the Canadian National Railways. I might add further that the revenues of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as well as those of the Canadian National Railway, all come out of the impost on the traffic, whether it be passenger or freight, so that there is not so much difference between the upkeep of the railways as some people sometimes imagine. Although one is under private control or private ownership, yet it has no source of revenue except the pockets of the people who patronize it, and the Canadian National Railways is in the same position. I am in favour of great corporations only as they remain in their places, but railways are as essential to this country as anything else; we cannot do business without railways, and we ought to approach this question with an open mind and consider how best to bring about a situation which, while it will be fair to the people, will not be unfair to the railways. In the case of some companies it has been suggested that no dividends should be guaranteed. With that I agree to a certain extent, but it must be remembered that the railways with which our railways have to compete are largely in a place where they are guaranteed certain rates on the capital invested. I would not mention any rate of interest, but their rates are higher than ours. I do not mean the rate of interest, but the railway rates are higher than our railways charges. I hear there is a prospect of the freight rates in the United States being again raised very shortly. In fairness to the Canadian railways, I may say that they have this handicap that their fuel costs them more in a large section which they traverse than does fuel in the United States, and still on through traffic they have to compete with United States railways that can be run more cheaply. It has been said that Canadian railways should reduce rates of wages and other conditions have been mentioned. Rates of wages for men engaged in any employment in Canada will never go back to where they were before the war, and it is not in the best interest of the country that they should, because the standard of living for men who work with their hands must be kept at a point where they will be able to live in comfort. We cannot do much in the line fVTr. D. M. Kennedy.]
cf reducing wages. Further than that, even if that was desired, Canadian railways and American railways are so interlocked in their traffic that what applies to one side of the bne must of necessity apply to the other, and I see no way of getting around that.


Robert Forke: I cannot quite understand
the last statement the minister made, that wages of working men must be kept up to the level that they can have the same comfort as other people who are extravagant.


George Perry Graham: When you get beyond the point of comfort you go into extravagance.


Robert Forke: Luxuries.


George Perry Graham: The man who has enough for his family and himself to live on and to educate his children, is comfortable. When he has more money than that he is apt to become extravagant and thinks he needs for his comfort things he does not need. What I was trying to point out was that we cannot look to a reduction in freight rates through any great reduction in the wages of the men who are paid to operate the trains.


William Findlay Maclean: Henry Ford
pointed that out the other day.


George Perry Graham: Conditions have changed,
and the men of to-day, no matter in what employ they are, must be considered as coworkers and not servants as heretofore. That is the basis on which we must work.
As regards the mountain scale, my hon. friend has put his case pretty strongly; but no matter what the judgment of the court may be, this parliament must deal during this session with the whole question in some manner or another, when every' angle of the freight rate situation will be viewed and discussed and every part of Canada will have an opportunity, through its members, of placing its views before the House. In fact, even if we so desired, I see no way of obviating a discussion, and, indeed, more than a discussion in this House on the great question of railway rates. At the present time there is an embarrassing situation. Crowsnest pass rates are in force in some localities and not in others. That is a discrimination between cities in the east and cities in the west, between localities in the west and localities in the east. What will be done, I am not in a position to say at the present moment; but in my humble judgment, this parliament, before this session closes, will have to deal in a Dominion-wide discussion with the whole railway rate situation and arrive at some decision, because business is disturbed and will not right itself again until we arrive at

Mountain Freight Scale
some basis by which the people will know what the freight rates are to be and who is to control those freight rates. Does my hon. friend not think it would be a mistake for us at this moment to express opinions as to what we ought to do with freight rates piecemeal? This question affects the Maritime provinces, the central provinces. It is of vital interest to the prairie provinces and of interest to British Columbia. If we decided now that we were going to begin to arrange rates, a section at a time, my hon. friend would see that that would not be satisfactory and it would bring forth a set of resolutions from every part of Canada through the members for those constituencies, suggesting particular legislation-I do not mean particular favours -for their districts. Is it not wiser,-having had this discussion and possibly there may be more,-for us to wait for a complete discussion of the whole situation which will take in every condition of Canada, and then we may hope to decide something, perhaps not unanimously, which we trust will be in the interest of the entire Dominion and set at rest the question of freight rates which so vitally affects every part of this Dominion?


William Findlay Maclean: Has the minister in view a uniform rate for transportation generally, whether by rail or water or otherwise


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say
that.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the member who makes the motion propose that?


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is meant in the
Speech from the Throne by "equalization in freight rates between provinces?" That is stated to be the programme of the government. If the minister would outline what he means by that, he would illuminate the discussion.


George Perry Graham: I would rather omit any
attempt to define the meaning of the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne until that is embodied in a bill that will be before parliament in all probability for discussion in detail.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I did not quite catch how
the minister related the mountain scale rate to problems similar in other parts of Canada. The mountain scale rate seems to be something distinct by itself and it would have to be separately considered. I propose to speak on it and I should like to ask the minister this question.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that I have a right to speak so many times.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


Mr. STEVENS:: The minister has not taken his seat yet.


George Perry Graham: Again, I would not care
to give any definition of what these rates mean. I prefer to leave that until we have a discussion of the whole broad question. My hon. friend immediately takes the ground' that he has a special case. The members from the Maritime provinces take the ground that they have a special case. The members from Ontario insist that they have a special case because some of their towns are discriminated against. The same thing is true of Quebec. Every province in the Dominion thinks it has a special case on freight rates, and that is why I say that we shall not get anywhere until we are prepared to take the matter up in a practical way, so that the whole field of transportation can be discussed with a hope of arriving at some method of devising a freight rate structure that will be at least comparatively satisfactory to the people of Canada.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South) r Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this question of such grave and important consequences to British Columbia. I cannot agree with t.he minister that this is one of those problems which are common to other parts of Canada. It is distinctly a western: question and one in which an unjust discrimination has been put upon the people of British Columbia and, indeed, the people of Alberta, without any principle, without any merit, and the proof of that lies in the fact that only a- short time ago, after an inquiry by a committee, the mountain scale rate was reduced by 50 per cent. Now if the principle is established that it is an unfair discrimination, for what reason do they reduce it only 50 per cent? Why could not parliament reduce it to an equality with other parts of Canada? That seems to me to be the purpose of the proposal.


George Perry Graham: Was it parliament that made that reduction?


Leon Johnson Ladner: If it was not parliament, at any rate the inspiration should have come, from some quarters of parliament.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Do you not mean that the excess was reduced by 50 per cent, and not the rate itself?


Leon Johnson Ladner: But the mountain scale rate is nothing but excess. On this point I
Mountain Freight Scale


Mr. CARROLL:: They are mountainous.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, we have never had
anything else. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this question will not be treated by the government as of only academic interest or to be set aside because of any complication that may result from its adoption, although I feel there is an inclination on their part to so treat it. I repeat, the subject matter of the resolution constitutes a distinct freight rate problem,, detached from all other similar problems, and affords an excellent opportunity for hon, members to express themselves affirmatively or negatively concerning the principle involved.
Mr. D F. KELLNER (East Edmonton): Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse the sentiments of the member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ladner) in support of this resolution, and I share his hope that we shall have an exhaustive discussion of the whole mountain rate structure. I too appreciate the futility of any such hope, when I look at the government benches and observe only three or four ministers present, two or three of whom I notice are watching the clock very closely and apparently intend to leave shortly. In my estimation parliament obtained the right at least to share in the fixing of rates away back in 1881 when certain subsidies were granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Since that time the country has entered into various undertakings with one railway company and another which I think beyond a shadow of a doubt consolidated our position, and it is *worth while for us to seriously consider why the government from time to time undertook to pay subsidies and to make land grants to various railway companies. It will not be seriously argued that there was any desire on the part of the country to make somebody a present by this means; undoubtedly a substantial consideration in return was involved. It was the opinion of the rank and file of the people that that assistance would eventually be a factor in reducing freight rates. I do not think there is any question that it was understood, if it was not expressed, that at a period of financial stringency, such as we are passing through at the moment, those money and land grants would be treated by the railway companies as being in lieu of dividends. But from the very start the policy seems to have been unsuccessful. Those who have studied the situation back in 1896 find that the western fanners at that time were actually hauling their grain much further than should have been necessary to reach the Northern Pacific in Manitoba, and there are numerous resolutions from boards of trade and other organizations and from private
Mountain Freight Scale

