1925-03-12

CANADA-UNITED STATES SMUGGLING TREATY

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this House that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons, in the approval of the treaty for the suppression of smuggling operations along the international boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States, and assisting in the arrest and prosecution of persons violating the narcotic laws of either government and for kindred purposes, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, by filling in the blank space therein with the words "Senate and".

Annual Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the year ending December 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.



CORRESPONDENCE ON OCEAN SHIPPING RATES

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the table
such correspondence as has come to my office relating to representations on ocean rates requested by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I might say that there is a great deal of correspondence, I find, in the different departments, and it will take some days to get a copy of all the correspondence from the Department of Trade and Commerce. Some of the other departments have correspondence relating to this subject ready 68
to table to-day. When the right hon. gentleman made his request I immediately asked each department to expedite the return.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I beg to lay on the table correspondence of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in regard to ocean freight rates.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I wish to lay on the table of the House, following the suggestion to the right hon. leader of the opposition, certain correspondence received by the Department of Railways concerning ocean rates. Considerable of this is inter-departmental correspondence, and I suppose some of these letters and memoranda will probably appear in the returns brought down from other departments. However, there may be some things here that are not included1 in the others.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader
of the Opposition):	I did not quite catch
what that was.


Mr. GRAHAM:: This is following along the line of tabling all the correspondence in reference to ocean rates. These are letters received complaining of ocean rates, and a good many of them, I think, complaining of the rates on the merchant marine; that is the way they got to the Railway department. The unimportant part of the file is merely interdepartmental correspondence transferring correspondence from other departments to the Railway department.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: In this relation the government must be under a misapprehension as to what I asked for. I am sure Hansard will confirm what I say, when I give this confirmation of my request. What I asked was not the correspondence of individuals with the department, nor of companies nor anything else, nor with any department. I asked only for correspondence of the government, first of all between the previous government in 1920 and 1921 with the British government, or with the Imperial Shipping committee, in relation to ocean rates. Then yesterday I asked for similar correspondence between this government and the British government, or the Imperial Shipping committee, in relation to ocean rates. The return filed yesterday, or the day before, of a lot of correspondence with the Trade and Commerce department on the subject from individuals in Canada, as far as I could see, was in no way a compliance with my request. Similarly this that is filed to-day has nothing to do with my request. I have no objection to it being filed; it may be

104S
Copyright Act

necessary; but it has nothing to do with the correspondence I asked for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must confess I thought that my right hon. friend wanted all the correspondence that dealt with the subject of ocean rates, and I have been trying to get all the correspondence together.


Arthur Meighen: I made myself clear again the day before yesterday. From the first that is all I have asked for.



COPYRIGHT ACT, 1921, AMENDMENTS

Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford) moved:: That the report of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon Bill No. 2, an act to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1921, presented this day, be concurred in.


Arthur Meighen: I was not quite certain, Mr. Speaker, whether you said the report was presented this day or not.


Hewitt Bostock: It was presented to the House two days ago. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Raymond) moved concurrence in the report on that occasion, but objection was taken, and notice was given.


Arthur Meighen: I do not rise to debate the merits of the report, because I want to frankly say I do not know what the report is; but I rise to take the same exception which I took last session to policies being adopted on motions, even after one day's notice, to concur in reports of committees. The committee's report should be used as a basis on which legislation may or may not be proposed, according as the government see fit. I do not think any one is prepared to debate the merits of copyright amendments now; the subject is very complicated. It is a subject which should be. introduced and placed before this House in the form of a measure, thereby giving the House all the opportunities for criticism and for review of its decision that a bill presents. If we now deal with the subject and the matter is closed just after one debate, we abandon all those safeguards which I think the House is entitled to.


William Gawtress Raymond: I beg to say that the
report, which was read some two days ago when notice of this motion was given, was simply to the effect that the committee might have the authority of the House for the printing of the evidence before it and of its proceedings. That is all that is involved

in the report. I agree with the right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) that it is necessary that important matters should receive the consideration of the House, but if he had noticed the report of the committee at the time it was presented he would have seen that what I have explained is all that is involved in it.


Mr. IRVINE:: At this end of the chamber we cannot hear what the report is about. As I am very much interested in the copyright question I should like to know what the report is that is being adopted.


William Gawtress Raymond: The report was read,
as I stated, some two days ago, and it simply asked the permission and authority of the House to have its proceedings and evidence printed for the benefit of the members of the House and for the benefit of the members of the committee.