citizens protesting against the high freight rates and lack of transportation facilities that then prevailed. It was apparently the opinion of the country that the subsidy proposition had not been a success in bringing about low freight rates, and a new theory was advanced. It was suggested that the only way to control freight rates was by competition, and an agitation sprang up for the building of more railways, with the result that the country subsidized and bonused the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. But the coming of these railways did not bring about lower rates. I do not think there is any question that the cost of construction was deliberately made sufficiently high so that low freight rates would never be enjoyed in our day and generation.
Allow me to deviate for a moment to the election of 1911, which our friends to the right take a great deal of credit to themselves at having won against the other old party on what was to all intents and purposes a tariff question. But in western Canada I do not think the tariff entered into the election at all; the people there by their votes desired to protest against the method which had been used in financing the building of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. At any rate this was the case in my section of the country. When what are to-day our National lines were projected we were promised very much better grades across the mountains than the Canadian Pacific ever had, and were led to believe that that company's engineers had made a terrific blunder when they selected the southern route through the Kicking Horse pass; and as a corollary we were promised lower freight rates. We have got the easier grades, and on what used to be the Canadian Northern our National railways can draw as heavy loads east as they can west across the mountains, but we have never seen any reduction in our rates. I do not think that the railway commission or any other body that has ever investigated the situation has argued that the present mountain scale of rates is necessary so far as the Canadian National is concerned. In fact I think I am safe in saying that the president of our National system has admitted that the mountain scale of rates is not necessary for his road, but that if he lowered his rates in that section the Canadian Pacific management would probably retaliate in some other section. If that is to be the line of argument advanced-


George Perry Graham: Was that advanced?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I cannot say definitely,
but I have been informed it was. Probably
IMr. Kellner.]
the minister would care to deny that it had been advanced?


George Perry Graham: Any man can say he has
heard a rumour and ask some person else to deny it. That cannot well be done. I do not know, but I would think it would be more unlikely that the president of the National railways said so than that he did not.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I take it then that the
minister never heard the rumour?


George Perry Graham: Never.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Whether the president
of the Canadian National railways stated it or not, there is no question that it was the general opinion among those who are more or less versed in the situation as it exists in the west. Now if the rates which we are paying in the mountains are not sufficiently high for the Canadian Pacific to make at least a fair profit on the business, I cannot for the life of me see why they should be so anxious to get as large a portion of that traffic as they are handling. Take the business, for instance, from northern Alberta. A survey of the situation will convince anybody that the Canadian National Railway should have practically all that traffic. The distance is much shorter, and the grade unquestionably is much better; but if you will look over the freight returns you will find that the Canadian Pacific are handling approximately about one-half of all the business that is going out that way. It is necessary to go down to Calgary and then west from there. Certainly they are getting an excessive freight rate, or they would not carry that freight over such a circuitous and extremely difficult grade as compared with the grade on the Canadian National. If we are going to have competition for lower rates, and that used to be the theory, that competition was the only way to lower them, we have the railroads now, we have the grade, and it seems to me that now is the time to enforce competition. If that is not done, by all manner of means let us quit trying to deceive ourselves and admit that competition is not a factor in railway rates. A few years ago, for instance, when our friends to the right here were in office, they undertook to lower ocean rates by using the merchant marine. The present government has altogether discarded that idea of using the merchant marine for lowering rates, and it is going to subsidize ships. As far as railroading goes, both these methods have been tried and neither has been found any good. So it seems to me, whether or not it is worth, while to discuss this question, that we must

Mountain Freight Scale
have something different from what has already been tried, for both the methods tried up to date have failed. This whole question is one of outstanding importance, not to western Canada alone, but to the country at large.
At the time we discussed the Crowsnest pass agreement in 1922, the railroad companies put up a terrific howl about the amount of money they were going to lose if that agreement came into effect.	As we look over the
returns of the railroad companies since then, we find that their predictions have not come to pass at all. The railroad companies, especially in 1923, had a much better year than they had in 1922. Of course, it is only fair to state that we had an exceptionally heavy crop that year. But 1924, with a light crop, compared very favourably indeed with 1922. I do not care what question comes up for discussion, if it is of international importance at all, wheat will eventually be a factor in it, and if it is the desire of Canada to move wheat cheaply so that we can compete with other countries in the world, I do not think we can afford to ignore this mountain scale rate. I think it is also worth while to remember that wheat is not the only factor that enters into the situation. Alberta has practically an unlimited amount of coal. They also have considerable forests, and a good fur business. All these are materials which not only produce new wealth but which, if developed, will produce tonnage for our railroads.
When the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) was speaking to-night, he dwelt on one of the findings of the railway commission in which they said that in the prairie section, the long haul and the low cost of construction were some of the factors that should offset the lower rates in the east. That is only part of the situation. Certainly it must be much cheaper to get coal for the railroads in Alberta or anywhere in the mountains than in the eastern part of Canada, for it matters not where you have a depot in the west, there you have a coal mine practically beside it. Certainly it is much easier to get water for your engines in the mountains than it is in practically any part of the east. I have been told by engineers that you can get a better quality of water, water that works better in the engine and that gives no trouble in the boilers through corrosion, than you can in the east. I do not think anywhere through that mountain section they have any trouble with the engine boilers corroding. But that is not the case in the east. These are all matters which enter into the cost of railroad operation.
As far as railroad construction is concerned, I doubt if there is any part of Canada where
the road was built as cheaply in the first place, and was got into as good a condition so quickly as it was across the prairies.
In conclusion, I would ask the minister not only to give this matter his attention, but to try and get the ear of his colleagues in the government and try and do the fair thing by eliminating this mountain scale in its entirety.


William Findlay Maclean: I
would like to say just a word or two on this question in the way of trying to reach what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has stated. My recommendation is this: Let us get rid of these discriminations, more or less local, more or less physical, one after the other, and when we have cleared a lot of them out of the way it will be easier and smoother to deal with the wider problems stated by the Minister of Railways, namely, to create a freight rate structure fair to all; and one of the first duties of parliament is to achieve, if possible, competition between the two roads, after they have been compelled to give up unnecessary services.
I think that is a solution. We must not put this question over, but try and deal with it now. taking up one difficulty after the other, first, the mountain rate, then the others, with the end in view of achieving a real freight rate structure. Now that might take some time, but the first thing to do is to tackle the problem! at some point and begin to remove the difficulties one after the other.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I feel that it is my duty to say a few words in regard to this resolution introduced by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy).
As I read the resolution, its intent is limited to an expression of opinion by the House that the mountain scale should be abolished. That is very simple, it is true, but I also appreciated the observations of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) when he pointed out that this is simply one of many problems. I cannot quite reconcile, however, what the minister has said in regard to this question and his inability to give the House any opinion upon the stand the government purposes taking, with a despatch I read in the press to-night, in the Ottawa Citizen, which carries a statement from Vancouver, by Mr. McGeer, who is counsel for the province of British Columbia on this very question and the allied question of freight rates in general. Mr. McGeer in the interview, which I shall read in a moment, states that he has just returned from the capital where last week he was assured by the
Mountain Freight Scale

highest authority that the government purposes to bring about a measure of equalization of freight rates which will eliminate the western discrimination. In other words, he states that he has assurance? that the government will equalize rates. I do not know just what that word "equalize" includes within its meaning. Mr. McGeer also refers, as will be noted, to discriminations. But he also referred, as will be noticed, to western discrimination. The western discrimination complained of by the people of British Columbia, and by Mr. McGeer in particular, is, of course, this mountain scale. That is the main discrimination which Mr. McGeer complained of. Now then, he tells the people of British Columbia, v'ho have retained him as counsel, that he has these assurances from the government.


George Perry Graham: Did he say " the government "?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I will read the despatch. Virtually nothing else can be meant but the government unless this is simply a deliberate effort to mislead the public. I will quote it exactly as it is here, and it is here quoted as if it were given by Mr. McGeer himself. It is dated Vancouver, February 28 and' Mr. McGeer is speaking:
"I am satisfied from assurances received from the highest sources that it is the intention of the government to bring about a measure of equalization of railway freight rates that will eliminate western discrimination", stated G. G. McGeer, K.C., British Columbia counsel in the freight rates case, upon his return here last night from Ottawa.
Now, I do not know any higher source than the illustrious ana' benign Minister of Railways. So I am bound, in my respect for the Minister of Railways, my knowledge of his influence and his power, and also his deep regard for Mr. McGeer to come to the conclusion that Mr. McGeer would not have dared to ascribe " the highest source " to any other individual than to the Minister of Railways. So I say I have difficulty in harmonizing this statement-


George Perry Graham: I am not surprised.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -of the counsel of British Columbia, with the minister's statement a moment ago that he was unable to give an utterance to the House regarding equalization. I want to say to the minister that I feel he ought to give to the House quite as full information as to the intentions of the government as he would give to Mr. McGeer.


George Perry Graham: I hasten to say that he has.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then am I to understand that this statement is moonshine?


George Perry Graham: I do not know what moonshine is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not like to ascribe to the minister such absolute innocence as that. At any rate, joking aside, am I to infer that this is an inaccurate statement and not a statement of fact?


George Perry Graham: I would not pass judgment on it. I would! say if I am " the highest authority " it is inaccurate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thank the minister for his statement, I think that is perfectly fair. I appreciate and to the full the complex nature of this problem. The question of freight rate structure is perhaps the most intricate problem in all the realm of economics. I know of nothing more intricate and nothing more complex, and I want to say further while we have this subject before us-that in my opinion, after fourteen years of intimate study as a layman of the problem, and after repeatedly bringing it to the attention of the House as I have for many years. I have come to the conclusion that this parliament, sitting as a body, can never expect to unravel and determine what is exactly the correct scale of freight rates to be charged in various parts of the country. I think it is an utterly hopeless task for a bod!y of this kind, but I do believe that a solution will be found only when the people of this country at large entertain in the railway commission, or some other body erected of that character, complete confidence and give to it the problem for its decision. Now, I apprehend this: That a large portion of the dissatisfaction through Canad'a arose, perhaps, four or five years ago because of an agitation against certain utterances of members of the railway board. I am not passing any judgment in the matter; the gentleman who was particularly charged with giving utterance to unfair or prejudiced views is now dead-I refer to the late Hon. Mr. Carvell. I am not for one moment joining in the hue and cry that went on in this country against the chairman of the railway commission, the late Mr. Carvell, but there is no doubt that that hue and cry, the attacks mad'e upon him-attacks made by men of very high standing within certain limits perhaps, such as the Minister of Agriculture-attacks that were made in many sections of the country against him, did undermine confidence in an institution that hitherto had held the unbounded confid'ence of the people of Canada at large, and from that time extreme difficulty has been ex-

Mountain Freight Scale
perienced in connection with this question. You meet the public and suggest to them that the proper body to decide this technical subject is the railway board. The immediate reply is "We have no confidence in the railway board", and I recall, Sir, and I know other members of the House will recall, where, time after time, resolutions were passed by boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and various public bodies, expressing a lack of confidence in the railway board. This I think was the most unfortunate, the most disastrous thing that has happened in recent years in connection with the administration of affairs throughout the country. However, we have that condition.
At the same time we have a deep rooted conviction in the minds of a large section of the public that they have grievances. For instance, taking people in British Columbia, nothing in the world would persuade them that a grave injustice is not being done in connection with this mountain scale. They have a deep rooted conviction on the subject and, I may say, based upon very sound grounds. Then our friends from the Maritime provinces, consider, and I have a good deal of sympathy with their view as well, looking at railway freight rates from their particular angle, that they also have a grievance- that rates have been increased, and increases in recent years have been made, beyond the point which they consider as justified by the arrangements under which they entered into confederation, and so we have criticism.
As an illustration, of the complexity of the problem, and also of the futility of public agitation in dealing with this problem, I have a most illuminating statement before me showing in the case of a number of articles, some seven articles in all, the fact that by the Crowsnest pass rates the consumer got absolutely no benefit at all. These are the chief articles affected by the westward rates. For instance I have here statements regarding barbed wire, bar iron, building paper, common ploughs, nails, spikes and window glass, and of course the same thing applies to innumerable other articles. The reason I am bringing this forward is because certain sections of western Canada claim, to use the language of Mr. Symington, that the Crowsnest pass agreement is "the charter of the prairie provinces." I think he describes it as "a charter of liberty." I should like this illuminating statement to appear on Hansard. It is as follows:


BARBED WIRE
[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Jobbers' prices to retailers, on barb wire, based on earload rate, at the undermentioned points;
differences in freight costs.
also comparison between differences in price and
Period ending 1924	At WINNI- PEG	REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest F reight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost$	s	c.	c.	c.	%	C.	c.	c.	$	C.	c.	c.June 30	4 10	4 50	40	24	35	4 70	60	48	73	4 70	60	72	73July 15	3 95	4 2b	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 10	75	72	73July 30	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Aug. 15	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Aug. 31	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Sept. 15	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Sept. 30	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Oct. 15	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Oct. 30	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Nov. 15	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73Nov. 30	3 95	4 25	30	24	35	4 70	75	48	73	4 70	75	72	73
g
[Stage Direction]
w
During the time above noted the Crowsnest reductions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30 and October 30 the ordinary rates prevailed.
It will be observed that at Calgary the price of the article remained constant and did not diop during the period of reduced freight rates, showing that the reduction was of no benefit to the consumer. It is believed the variation in price at other points was due to other factors than freight rates.
The above computations of freight cost are based on a roll of Lyman 4-Point Barb Wire, 80 rods, weighing 85 pounds, and taking the freight rates from Fort
William to points named.
Mountain Freight Scale

[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Jobbers' prices to retailers, on Bar Iron, based on carload rate, at the undermentioned points; also comparison between differences in price and
differences in freight costs
Period ending 1924	At WINNI- PEG	REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	in Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost%	$	c.	c.	c.	s	c.	c.	c.	%	$	c.	c.June 30	4 90	5 40	50	32	41	5 45	55	60	87	5 95	1 06	87	87July 15	4 90	5 40	50	32	41	5 45	55	60	87	5 00	0 10	87	87July 30	4 90	5 40	50	32	41	5 45	55	60	87	5 00	0 10	87	87Aug. 15	4 90	5 40	50	32	41	5 45	55	60	87	5 00	0 10	87	87Aug. 31	4 90	5 40	50	32	41	5 45	55	60	87	5 00	0 10	87	87Sept. 15	4 90	5 40	50	32	41	5 45	55	60	87	5 00	0 10	87	87Sept. 30	4 75	5 40	65	32	41	5 45	70	60	87	5 00	0 25	87	87Oct. 15	4 75	5 40	65	32	41	5 45	70	60	87	5 00	0 25	87	87Oct. 30	4 75	5 40	65	32	41	5 45	70	60	87	5 00	0 25	87	87Nov. 15	4 75	5 25	50	32	41	5 45	70	60	87	5 00	0 25	87	87Nov. 30	4 75	5 25	50	32	41	5 45	70	60	87	5 00	0 25	87	87
During the time above noted the Crowsnest reductions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30th and October 30th, and subsequently, ordinary rates prevailed.
At Winnipeg the price did not drop when the reduced rates became effective; there was a reduction Sept. 30th which has been maintained subsequent to the restoration of the higher ordinary rates.
At Regina the price remained constant and did not drop during the period of reduced rates, showing that the reduction was of no benefit to the consumer. Since the reduced rates were cancelled the price has dropped.
At Calgary the price has remained constant before, during, and subsequent to, the period of reduced Crowsnest rates, showing that the reduced rates were of no benefit to the consumer.
It is very evident from the Edmonton figures that the reduction in price July 15th had no relation whatever to freight costs as the price was reduced 95 cents per 100 lbs., while there was no reduction in freight rate.
It will be further noted that the prices at Regina, Calgary and Edmonton bear no relation to the Winnipeg price (including freight cost) plus the additional freight cost over Winnipeg to these points.
The above computations of freight cost are based on 100 lbs. of f-inch round bar iron, and taking the rates from Fort William to the points named.
£
Cn
Mountain Freight Scale