Hewitt Bostock: As a safeguard may I be
allowed to read the report itself which is very brief. It reads as follows:
Your committee, in accordance with the resolution which it has adopted, recommends that it be granted leave to print its proceedings and evidence, when deemed advisable, for the use of the committee and for the use of the members of this House; and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	I beg leave to lay on the
table a copy of the protocol for the pacific settlement of international disputes drawn up in Geneva during the fifth assembly of the League of Nations, 1924, of the report to the League of the committees which dealt with this matter and the covenant of the League as amended. I may say that the government received an intimation this morning that the right hon. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain made a statement to-day to the League of Nations Council with respect to the position taken by the British government, and I understand also the position taken by the governments of the self-governing dominions with respect to *the protocol. My reason for laying these documents on the table is that I intend to move that copies be printed so that they will be available for members of the House when the discussion comes up on this matter.

League oj Nations
It would be, I think, of interest to hon. members of the House to have a statement made at once by the government as to Canada's position as communicated to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, and also to the British government, some days ago. These communications have I believe been made public in Geneva to-day in accordance with our understanding with the British government. It was agreed that communications were not to be made public until after the Hon. Mr. Chamberlain the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made his statement to the council. The statement is as follows:
Ottawa, March 9, 1925.
Sir Eric Drummond,
Secretary' - General,
League of Nations,
Geneva.
In response to your communication of October twenty-seventh, nineteen twenty-four enclosing certified true copy of protocol for the pacific settlement of international disputes, and noting that it is open for signature by representatives of all members of the league, the government of Canada desires to state that after careful examination of the subject it has come to conclusions which may be summarized as follows:
First-that Canada should continue to give wholehearted support to the League of Nations, and particularly to its work of conciliation, co-operation and publicity.
Second-that we do not consider it in the interests of Canada, of the British Empire or of the league itself to recommend to parliament adherence to the protocol and particularly to its rigid provisions for application of economic and military sanctions in practically every future war. Among the grounds for this conclusion is the consideration of the effect of the non-participation of the United States Upon attempts to enforce the sanctions and particularly so in the case of a contiguous country like Canada.
Third-that as Canada believes firmly in the submission of international disputes to joint inquiry or arbitration, and has shared in certain notable undertakings in this field, we would be prepared to consider acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the permanent court in justiciable disputes with certain reservations, and to consider methods of supplementing the provisions of the covenant for settlement of nonjusticiable issues, including method of joint investigation. reserving ultimate decision in domestic issues and without undertaking further obligations to enforce decisions in case of other states.
Fourth-that Canada would be prepared to take part in any general conference on reduction of armaments which did not involve prior acceptance of protocol.
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I beg to move:
That six hundred copies in the English language, and three hundred copies in the French language, of the protocol for the pacific settlement of International disputes drawn up in Geneva during the fifth assembly of the League of Nations, 1924, with report of committees, and the covenant of the League of Nations as amended be printed forthwith and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.
6S£
Arthur Meighen: Would the Prime Minister say whether the documents embodying the protocol laid on the table comprise any account of the position taken by Canada's representative in relation to the production of the protocol and concurrence therein at the Geneva Conference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The documents are the official documents that were before the league in the form in which they have been sent to us from the league. They do not contain the information concerning which my right hon. friend has just inquired.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to ask that a report be given of the proceedings so that the House will be informed of the position Canada's representative took from the beginning.


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


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker. I notice that I have not included in the motion the letter from the Secretary-General communicating the protocol and of the reply of Canada to the Secretary-General tabled to-day. That should, I think, be inserted in the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that the information I have asked for might well be provided and printed with the other documents rather than that there should be two sets of documents.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The representatives of Canada, as well as the representatives of the other countries, merely adopted a resolution agreeing to the submission of the protocol to the various governments. They did not accept the protocol for Canada, they were not authorized to do it, nor did any other country approve of the protocol. They merely approved of its submission for the consideration of the various members of the League of Nations.


Arthur Meighen: What I am asking is that the record of the conduct be submitted to parliament. This country had a representative at Geneva. There certainly is, or should be, a document that embodies the record leading up to the evolution of the protocol. It is the production of that document which I should like.
League oj Nations


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There were two representatives of Canada, one an hon. member of this House and the other an hon. member of the Senate. I presume that the proceedings of the assembly have been printed in a form that will be available, but the government has no separate report of its own representatives other than what is contained in the proceedings.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: May I say that I hardly apprehend what my right hon. friend desires to have furnished to the House. The protocol in this particular sitting of the league was drafted in committee, and so far as the league itself is concerned was simply dealt with in a general way like the report of any other committee to any other body. My colleague, Hon. Senator Dandurand, speaking on behalf of Canadian delegates made certain remarks which were included in the report of certain proceedings. The position we took representing Canada was not that we assented to the protocol in any way but merely assented to the proposition that it should be submitted to the different countries for their approval after consideration.


Arthur Meighen: The minister referred to a general report of the proceedings. It is that report I would like to have laid upon the table.


Mr MACDONALD (Pictou):: I am afraid it would be a very voluminous document, if it had to be printed. It would hardly interest the House in detail. It would contain a full report of the proceedings, but I have no doubt that the final day's proceedings which contain all the meat of the matter might be < btained in committee.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any printed re-poit of the proceedings?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon friend will find those reports in the Library of Parliament.
Mr. WOODSWORTH; Can the minister reii me when the House will be afforded an opportunity to discuss the action of the government in regard to the protocol?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope at an
early date; I cannot give my hon. friend the exact time at the moment.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent the motion is agreed to.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT, 1907-AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25 to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MURDOCK:: The purpose of this
amendment is to limit the application of the act in terms to matters not within the legislative jurisdiction of any province. It is recognized, of course, that the enumerative provisions of the amendment are not technically necessary for this purpose, but it is thought advisable, nevertheless, to insert them for purposes of convenience and to make the act more intelligible to the body of employees and employers whose interests the legisilation is designed to serve. These remarks apply as well to any overlapping which may be found to exist in the amendment as drawn. It is hoped the enactment of the section in this form will tend to prevent misunderstandings and differences regarding the application of the act to particular disputes and create greater certainty in the administration of the act than would be possible if the provisions were couched in more general terms. The purpose of the proposed paragraph IV is to enable any province to take advantage of the Dominion act should it so desire.
Within the next day or two I shall lay on the table of the House a copy of the decisions that have been recently rendered on the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, including the decision of the Privy council in England, and the argument that was presented before that body.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What amount has been received from the sale of the wainscotting, doors, floors, fixtures and other material of the Scribe hotel property, Paris?
2.	What was the cost of the work of salvage?
3. What amounts were received in rents for the portion of the building still under lease for the past year?
4.	What were the total carrying charges for the past year, including interest on the total cost, as given by the railway management-taxes and insurance, if any?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The Canadian National management state that the only wainscotting removed consisted of some mahogany from former Jockey Club premises, which is being held for the Canadian National offices. All bath, lavatory, lighting and other fixtures were removed by the original proprietors. Canadian National Railways have sold some old radiation pipes, flooring and boards, for which 32,500 francs were received. All other salvage materia! was turned over to Ruhl Company people under their lease.
2.	There were no salvaging expenses. The work was done by purchaser and 32,500 francs was net to Canadian National Railways.
3.	Rent earned last year, 228,000 francs.
4-	francs
Property taxes	 200,000
Insurance	 5,600
Operating expenses disbursed through Messrs. Viard & Dastugue, architects	 265,000
Paid Dion Bouton for cancellation
of lease	 175,000
Watchman, electricity, water, gas
and miscellaneous expense	 6,200
Interest at 5 per cent on capital
investment of 40,767,676 francs. 2,038,383
2,690,183
= at exchange rate of 5.20.. . .$139,889 51
Note by management:-Excluding 180,000 francs for taxes -which is mostly recoverable on account of building being largely unoccupied. The annual rent under the lease to the Ruhl Company will be 2,400,000 francs. As normal carrying charges will consist only of interest on investment, or 2,038,383 francs per annum, the annual rent income will leave a substantial surplus, and in addition, the Railway is to receive free rental of office space which has an estimated rental value of $15,000 per annum.


No. 1 ELEVATOR VANCOUVER
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Who prepared plans for the extension to No. 1 Elevator, Vancouver, and what was the engineer's estimate of cost?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of said extension, and if so, in what manner?
3.	How many firms tendered, and what are the nameg of such firms or individuals?
4.	What was the amount of the lowest tender?
5.	At what figure was the contract awarded, and to whom?
6.	What is the total cost to date, based on engineer's approved certificates?
7.	How much has actually been paid to said contractor ?
8.	Has contract been completed? If not, what still remains unfinished ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a) John S. Metcalf & Co. Ltd. (b) Foundations $55,000, including engineering fees;
superstructure, $359,000, not including engineering fees; electrical substation, $55,020, including engineering fees.
2.	Tenders were called for the foundations by advertisements in the daily papers of Vancouver inserted as follows: Vancouver Sun Vancouver World, Vancouver Province, 3 days each. No tenders called for superstructure.
3.	Five firms tendered on the foundations as follows: Cotton Company, Limited; Pacific Construction Co. Ltd.; McQueen Construction Co. Ltd.; Paulsen Company; NicksoD Construction Co. No tenders called on superstructure.
4.	Cotton Company at $36,715, low tender
on foundations.	[DOT]
5.	$42,807 on foundations to the Pacific Construction Co. Ltd.; superstructure awarded to Pacific Construction Co. Ltd. on a basis of 10 per cent on cost, fee not to exceed $35,000. Fee was based on estimate cost of $359,000. If cost was less than $359,000, contractors were to receive 5 per cent of difference between cost and $359,000. Contractor's equipment was on the ground for the foundations, and inasmuch as speed was essential award was made accordingly.
6.	699.238.26.
7.	$583,258.52.
8.	Yes.