[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Jobbers' prices to retailers on Building Paper, based on carload rate, at the undermentioned points; also comparison between differences in price and
differences in freight costs
Period ending 1924	At WINNI- PEG	REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost$	$	c.	c.	c.	$	c.	c.	c.	$	c.	c.	c.June 30	1 20	1 10	- 10	07	10	1 40	20	14	211	1 15	- 05	21	2uJuly 15	95	1 10	+ 15	07	10	1 40	45	14	211	1 00	+ 05	21	2l|July 30	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 35	40	14	211	1 00	05	21	21#Aug. 15	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 35	40	14	211	1 00	05	21	211Aug. 31	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 35	40	14	211	1 00	05	21	21#Sept. 15	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 35	40	14	211	1 00	05	21	2HSeDt. 30	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 40	45	14	211	1 00	05	21	2HOct. 15	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 40	45	14	211	1 00	05	21	211Oct. 30	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 40	45	14	211	1 00	05	21	211Nov. i5	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 40	45	14	211	1000	05	21	211Nov. 30	95	1 10	15	07	10	1 40	45	14	211	1 00	05	21	211
During the time above noted the Crowsnest reductions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30th and on October 30th, and subsequently, the ordinary rates prevailed.
The variation in prices at the different points would indicate that they apparently bear little or no relation to differences in freight costs. At Regina the price of the article remained constant and did not drop during the period of reduced freight rates, showing that the reduction was of no benefit to the consumer. Note the fluctuations at Calgary as compared with the lower prices at Edmonton, where the Crowsnest rates were higher; also that the price at Edmonton was only 5c. per roll over Winnipeg, although the difference in freight cost was 21c.
The above computations of freight cost are based on a roll of Marshall & Wells "Anchor" Building paper, weighing 25 pounds, and taking the freight rates from
Fort William to points named.
[Stage Direction]

o
w
Mountain Freight Scale

[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Jobbers' prices to retailers, on Common Ploughs, based on carload rate, at the undermentioned points; also comparison between differences in price
and differences in freight cost.
Period ending 1924	At WINNI- PEG	REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost$	$	c.	c.	c.	$	$	c.	$	S	$	$	$June 30	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08July 15	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08July 31	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Aug. 15	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Aug. 31	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Sept. 15	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Sept. 30	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Oct. 15	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Oct. 30	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Nov. 15	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08Nov. 30	26 63	27 38	75	36	49	28 13	1 50	74	1 08	28 13	1 50	1 05	1 08During the time above noted the Crowsnest redactions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30 and October 30, and subsequently, the ordinary rates prevailed.	#jj|^
The price of the article remained constant and did not drop during the period of reduced rates, showing that the reduction was of no benefit to the consumer.
It will also be noted that at Regina, Calgary and Edmonton the price in each case exceeds the Winnipeg price by a sum greater than the additional freight cost over Winnipeg to these points.
The above computations of freight cost are based on a Hamilton, No. 123, 12-inch walking plough weighing 135 lbs. and taking the freight rates from Fort William to points named.
Mountain Freight Scale
[Stage Direction]

£
Comparison of Jobbers' prices to retailers on Nails, based on carload rate, at the undermentioned points; also comparison between differences in price and differences
in freight costs
Period ending 1924	At WINNI- PEG
	Price Including Freight Cost
	s
	5 20
	5 05
	5 05
	5 05
Aug. 31		6 05
	5 05
	5 05
Oct. 15		5 05
Oct. 30		4 85
	4 85
Nov. 30		4 85
	
REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Difference over W	innipeg	Difference over Winnipeg	Difference over Winnipeg	Price	Price	Price	Including	In Crows-	| In	Including	In Crows-	In	Including	In Crows-	InFreight	In	nest	Present	Freight	In	nest	Present	Freight	In	nest	PresentCost	Price	Freight	Freight	Cost	Price	Freight	Freight	Cost	Price	F reight	FreightCost	Cost	Cost	Cost	Cost	Cost$	A c.	c.	c.	$	$	c.	c.	$	$	c.	c.5 55	35	31	44	6 00	0 80	00	92	6 00	0 80	89	925 40	35	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 40	35	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 40	35	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 40	35	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 40	35	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 40	35	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 25	20	31	44	6 00	0 95	60	92	6 00	0 95	89	925 25	40	31	44	6 00	1 15	60	92	6 00	1 15	89	925 20	35	31	44	5 90	1 05	00	92	6 00	1 15	89	925 20	35	31	44	5 90	1 05	60	92	6 00	1 15	89	92
s
o
[Stage Direction]
During the time above noted the Crowsnest reductions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30th and October 30th, and subsequently, the ordinary rates prevailed.
It will be noted that at Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary there has been a reduction in price since the reduced Crowsnest rates were cancelled and the higher ordinary rates restored. The reduction in price of 15c. per keg at Winnipeg between June 30 and July 15 was in excess of twice the difference in freight cost resulting from the lower Crowsnest rate. At Calgary the price of the article remained constant and did not drop during the period of reduced rates, showing that the reduction was of no benefit to the consumer, although subsequent to the cancellation of the reduced rates, and the lestoration of the higher rates, the price at Calgary has dropped 10c. per keg.
The above computations of freight cost are based on a keg of Scinch wire nails, weighing 107 lbs. and taking the freight rates from Fort William to the points named.
Mountain Freight Scale
[Stage Direction]
Comparison of Jobbers' prices to retailers on Spikes, based on carload rate, at the undermentioned points; also comparison between differences in price and differences
in freight costs
At WINNI- PEG	REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Period ending 1924	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over \\	innipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over W	innipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost$	$	c.	c.	c.	$	$	c.	c.	$	$	c.	c.4 95	5 15	20	31	44	5 75	0 80	60	92	5 75	0 80	89	924 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0 95	60	92	5 75	0 95	89	924 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0 95	60	92	5 75	0 95	89	924 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0 95	60	92	5 75	0 95	89	924 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0 95	60	92	5 75	0 95	89	924 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0.95	60	92	5 70	0 90	89	924 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0 95	60	92	5 70	0 90	89	92Oct. 15	4 80	5 15	35	31	44	5 75	0 95	60	92	5 70	0 90	89	92Oct. 30	4 60	5 15	55	31	44	5 75	1 15	60	92	5 70	1 10	89	924 60	4 95	35	31	44	5 65	1 05	60	92	5 70	1 10	89	924 60	4 95	35	31	44	5 65	1 05	60	92	5 70	1 10	89	92
During the time above noted the Crowsnest reductions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30th and October 30th, and subsequently, the ordinary rates prevailed.
It will be noted that at Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary there has been a reduction in price since reduced rates were cancelled and the ordinary rates restored. The reduction in price of 15 cents per keg at Winnipeg between I une 30th and July 15th was in excess of twice the difference in freight cost resulting from the lower Crowsnest rate.
At Regina andCalgary the price of the article remained constant and did not drop during the period of reduced rates, showing that the reduction was of no benefit to the consumer, although subsequent to the cancellation of the reduced rates and the restoration of the ordinary rates the price has dropped 20 cents per keg at Regina and 10 cents per keg at Calgary.
The above computations of freight cost are based on a keg of 4-inch spikes weighing 107 pounds and taking the freight rates from Fort William to the points named.
£