MR. COLIN McKENZIE
[Stage Direction]
Mr, DOUCET:
1.	Was Mr. Colin McKenzie, barrister of Sydney, Nova Scotia, a representative of the Dominion, in England, during 1924?
2.	If so, what department was he representing and on what mission ?
3.	How long was he so employed and at what salary?
4.	What was the total cost of disbursements (a) salary, and (b) expenses?
Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


SECRETARY OF TREASURY BOARD
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Is the Deputy Minister of Finanoe also Secretary of the Treasury board?
2.	If so, does the item of $5,000 in the main estimates for the Secretary of the Treasury board mean that the salary of the Deputy Minister of Finance is to be $15,000 for the next fiscal year?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: The answer to the first question is, Yes; and the answer to the second question is, Not necessarily so.


DAIRY CONFERENCE, 1923
Mr. CARROLL:: What are the names of the delegates from the Maritime provinces who attended the Dairy conference held in Ottawa by the Department of Agriculture during November, 1923, and what amount was paid to each by the department, as expenses?
Questions


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Hon. John H. Myers, Minister of Agriculture, Prince Edward Island, $96.05.
Harvey Mitchell, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Fredericton, NB.
W. J. Reid, Director of Agricultural Instruction, Charlottetown, P.E.I., $92.70.
W. A. MacKay, Dairy Superintendent, Truro, N.S., $87.95.
J.	R. Sutherland, Dairy Superintendent, Sussex, N.B., $75.30.
J. H. Simpson, Dairymen's Association, Bay View, P.E.I., $81.45.
J. S. Cousins, Dairymen's Association, Park Corner, P.E.I., $83.
W. J. Bird, Dairymen's Association, Truro, N.S., $84.70.
C. R. DeLong, Dairymen's Association, Barss' Comers, $99.05.
A. J. Gaudet, Dairymen's Association, St. Joseph, NR., $92.60.
Heber Huggard, Dairymen's Association, Norton, N.B., $68.45.
The above delegates were chosen by the various departments or organizations which they represented. There were others appointed who did not attend. The Dominion Dairy Conference was held in Ottawa, November 29 and 30, and December 1, 1923.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce
this session, any legislation to amend or consolidate the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act? If so, when?	[DOT]
2.	What sums were paid during 1924 and 1925 for litigation and to whom, regarding this act?
3.	What was the total cost of this litigation, and what accounts are outstanding?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes, see order paper of March 12, under head of "Introduction of Bills".
2.	Paid during 1924: H. H. Dewart, counsel, $752.40; Lewis Duncan, counsel, $9,825.84; Bernard Rose, witness, $220.00; Jas. T. Gunn, witness, $30.00, total, $10,828.24. Paid during 1925: Lewis Duncan, counsel, $2,368.50; C. C. Robinson, counsel, $952.08; total, $3,320.58.
3.	(a)	$16,624.82.	(b) Possibly some
accounts from counsel in England.



INSTITUTE COMMISSIONER-DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. SPENCER:: 1. Is it a fact, that the Minister of Agriculture intends to absorb into the department's administrative offices the function and staff of the Institute Commissioner, dispensing with the latter's services and, on the other hand appointing a new assistant deputy

minister who, in addition to his regular duties of office, would undertake to perform the Institute Commissioner's present work?
2.*What would be the money lost to the government in pursuing this policy in comparison with promoting the present Chief of the Institute Branch, in accordance with the merit system which the government so piously advocates ?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	None, but to the contrary, some saving will be effected.



IMPORTS OF GLASS PRODUCTS

Hon. Mr. MANION:: What was the total value of glass products imported into Canada during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1923, and March 31, 1922, with countries whence received ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: Imports of glass and glass products into Canada during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1922 and 1923.
Countries whence received 1922		1923
United Kingdom	$ 685,806	$1,310,929British India	5	-British West Indies-	Jamaica	34	-Trinidad and Tobago..	5	-Other British West	Indies	9	-Hong Kong	1,051	998Austria	1,305	2,583Belgium	1,326,242	2,135,670China	753	136Czecho-Slovakia	65,960	131,002Denmark	163	-France	74,440	65,148St. Pierre and Miquelon	35	-Germany	19,270	87,449Italy	20,674	4,605Japan	52,268	46,229Netherlands	174,873	148,977Norway	7	-Poland and Danzig.. ..	10	-Sweden	-	891Switzerland	5,221	3,614Syria	66	-Turkey	1	-United States	2,964,336	3,133,528Total	$5,392,534 $7,071,759



PUBLIC DEBT OF CANADA, 1923

Robert James Manion: What was the amount of the public debt of Canada on March 31, 1923?