[Stage Direction]
s
Comparison of Jobber's prices to retailers, on Window Glass, based on carload rate, at the undermentioned points; also comparison between differences in price and
differences in freight costs.
Period ending 1924	At WINNI- PEG	REGINA	CALGARY	EDMONTON	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	Difference over Winnipeg	Price Including Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost	In Price	In Crowsnest Freight Cost	In Present Freight Cost$	$	$	c.	c.	$	%	c.	$	$	$	$	$June 30	16 75	18 30	1 55	44	64	18 65	1 90	88	1 33	18 65	1 90	1 29	1 33July 15	15 85	18 30	2 45	44	64	18 65	2 80	88	1 33	17 75	1 90	1 29	1 33July 30	15 85	18 30	2 45	44	64	17 75	1 90	88	1 33	17 75	1 90	1 29	1 33Aug. 15	15 85	18 30	2 45	44	64	17 75	1 90	88	1 33	17 75	1 90	1 29	1 33Aug. 31	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	17 75	1 90	88	1 33	17 75	1 90	1 29	1 33Sept. 15	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	16 20	1 35	88	1 33	16 20	1 35	1 29	1 33Sept. 30	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	16 20	1 35	88	1 33	16 20	1 35	1 29	1 33Oct. 15	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	16 20	1 35	88	1 33	16 20	1 35	1 29	1 33Oct. 30	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	16 20	1 35	88	1 33	16 20	1 35	1 29	1 33Nov. 15	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	16 20	1 35	88	1 33	16 20	1 35	1 29	1 33Nov. 30	15 85	17 40	1 55	44	64	16 20	1 35	88	1 33	16 20	1 35	1 29	1 33
£
£
o
ro
During the time above noted the Crowsnest reductions were in force from 7th July to 27th October, inclusive. On June 30th and October 30th, and subsequently, the ordinary rates prevailed.
At Winnipeg there was only one price change during this whole period, i.e. a reduction of 90 cents per case between June 30th and July 15th, but this was materially in excess of the difference in freight cost resulting from the reduced freight rates, and it will be noted there'has been no increase in price since the reduced rates were cancelled.
At Regina, Calgary and .Edmonton the price changes have not synchronized with changes in freight costs. It will be further noted that the prices at these points bear no relation to the Winnipeg price (including freight cost) plus the additional freight cost over Winnipeg to these points.
The above computations of freight cost are based on a case of double diamond, 60 united inches, window glass, weighing 155 lbs. and taking the freight rates from Fort William to the points named.
Mountain Freight Scale

Mountain Freight Scale
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Referring to the comparative prices and rates on barb wire as set out in the first table, at the time the Crowsnest pass agreement came into effect July 7th, did this commodity suffer a decrease in price?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the fact is exactly
as I have Stated.


Mr. LUCAS:: With reference to the comparison of jobbers' prices to retailers for common ploughs who got the benefit of the reduced rates?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was secured by the
jobber, I presume. Neither the consumer nor the retailer derived any benefit.


William F. Carroll: What are these prices
the hon. member has been quoting?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Jobbers' prices to retailers.


Robert Forke: Would the hon, member
mention binder twine?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not it here.


Robert Forke: Would you permit a statement as to that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Permit me to say this:
I am not presuming to cover all the cases. I am giving certain cases and I certainly have not under my hand the item the hon. member mentions.


Robert Forke: I cannot prove this, but a
certain dealer told me he saved a hundred dollars on an order of twine from Fort William to Pipestone under the Crowsnest pass rates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All the jobbers saved
that. The hon. gentleman has struck the point. All of these jobbers saved the freight rates, but when the commodity was passed on to the retailers the prices were sustained and there was no reduction. That is the point. So that the consumer, who after all is the one we must consider, obtained no advantage from the rate reductions.


Mr. MORRISON:: These jobbers obtained the heaviest part of their supply early in the year, and they could not reduce the price till they disposed of their stock because it cost them a higher rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be. People
speak of the value of the Crowsnest rates, and argue about the freight rates, and I am offering these items as striking examples of the futility of the argument to which I have referred.


Mr. BROWN:: You would not like to
assert that the increase or reduction of 29i
freight rates does not ultimately redound to the disadvantage or the benefit of the consumer. If the argument means anything it means that these changes have no influence at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is unfortunately following a course that others have pursued; when a statement is produced- and I am producing such a statement- they try to put in my mouth a line of argument I am not seeking to make at all. I understand that undoubtedly the amount of the freight rate on an article ultimately affects the price of the article; but I want to point out that sometimes people attach a great deal of importance to and make almost a national issue of some secondary point as to the application of rates here and there, and wake up to find that no distinct advantage has accrued from it at all. That is all I was seeking to argue.
I want to impress upon the House that this whole problem is such a complicated one that it would be far better if this House could address itself to the necessity of restoring confidence in a body qualified to deal with the whole technical situation and direct that body. I believe absolutely in the railway board and without reserve in the railway board, and I think that we should restore confidence in it. If we have not confidence in that railway board, then we should erect a body in which we would have confidence and place this great problem of railway freight rates in their hands.
It is claimed and claimed correctly that the Railway Act is the guiding power, that is it controls and directs to a degree, and, shall I say, limits the power of the railway board. I realize that and I think perhaps this is the point that must be determined by this House; that in the Railway Act parliament declares that there shall be no unfair, unjust or unreasonable discrimination, and from these adjectives, these qualifying words, "unfair, unreasonable or unjust," arises a great deal of the trouble. Parliament is asked sometimes-indeed I recall a few years ago I asked parliament myself, by presenting a bill in this House-to declare that there shall be no discrimination at all. But I realize, after more complete study of the problem, that parliament could not fix it with safety in that form, because, if you fix the rate structure so that there will be absolutely no discrimination, you lead gradually into these schools of thought in regard to railway rates who hold to this, that the rate on a ton of silk should not be more than the rate on a ton of coal, because the weight carried on the railway is the same.
Mountain Freight Scale

For instance, to put it, perhaps, not in such an extreme manner, there are certain grades of ore high priced, or, let us say, carrying values of gold or copper that call for a higher rate than a low grade type of ore, and the argument is advanced sometimes: Why should this more valuable product which weighs exactly the same as regards a ton weight, as the less valuable ore, carry a higher rate of f>
eight? But these differences in classification must occur if we are going to function as a country at all, and everybody knows that. I do not know how many classifications there are. When you separate them into their atoms, they run into thousands, so that it is an utter impossibility for 'this House to determine exactly what rate shall be charged here or there or upon this or that article.
It might be claimed by some that my argument is against the resolution. It is not against the resolution. I stand behind this idea, that when a given arbitrary rate known as the mountain scale is shown to be inequitable and unfair, it should be removed, just as I say, in regard to other sections of Canada where it can be shown that a rate is unfair, then that rate should not be sustained. But I do not think it is the part of parliament to decide what is fair or is not fair in the question of rates. I do not want to be too critical of the government. This is not a motion in regard to which we can assume, as we often do, the role of a harsh critic of the government. I do not say this unkindly, but I am a little disappointed that the minister has not given to the House a somewhat fuller and more complete idea of the mind of the government in regard to this and kindred subjects. We have a somewhat nebulous suggestion in the Speech from the Throne that if we are good boys, we may expect at some time during the session an utterance by the government. I do not know of any better time than on this resolution. We are intensely interested and worried in British Columbia over this problem. I could go in*o detailed figures, but I do not wish to do so. Suffice it to say this: let us take, for instance, the movement of grain; the export rate on grain from the prairies to the coast is about double the same rate eastward. I cannot, for the life of me, see the justification for that, and these are things that are alarming, disturbing the people, that are worrying the people in business who are seeking to take advantage of natural and geographical situations. I know that the officers of the two great systems of railways, the Canadian Pacific and the Cana-d:an National, are intensely concerned over