James Alexander Robb: The amount was $2,453,776,868.74.

Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on Wednesday, the 18th of March, instant, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence. over ail business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: I do not know what procedure I should follow in regard to this matter but I feel certain that a great number of the members object to having private members' day cut off so early in the session. We use up these private members' days for the purpose of bringing before the House items of importance in many cases, and we have a long list of motions on the order paper which will not be reached this session if the private members' days are cut off. I had a resolution on the order paper last year, which, for the reason that private members' days were cut off, I was unable to present to the House, and we finally had to bring it to the attention of the House in another way, a way that was forced upon us at that time. I sent in the same resolution this year in what I considered to be ample time, namely the end of October last. I found at that time that I was twenty-fifth on the list. It looks as if I might not be able to reach the resolution for some time, and I would certainly ask that Wednesday be left as private members' day for some time to come.


Mr. GOOD:: Before allowing this motion to pass, I should like to ask the government its intention with respect to Mondays.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will observe that no notice has been given, so far, with respect to Mondays. It remains private members' day for the present.


William Charles Good: Will the government give the House any assurance that if this motion is allowed to pass, Mondays will be left for a very considerable time yet?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mondays will not be taken without due notice in advance.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I would urge that in some way we should be assured, either at this time or later, that private members will have an opportunity of bringing forward these resolutions. A good many of us come from constituencies where, perhaps, questions coming ml ore the House and naturally brought forward by the government, do not fully meet
the needs of our electors. Some of us come here representing groups that have hitherto not been very largely represented in this House. Some opportunity ought to be afforded for introducing resolutions that have not so far had a place on the agenda of the government business, and I trust that in some way the government will see that that opportunity is given.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, a brief
glance at the order paper will make clear that the House should not consent to this motion passing unless we are given a very definite assurance at least as to Mondays. We have had no shadow of assurance from the Prime Minister in that regard; so far as assurance goes, he might as well not have spoken. The order paper still has ten pages of private members' motions. I do not suggest, because I know if I were in the government myself I could not suggest, that there would be time for the discussion of all of those motions in the one session, and I do not think it would be reasonable to expect it. But there are many important resolutions on the order paper, very few from members of the opposition, but many from other members, especially from hon. members to my left. Under conditions that everyone admits obtain during this session, during all the sessions of this parliament, where reasonable expedition is accorded all government measures, where there has been no show of obstruction, it should not be necessary to curtail Wednesdays at the present time with not the slightest assurance as to Mondays not being curtailed next week or the week following, and no time at all given to the discussion of these questions.
I take this occasion to refer for a moment to a resolution which stands in my name, resolution No. 29, relating to an immediate revision of the tariff. I do not assume any air of importance beyond the ordinary member when I say that no one would suggest that an opportunity should not be given, should not be assured, for the discussion of this resolution. As yet it has been called, I think, twice, certainly not more than three times,

twice, or once, about eleven o'clock at night and the other time a few minutes before six o'clock on a Wednesday. Nobody would suggest that it could have been gone on with at that time. If the House is to discuss this question, that discussion should certainly be in advance of the budget if there is any hope of substantial results. I do not suppose that the budget will be delivered until the fiscal year is over, but in any event, this resolution should be reached in advance of the
Business of the Hcnise

budget. I intended to ask for a special day for it, but I am not going to do so if hon. members feel that that is asking a favour which should not be given to any hon. member. But I do want to insist that it be reached in advance of the budget, and that other resolutions of corresponding importance be given an opportunity for discussion during this session. I do not know what the need for shutting off private members' day so soon is, and I do not think we shall get on very much faster by doing so. Yesterday we covered several resolutions in a short session of three hours. It seems to me that it would meet the wishes of everybody better to leave Mondays and Wednesdays for some time yet. Wednesdays can be used very conveniently for private members' days, and I fancy that the government will need all the time at its disposal to prepare its programme and that the session will be expedited rather than otherwise by giving them a little leisure on Wednesdays. I know some of us wish, and I know the government wish that, before putting some measures before the House, there had been mere leisure for meditation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I think my right hon. friend is the last person who ought to complain that a longer time has not been given for discussion of these motions on Wednesdays. I have in my hand a statement of the dates at which Wednesdays were taken under his administration. I find that in 1920, twenty-three days were allowed to elapse from the opening of parliament before Wednesdays were taken, and in 1921, nineteen days were allowed to elapse before Wednesdays were taken.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Is this not a different
administration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Fortunately,
yes. This administration has already allowed thirty-four days. I might also point out that, in the session of 1917, nineteen days were allowed to elapse and, in the session of 1918, twenty-two days were allowed to elapse before Wednesdays were taken.


Mr. JACOBS:: We did not have Progressive members in the House at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the government of the day proceeded on the assumption that it was part of the government's duty to see that government business was expedited and that parliament was not kept unduly long in session. With respect to the opportunities that hon. members have had, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has just said, he, as well as others, have had 
at least two or three opportunities to speak. If they did not take advantage of the opportunity presented on the order paper, that was no fault of the government, it was entirely their own fault. A member can begin discussing a resolution and adjourn it. If they have not gone on, it is because they did not wish to go on with their resolutions. The right hon. gentleman says that he hopes the government will expedite its programme. Every hon. member and, I believe, the country generally realize that the government has expedited its programme and has been in readiness.
As regards the budget, the government would have brought down the budget this afternoon, but for the debate that has been going on with respect to ocean rates. If that debate is concluded to-day, the budget will be brought down on Tuesday; if the debate is not concluded to-day and is concluded on Tuesday, the budget will be brought down on Thursday. But we are certainly not going to hold over the budget to suit the convenience of my right hon. friend or any other hon. member with respect to any motion he may have on the order paper. I think the country looks to have the business of the country conducted as expeditiously and efficiently as possible, and it is part of the government's programme to see to it that measures are brought down in an orderly and speedy way. We hope that in bringing the budget down at an early date, we shall greatly expedite the work of this session of parliament. There is no reason why, if the debate on the budget begins on Tuesday or Thursday, it should not be concluded before the Easter recess. Hon. members have been asking the government at different times to open the session earlier so that they might get back to their homes before the summer comes on. Hon. members of both groups have made that representation. I might draw the attention of the House to this circumstance;-this year the debate on the Address was much shorter than in any other session we have had of this parliament, and that has afforded a longer time for private members' motions than was afforded on previous occasions. I think, under those circumstances, the motion should be carried.
With respect to Mondays, as I have already said, the government does not propose to take Mondays at the present time, and it will give due notice before attempting to do so. The question of taking Mondays can be discussed at that time.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister, unintentionally or otherwise, has misapprehended what I stated. But first let me compare the

Business oj the House
present situation to that of previous sessions.
I have not looked up the dates and therefore do not dispute the correctness of the figures given. The point I make however, is that this session the legitimate business of private members, comprising motions of the greatest consequence, has not been reached. There has been no opportunity for discussion, for there are pages and pages of such motions, some of them of considerable importance, still on the order paper. It is the condition of the order paper which I plead as a reason for not hastening the taking of Wednesday for government- business. This was not the case- certainly it was not so to the same extent or anything like it-in previous years; and I do not think that in any of those years the government forced the abolition of Wednesday as private members' day against the wishes of the House or of any substantial proportion of it. The Prime Minister says that I have been urging expedition, and I think he said, the expedition of the budget. I said nothing about expedition at all, but I did think that the government would have opportunity enough for expediting its business without reserving to itself so soon a day which should be devoted to the discussion of private motions. What I urged was not the hasty bringing in of legislation but the maturity of it before it is brought in. I object, and object most strenuously, to the Prime Minister's intimating to this House that I have missed opportunities of going on with this resolution. Imagine the Prime Minister suggesting that I should have responded to the call of Mr. Speaker at eleven o'clock or so at night, to move resolution No. 29 standing in my name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend could have gone on and asked for an adjournment of the debate.


Arthur Meighen: Yes; and the Prime Minister knows that an adjournment buries the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the right
hon. gentleman will look up the record he will find that there have been adjournments of debates which have been continued. This has happened this very session.


Arthur Meighen: This session? No.
There was one debate which concluded at six o'clock but which finally came on again the next day or a day or so afterwards; it was not adjourned at all. That is the only case of the kind I have known for years. And can that be urged as a reason for my going on with a resolution of this importance at a few minutes to six? I think it is most significant that the Prime Minister should suggest that
the only opportunity to debate this resolution should be given a few minutes before eleven o'clock, or a few minutes before six on Wednesday. It does not indicate any disposition on the part of the government to have this subject thoroughly discussed prior to the budget.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon gentleman could have his opportunity on Monday.


Arthur Meighen: Possibly, but will the
Prime Minister assure me that I shall be in a position to proceed with the resolution on Monday?"


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On some Monday, yes; I cannot say which one.


Arthur Meighen: Some Monday, after the budget. May I make a comment on the haste of the government in bringing in the budget before the end of March?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my right hon. friend is in order.


Arthur Meighen: I thought I was on the subject which the Prime Minister discussed.