this whole question of railway freight rates. It is unwise that we should drift along much longer without coming to some definite conclusion.
Before I sit down, let me repeat very briefly what I said a year ago with regard to this question. This structure that we call the freight rates tariff is the growth of probably half a century going through various phases of development, but I have discovered, in my study of the problem, that it has largely been directed and influenced by a desire on the part of those who have fixed the rates, to develop Canada. What was a good thing for the development of Canada, say twenty-five years ago, when the prairies were sparsely settled might not be an equitable or fair or proper thing to-day. Another point is this, that when our present system of freight-rate making was not inaugurated, but like Topsy, just grew, there was a distribution from the east westward and no distribution from the west eastward. With the construction and completion of the Panama canal in 1915, there was thrust, shall I say, into the whole problem an entirely new factor, in fact, an element that completely changed the principle upon which freight rates should be fixed. What do we find now? We have now the opportunity of distributing freight from two seaboards inward. What I want to suggest to this House is this: Whether we undertake a very detailed consideration of the problem or not, I believe this principle must be adopted in Canada for the fixation of freight rates, and that is the distribution of freight from the two seaboards inward. That, I think, is a basic, underlying, fundamental principle. If it is, there is no doubt that there will be vast, radical and almost revolutionary changes in some of the rates that are charged. But while I give utterance to this principle in, perhaps, a very general manner, I also realize that when I say there must be a revolutionary change in our freight rates structure, I am touching a very delicate and complicated question. It is a question too delicate and complex for this parliament to deal with. I hope I have made my position clear. If this resolution comes to a vote, I certainly am in favour of it as it stands, but I agree in a large measure with the minister that this whole question must be considered. For instance, I am faced with this possibility -and I want my hon. friend who proposes the resolution to recognize it-if you bring about a lowering in given rates, for example in British Columbia, we are at present enjoying certain other rates that are very much below that horizontal line to which we would like to bring these higher rates and it is only reasonable to expect that others will want to

Mountain Freight Scale
bring those lower rates up. I am not unreasonable; I cannot expect, if we are going to lower certain rates, that we are going to retain at the same time the lower and advantageous rates that we have on other commodities. So, while I do support the resolution in lowering or removing the mountain scale, I would like to put the rider on it that in doing that, we are not going to raise the commodity rates, for instance, on fruit, lumber, fish and some other commodities upon which wie enjoy very favourable and advantageous rates. That again injects into the consideration of this problem its very complexity and difficulty. I rose simply to declare my general position in connection with the proposal before the House.


Mr. AIME DECHENE (Montmagny) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, we have been
listening, for the last few hours, to the views on freight rates expressed by our colleagues from the west. As it was so lucidly stated by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) there also exists a question of freight rates in the eastern provinces. Unfortunately, the members from the Maritime provinces are not here to-night, to air their grievances. However, the government is perfectly aware that the province of Quebec asks for a readjustment of freight rates. When the Prime Minister paid a visit to Quebec, about a month ago, at a banquet given in his honour, an hon. legislative councillor in proposing the health of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) reminded him that there existed in a number of districts in our province, discrepancies of freight rates absolutely unjustifiable which had to be done away with as soon as possible. For instance, there is on the south shore below the Quebec bridge, two railways almost parallel: the old Intercolonial line which extends from the Maritime provinces to Montreal, and, further inland, at a distance of fifteen to twenty miles, the Transcontinental railway. These two lines are under the management of the Canadian National Railways.
What do we find on the sections of these two lines between New Brunswick and the Quebec bridge? Two railways in two different valleys.
The old Intercolonical railway which extends along the river as far as the Quebec bridge, has in a number of localities quite steep grades to climb and especially between Levis station and the Quebec bridge. There also exists quite a perceptible grade from the town of Montmagny on, in the direction of St. Charles, in the county of Bellechasse. There are practically no grades on the Transcontinental. Nevertheless what do we find? That the rates are much higher than those of the Intercolonial, and this for the same distance. Therefore, a discrimination exists which is to the disadvantage of the parishes occupying the centre of the counties of Tem-iscouata, Kamouraska, L'Islet, Montmagny, Bellechasse, Dorchester and Levis. Why this difference? It is evidently based upon a decision-probably fair-of the railway commission. This difference, however, should disappear at the same time as the high freight rates of the mountainous regions of British Columbia and Alberta.
Our farmers and settlers north of Quebec, along the Transcontinental, who have established themselves near the railway passing through Cochrane and Amos 'and reaching the Quebec bridge, a line which requires little traction, have also to suffer from freight rates that are not proportional to those of the railways which inn close to the shores of the St. Lawrence. Therefore, a discrimination exists which paralyzes the development of the northern part of the province of Quebec.
If we now cross to the other side of the river, this discrimination against the Transcontinental, in the five or six counties surrounding Levis, also hinders the development of a number of thriving parishes. It is impossible to open up the centre of Mont-magny, Bellechasse and L'Islet, if the freight rates are not lowered to the level of those given to our competitors along the Intercolonial railway, where these two lines are hardly fifteen miles apart. Why?
Should the government come to the conclusion that there exists sufficient ground to readjust the freight rates for the west, we, from the province of Quebec, ask to be as fairly dealt with.
Why two different rates for the same distance, on two parallel lines in the same counties?
We have noticed that, within the last years, under the plea of economy, some passenger trains had been discontinued on the Canadian National railways running through the counties on the south shore. The present service is so defective, so far as passenger and baggage are concerned, that it is almost impossible to travel. This is what, for instance, business men do wrho have to reach the parishes in the centre of these counties: They travel by the old Intercolonial line and hire cabs to bring them to the various places at which the Transcontinental stops.
We requested better service from the management of the National Railways, but without success, we were told that we had to practise economy.
Mountain Freight Scale

On the other hand we notice, in certain neighbouring provinces, that the passenger service is better than in the province of Quebec. However, it is very costly. The relative number of passengers carried by these trains from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or from Ontario is less than that of the province of Quebec. There are, Sir, two provinces which by themselves alone supply the greatest part of the country's traffic: the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. They supply almost forty per cent of all railway traffic.
We, from the province of Quebec, living on the south shore, if we consider the traffic service of the old Intercolonial or lines making up the Canadian National railway system, find that this part of the system from St. Rosalie to Campbellton brings in millions of dollars in profits, while there is a deficit in the service between Campbellton and Halifax. Shall we allow the spending in other provinces which have a better service than ours, of the profits realized in our own province?
I say there is a flaw in the service, and when the time comes to fully consider this question, when the time comes to submit our claims to the government, I can assure you that we, belonging to Quebec, shall have our eyes open. If rights and privileges are claimed, we shall equally request what we shall call rights or rather what will be mentioned throughout the country as privileges; but we do not think that, so far as we are concerned, one can call this privilege, because we dig down into our pockets so to maintain our lines, and, if we supply the freight, the least that we can expect is that this money be spent at home.
Now Sir, the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) who has just preceded me in this debate has hinted at a state of things which we are too often apt to forget. These gentlemen from British Columbia are at a disadvantage-I quite believe it-in some localities, in certain trades, owing to the existing high freight rates; but they have not admitted as frankly as the hon. member has just done that they have freight rates on certain items which are much below those we pay in the east.
Since the question of better readjusting the railway freight rates will soon be taken up, we shall insist on having these rates put on the same basis as those we pay in the east. It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, to talk of lowering the freight rates, it is all very well to say: We shall urge on the goverment our just claims, we shall endeavour to unite, province by province, section by section, so