Hewitt Bostock: The mover of the motion closes the debate, of course. I thought, however, that as the subject was one concerning the business of the House it might be desirable that I should afford the hon. member some latitude of discussion. Generally speaking the mover of a motion closes the debate; but by leave of the House the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) may conclude what he has to say.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I have gone beyond the subject matter of the Prime Minister's speech; I did not think that he was out of order and consequently I am not. It seems to me very precipitate, this evident anxiety on the part of the government to hasten the budget before the end of the fiscal year, when the results of the fiscal year cannot possibly be known, and before the fullest opportunity has been given for deliberate debate on that subject, which is the essence of the budget itself. I did not anticipate- indeed, nothing was further from my mind- coming into conflict with the government on this subject. I never for a moment entertained the idea that the government would seek to precipitate the budget debate or would fail to give me an opportunity, if I asked it, and some definite assurance of such an opportunity, of discussing a motion of the very transcendent importance of that which stands in my name.
Business of the House


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Charles Good: I asked the Prime Minister a question.


Hewitt Bostock: The debate is closed.


William Charles Good: I do not propose to speak at any great length just now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the hon. gentleman desires to ask a question. I would remind him that he has already spoken.


William Charles Good: Is the debate closed, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Charles Good: Very good, then.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to press the matter unduly; my purpose is entirely that of expediting the work of the House.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will wait a moment he will see that I am only trying to oblige him. I am prepared to have the motion amended so as to give one further Wednesday to private members, that is, Wednesday of next week, if that will help to satisfy hon. members. I would also intimate that the government has no intention of taking the next three Mondays-no, I will not say the next three Mondays, because when the budget comes down we shall proceed with it. As to what my right hon. friend says about bringing down the budget before the end of the fiscal year, I would point out that this has been done repeatedly.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Mackenzie King
moves, seconded by Mr. Graham,
That on Wednesday, the 25th of March, instant, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.



AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following prop *sed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Government Annuities Act, 1908, to provide that an annuity shall not be granted or issued for an amount less than ten dollars a year.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of .the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government if it has received any report from the interdepartmental committee appointed to look into the St. Lawrence deep waterway project? If so, when will such report be laid on the table? If not, has the government any information whatsoever to give to the House in regard to the progress made? Also, what
are the names of the gentlemen composing the inter-departmental committee?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, this is
a pretty big order to handle without a moment's notice. As a matter of fact, there is an inter-departmental committee which reports from time to time purely for the information of the government and the advisory committee. I am not sure whether there is anything in their reports which should not be made public, but the government deems it wise not to publish these reports, and the wisdom of its action has been well proven. The chairman of this inter-departmental committee is Mr. Biggar, and they have made reports from time to time. To be candid, I never dreamed that these reports would be asked for by parliament. There may be nothing in them that Should not be placed before the House, but I would want to look through the reports very carefully before making them public, as some of the matters dealt with between the countries affected are of a very delicate nature, and it is just possible that the information given to the government should not be made public through the records of the House. I can get the personnel of the committee for my hon. friend. I may tell him that the progress made with the deep waterways question will, I imagine, be fully discussed in the House before the session closes.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) indicated that an opportunity will be given to discuss the course the government was taking and the progress made in relation to the St. Lawrence canal development. I would like to ask him to be good enough to advise the House two or three days in advance before that opportunity is given.


George Perry Graham: I thought probably that
opportunity would come in discussion of the estimates for the work.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we should have
notice.


George Perry Graham: Surely; there will be no
trouble about that.



WINTER EMPLOYMENT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the Day:
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask what undertaking the government has entered into with the provincial governments and municipal authorities as a result of the unemployment conference last fall.
Miners and Steel Workers


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, the government has
entered into no agreement with the provinces and the various municipalities with regard to unemployment. In September last there was held in Ottawa a national conference regarding winter employment in Canada. The purpose of that conference at its outset was stated to be to decide that:
-the time has arrived when all public authorities, as well as those persons most intimately involved, whether as employers or workmen, in the problem of unemployment, should come together in conference for the purpose of endeavouring to devise a certain regularization of industrial employment, having regard particularly to building and other out of door work during the winter season.
The hon. member will find on pages 49 and 50 of this printed record of the report of the conference, which I am sending across to him, a statement of this government's policy on unemployment relief. There has been no change in that policy as there outlined. Also on page 125 will be found a statement in connection with certain proposals of the conference for joint participation as between the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government in relief measures. The conference was duly advised that the federal government could not subscribe to those proposals, although I did, as representing the government, agree to bring them to the further attention of my colleagues.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to a "conference on winter employment in Canada." Is that a new christening of the conference on unemployment that took place last fall?


James Murdock: That is the actual and proper term that was, and should be, applied to the conference held in Ottawa. It was so stated in the calling of the conference, it was so stated all through the conference. The subject matter for consideration was whether those mayors, representatives of provinces and others authorized to expend public money could not devise uniform measures for so expending that money as to carry along certain work during the winter season that had formerly been held over for the summer season. It was a conference to consider winter employment in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I have the opportunity
to advise the minister of a very, very bad slip. In the report of the conference on winter employment, it is described as a conference on unemployment. Perhaps he can get that slip repaired at the Printing Bureau.
[Mr. Kellner.