as to assert certain rights however, we must not forget one thing which to me seems the most important part of the question of railway freight rates: if we further lower our railway rates, what problem shall we have to face? We shall be deprived of a few million dollars owing to the rates which this present resolution before the House demands, another few million dollars owing to the readjustment of rates in the west, a few millions in the north of Ontario, a few millions in the north of Quebec, perhaps some millions in the Maritime provinces,, a total, Sir, that we shall have to add to the already enormous deficits of the country's railways. Where shall we raise the money to meet these deficits? Borrow? All very well. Pay the interest? Shall we always borrow to meet the interest, or shall we impose taxes to meet the payments? We shall have to choose between these two methods.
On the other hand, we are asked to lower the taxes; everybody clamors for it. It is impossible to lower the taxes and the railway rates at the same time. We must either pay one way or the other. Should we be forced to lower our rates, we shall, on the other hand, be obliged to levy taxes.
There is no escape; the burden of taxation falls upon the consumer who eventually finds himself in such, a plight that he cannot make any further purchases, the wheels of commerce stop, and we shun Scylla to fall into Charybdis.
I think that the suggestion made by the hon. Minister of Railways should be adopted by the House. The discussion brought out, until now, the grievances and rights of our fellow citizens of British Columbia, Alberta and other western provinces; at this late hour, I humbly put before the House some of the problems which Quebec has to deal with in regard to this railway question, and if the hour was not so late, we would certainly hear from our friends and fellow citizens from the Maritime provinces. Would it not be more expedient, in view of this situation, not to further press the point, but to thoroughly consider the question and allow the government to add, perhaps, to this resolution the other questions which it might wish, in this connection, to submit to the House and to leave this question, for the moment, in abeyance. I agree with pleasure to the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Railways, and I think that the whole House will share these views, in order to ensure to the country more equitable railway rates, fairer to the west, but also to the east.

Mountain Freight Scale
Hon. R. J. MAiNION (Fort William and Rainy River):	So far as I am concerned,
this question of freight rates is too complicated for me to vote on a resolution of this kind. This matter has been argued and reargued in this country from coast to coast for many years now and we have had legal experts such as Mr. McGeer and Mr. Symington as well as railway experts from the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern Railways, all of whom have taken different attitudes both before the press of the country and the Board of Railway Commissioners. I am sure, therefore, that no ordinary member of parliament, like myself, and certainly no ordinary reader, could come to a decision on the justice of a question of this magnitude. If the resolution had merely stated that an unfair discrimination should be eliminated I should unhesitatingly support it. But I must point out that those who have taken part have naturally spoken from a sectional point of view; I do not intend this in any critical sense whatever, because in the very nature of things this is bound to be the case; but the fact is that those who have contributed to the debate have spoken from the standpoint of their own sections. Now, if I spoke from the standpoint of my section I should probably oppose the resolution; and that I do not wish to do. If the-resolution were adopted and its principle put into effect it would probably injure the part of the country which I represent. I do not intend to explain that point because I am sure that it will be appreciated by those who understand the freight rate question as it affects the west. But what I say is true, nevertheless. I do not choose, however, to oppose the motion. Whatever I might do on any other question, I have no desire to take any stand in this matter which might be injurious to the rest of the country although helpful to my own district, and I flatter myself that my constituents are big enough to view a question like this from the point of view of the welfare of the whole country. At the same time I do not feel capable of deciding by my vote a matter that is so complicated. There is in this country a body which, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out, should be the proper judicial authority to settle any matter of this kind, and that is the Board of Railway Commissioners. And I agree with him that if that body has not the confidence of the Canadian people then we should certainly either endeavour to restore the public confidence in the board or get a board constituted in whom the people will trust. If there is anyone in this House who should know the question a
little better than anybody else, it would be a member of the government.


Arthur Meighen: Who ought to know.


Robert James Manion: Yes, who ought to know;
for the members of the government as a Privy Council have been listening to appeals and dealing with the question for at least a year or two, perhaps for three years. They have had all these questions submitted to them, and if there is to be a decision by the House, then at least we should hear from those who recently have had to deal with questions of this kind. I do not feel capable of voting on the question if it comes to a vote, so that as I could not vote intelligently I should refuse to vote at all. When I say that I cannot vote intelligently on the question I think I am speaking for a large proportion of the House. There may 'be some who have given a great deal of study to the question, but even they, I venture to suggest, have not sufficient knowledge to enable them with confidence to pass an absolute opinion on the resolution, which demands a reduction in mountain rates,-rates which both railways contend are fair. I do not say that they are fair; I do not take that view. But I do take the attitude that I do not know enough about the question to vote either pro or con, and so far as I am concerned; if it is pushed to a vote I shall be unable to see my way to vote either way.


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: The resolution introduced by my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) is a phase of probably one of the most intricate questions with which this parliament will have to deal this session. As a representative from the province of British Columbia, it is not necessary for me to state that I am thoroughly alive to and know something about the handicap under which that province has suffered during the past and at the present time. But knowing the condition as I do, and' knowing the efforts that have recently been made by the people of British Columbia through the government of that province, who have employed trained counsel and made an exhaustive study of the question, extending over a period of years, and who have appeared before the tribunal which was considered the proper authority in matters of this kind-and created by the Parliament of Canada-I would hesitate to-night in disposing of this matter summarily. In fact, I should be very much perturbed if that were done. I am absolutely satisfied of the sincerity of the hon. gentleman who has submitted the resolution. He fives on the border
Mountain Freight Scale

of British Columbia ana' this question affects the province of Alberta almost as greatly as it does my own province, and I believe entirely in the hon. gentleman's sincerity and in the genuineness of his motive in bringing forward the matter. But I would ask him whether he thinks it wise to allow the question to go to a vote on the evidence that has been submitted this evening or on such evidence as might be brought forward! tonight during this debate, even if it went into the hours of the morning. I do not believe we are qualified to dispose of the question on the evidence we have. As a matter of fact, from my own information on the subject, it seems to me that it is only by the most ^ complete and exhaustive study of the question that one .would be (capable of coming to a sound judgment on the question. After the appearance of counsel for British Columbia before the railway commission some two years ago, there was an appeal from the commission and this question was argued before the Privy Council, the argument extending over two or three days. I listened1 to it with the greatest interest and fully realized the intricacy and difficulty of the question. As I have said, the resolution of my hon. friend deals only (with one phase of a great problem which is to be dealt with by parliament; in other words, it is anticipating action which is foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne. Let me quote from that document.
It is the opinion of my advisers that the attention of parliament at the present session should be directed more particularly to the desirability of effecting freer movement of commodities through an equalization of railway freight rates as between provinces and localities and through a lowering of carrying charges upon shipments by water.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. minister tell us what the government intends that to mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I think we will have to "wait and see", as we say nowadays. That is what I am trying to advise my hon. friend from West Edmonton. Rather than jeopardize a good case, which I believe will appeal to the members of this House and to the people of the Dominion, I think it would be wise to allow it to stand until the whole question of freight rates can be brought before parliament. Then in the course of debate the case can be again brought forward to see if the government cannot suggest ways and1 means whereby it may be properly dealt with at this session. There can be no question of my entire confidence in the case that the province of British Columbia has made, but as a member from that province who has followed the question with great 
interest, I think it would be inadvisable for parliament to take action this evening, and in view of my remarks, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Arthur Meighen: I have no right to speak on the motion, but I had intended to express my views before the minister moved the adjournment of the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the permission of the House, Sir, I beg to withdraw my motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw 'his motion?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say in the way. of a general enunciation of views on this subject I have already stated m this House on more than one occasion. It is this, that following the erection of the railway commission and the delegation to it of defined powers, the function of parliament is only to declare the principles upon which that commission shall act and which it shall apply to all the varied schedules of railway rates and all the varied phases of that complex question. The Railway Act now embodies the principles which parliament in its wisdom up to the present time has thought fit to pass to the commission and to declare its faith in. The government appears to be of the view that some new principles must be enunciated. What they are it does not for the life of it 'know. Consequently it resorts in the Speech from the Throne to language which means nothing whatever. For the first two sessions the Speech from the Throne rang the changes on co-ordination and co-operation. Those vanished into thin air; they became so grating to the ear that last session was substituted the word "equalization." It was applied in two or three ways in the Speech from the Throne a year ago, notably to flour; there was to be equalization of the rates on flour. What that meant no one in the House was advised, and finally by effluxion of time we learned that it meant nothing whatever. We are now told that there is to be equalization of freight rates as between provinces and localities. I .asked the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) what the government had in mind in that sentence. He declines to tell us. I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King)-he who asserts that he is thoroughly convinced of the merits of the case of British Columbia, but who does not like to declare he is convinced in this resolution-I asked him what was in the mind of

Mountain Freight Scale
the government in that phrase, and from the question be backs gallantly away. The only conclusion is that the government had nothing in mind at all. Their object in putting the phrase in the Speech from the Throne was to convince hon. gentlemen who were deeply interested that the government had the subject under attention and hoped some time to declare something specifically to this House.
Now, if it is a fact that our duty is to impress into legislation the principles upon which the rate structure itself must be framed by the railway commission, then such a resolution as this has no place here at all. This is a matter of the application of a principle. Undoubtedly no one desires British Columbia to suffer under any unjust disability, under any discrimination taken in the whole; but it is a question whether or not you can remove a certain mountain scale of rates and at the same time leave all the rest of the rates and not discriminate in favour of the province. Consequently it is for the railway commission-a body of experts-to find whether or not there can be fairness, equality, to all the provinces, and this resolution put into effect. For that reason I am in favour of the adjournment of the debate, I am in favour of this matter going to the railway commission. If the government wants to declare some new principles, let it come down with its policy and we will act upon that policy; but my own opinion is this,-and while it is pretty close to the event one should not perhaps venture a prophecy-I venture to think that after we get this new declaration of principles we will find it is just a prolonged circumlocution, a mass of verbiage, resulting in a merely circuitous repetition of the principles that are in the Railway Act to-day. I fancy that after the whole thing is down we will find it is just a restatement in language akin to that so often employed in recent Speeches from the Throne-a restatement of the law as it is now.
Why is it, though, that we have these resolutions? Is it not just because this government has invited them by its own course?


George Perry Graham: Are they new to this government?


Arthur Meighen: Pretty new. I have never followed any of them, in power or in opposition. I do not recall being bothered with them before. This government, by attacks on the railway commission in opposition, has undermined confidence in it, and none is more guilty than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who sits now with his head
down and does not like this discussion; none is more guilty than he. They have undermined confidence in the commission; they have encouraged agitation against it; they have encouraged an agitation to throw into the maelstrom of parliament a task parliament is unfit to perform. Two sessions ago, in order to gain the favour of hon. gentlemen to my left, they took a course they knew was based on no sound principle at all. They undertook to declare for a policy of restoration of a certain definite scale of rates which has landed this country in chaos, which to-day has us in a position from which we can scarcely escape. All this they did in order simply to maintain a majority in parliament and themselves in the sweets of power. From this they must escape. When they took this course I told them these things would come upon them, that if they answered to the demand of the prairies for a certain definite scale they would have to answer the demand of the Maritime provinces, and has not that demand arisen? Is it not ringing through the Maritime provinces now? Has it not been ringing in the ears of the government every month since? And they cannot answer it. Now they are called on by British Columbia to step in and do the work the railway commission should have done, and should have done with the confidence of the Canadian people. They could expect nothing else. All last summer the Prime Minister of Canada went on the stump throughout the west and declared the policy of his government was to restore the Crowsnest pass rates, and behold! he says, we have done it.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Arthur Meighen: If that is the policy of
the government, it is the policy of the government to answer this resolution now, and to say yes or no. If it is the duty of the government to restore specific rates to one part of the country, it is its duty to say yes or no to this resolution, and not to hide behind the commission. The fact of the matter is the government took the course dictated by political expediency for the moment, and to-night it is paying the penalty. A government cannot stand to that course. It 'has to reverse itself. Whatever the humiliation may be, whatever the contortions may be, that reversion is going to take place this session.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: I
wish to say a word or two before this resolution is finally dealt with. I am heartily in favour of the principle of the resolution.
Mountain Freight Scale

The people of British Columbia have been suffering for many years, and are suffering yet, from the mountain scale, which we feel is an injustice to-day west of the mountains. At the time of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, owing to the extra cost of construction through the Rocky and Selkirk mountains, large subsidies were granted to the company to offset the extra cost; and when they began to operate their lines, to offset the extra cost of transportation between the prairie and the coast, this mountain scale was allowed. At that time the volume of freight and passenger traffic was very small, but since then it has increased very materially. Since that time, too, something more important has happened; that is, we have had a railway constructed through the Yellow-head pass, where the grade is very much better than it is on the Canadian Pacific. I 'have been informed by engineers that we have a better grade from Edmonton to Vancouver than is to be found from Edmonton all the way to Fort William; that is, the grade through the Yellowhead pass at the highest point between Vancouver and Edmonton is lower than the grade from Edmonton to Fort William at its highest point, indicating that they can handle their trains through the Yellowhead pass a.t a very reasonable cost indeed. But has it had any effect? No. The mountain rate still prevails, based on the cost of operating over the Canadian Pacific railway, .and that is why British Columbians feel to-day that an injustice is being done to them.
There is one other point I feel is more important than this mere matter of trade in British Columbia, and that is that we have, lying west of the Great Lakes, one of the largest areas of agricultural land in the whole of Canada. Much of that territory can ship with a profit by way of Vancouver. I think we can all agree on this principle: that if we are going to be able to compete in the markets of the world with our agricultural and other products, we must have as easy access as possible to tidewater, and we must be able to ship these products at the very lowest possible rate. I do not propose to take up any more time except to say that I endorse the principle of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy).


Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make my position clear in regard to this resolution, as it involves a very important question for British Columbia.
I do not wish to be accused of giving silent

assent in any way to the position taken by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) on this resolution. This question of the elimination of the mountain rate is a very important one for British Columbia, (but I would like to point out to the House that it is not the whole question as it affects freight rates for British Columbia. I have the honour to represent the southeastern district of the province of British Columbia. We are agreed upon the principle of the elimination, to some extent, of the mountain freight rate scale where there is discrimination, but the people of the West Kootenay district are also interested in another freight rate problem. They have their own local problems, and if this resolution came to a vote I would be compelled, under the circumstances, to vote against it. I have always believed that it is impossible for parliament either to tear down or build up a freight rate structure. In my opinion this is a question to be referred to some tribunal which is in a positron either to eliminate or build up a freght rate structure. I cannot vote for this resolution because I do not know what the consequences would be so far as the southeastern pan of British Columbia is concerned; I do not know what the effects would be regarding ether parts of British Columbia. I want to dc what is fair and right by my province, and I must also keep in mind particularly the views of my own district. I feel that by voting for this resolution I should be giving practically a blanket vote for the elimination of the mountain freight rates without knowing what the consequences would be to my own district and to other parts of the Dominion. Therefore I cannot support the resolution as it stands.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for
the question?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: I think the House will
agree, in view of the importance of the issues involved in the resolution moved by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) that further consideration of those issues should be had. The House is asked to express an opinion that the scale of freight rates in force in the mountain section of British Columbia should be abolished. Hon. gentlemen from every other part of the country, who are interested in the question of a proper adjustment of freight rates, must realize that this matter cannot be dealt with piecemeal- that it would be very imprudent for this House to express an opinion as to what should be the freight rates in one particular part of the country without taking into considers-

Miners and Steel Workers
tion the whole problem of the earnings of the railways. This is the greatest problem which confronts this House and it has been, I do not hesitate to say from my long parliamentary experience, the greatest problem that has confronted the Canadian people in the last quarter of a century. Now it is very well understood there is before the Supreme Court of Canada, and no doubt a decision will be rendered in a very short time, the question as to whether or not what is known as the Crowsnest pass rates are in force to-day. Upon the effect of that decision will depend very largely the conclusion to which this House or the railway commission may come as to what ought to be the rates in any part of Canada, and I think the House will agree with me that it is the part of wisdom for us to await that decision before we attempt, so far as the House is concerned, to express any opinion as to how this question should be dealt with. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, beg to move the adjournment of the debate, so that before the matter comes up again, or before the government deals with the question in a general way, we may have the advantage of further information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 10.25 pjm.
Tuesday, February 24, 1925.