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the government if it has any definite information as to whether or not the government of Nova Scotia is actually taking any steps towards relieving the distress prevailing among the women and children in Cape Breton?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the government of Nova Scotia has not communicated anything to us with respect to their action at the present time. We have no information.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on much the same subject I desire to offer a suggestion. I do not want to talk, and I cannot talk at any length; but it seems to me that if we had an inundation in some place there would be no difficulty in all parties of this government getting together to afford some immediate relief. The conditions that exist in Nova Scotia I do not pretend to judge, and I doubt if individual members of parliament have sufficient knowledge to apportion blame on one side or the other.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Does the hon.
gentleman desire to put a question ?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Just a question, yes; just
a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that as hungry people are apt to overstep certain lines that we do not want them to overstep, I am going to ask the Prime Minister if he will either by an assembling of people outside of the political field altogether, or by taking a representative say from each group in this House so as to make it as representative as possible, send a commission or a committee, or whatever you like to call it, into Nova Scotia to see whether the government is grappling, or is able to grapple, effectively with the problem, and to see what can be done to preserve to Canada a great industry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to
my hon. friend that I think it would be a highly improper procedure for the federal government to interfere with the affairs of a provincial government. I would think it quite improper for this government to interfere were the Ontario government, for instance, dealing with a similar situation; I would think it highly improper for the federal government to interfere were the government of Alberta or of British Columbia, or of any other province, dealing with a like situation

Ocean Shipping Rates
in their respective provinces. That is the view of the present administration.
As to endeavouring to have assistance given to those who are suffering, I think that makes a very special appeal to every individual member of parliament, and I shall be very glad to join with other members of this House in making a personal contribution to those who are suffering in the strike at this time; indeed, I had so intended to do. However, I do not think I would be justified as a member of the federal government, holding federal funds in trust, to use those funds in any way which may have a bearing upon an industrial dispute with which this government has had nothing to do.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Has not the government of Canada at other times sent money and supplies to relieve suffering in other countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No request has come from the province of Nova Scotia for assistance. If a request comes from the province, from the recognized authorities there, the government will be prepared to take it under consideration.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Had
the Prime Minister requests from Japan when relief was sent to that country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My impression is that a request did come; I cannot say it came from Japan, but certainly it came I think from some other governments that were associated together in seeking to give relief. It was an international matter.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I would ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if the report from the two railways on the matter which was referred to them on the 8th day of January, and which Sir Henry Thornton thought could be prepared within thirty days, is yet in his hands. Have the two railways yet reported regarding the Peace river country?	.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	They have not.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is a long thirty days.


George Perry Graham: Of course, if the railway
presidents and their staffs had nothing else to do, they could perhaps get the report out in three or four days; but they are both very busy organizations. I hope to have the report, however, next week.



OCEAN SHIPPING RATES


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 10, the adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. T. A. Low (Minister of Trade and Commerce) to ratify and confirm a contract between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen providing for the establishment of a subsidized steamship line on the Atlantic, and government control of certain ocean rates, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Clark (Burrard).
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has been moved by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) is, in my humble opinion, one of the most important that has ever been introduced into this House for discussion. It seems to me, Sir, that I need not say that the matter of freight rates, both on land and sea, has been a burning question for a great many years, and business men in all spheres of activity have for a great many years been endeavouring to get this question solved. Of course, there are two sides to every question, and there are two sides to this question of freight rates, whether on land or sea, and for that reason this parliament should be willing to study the question from all angles so that they may arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that some years ago the Prime Minister of this country, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, after listening to representations from a great many people all over Canada, decided that it was necessary to do something with regard to freight rates on land, and the consequence was that in the session of 1903, I think it was, a bill was introduced into this parliament creating what is known as the railway commission. That commission, I think we will all agree, has done good work with regard to railway freight rates. Since that time, there has been a great deal of discussion from time to time with regard to whether the government or some other body could not in some way control ocean freight rates. In my opinion, and I think I shall be backed up by eminent authorities, it is not quite so easy to control ocean freight rates as it is to control freight rates on land; but nevertheless that is no reason, in my opinion, why this or any other government should not do everything possible to see to it that the products of the people of this country reach foreign countries at freight rates as low as possible commensurate with the service performed by the steamship companies.
Ocean Shipping Rates

As I said a moment ago, this question is not a new one. In 1911, before Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was then Prime Minister, went to the Imperial conference, representations were made to him about this important matter, and he decided to take up this question at the conference. After discussing the matter with the representatives of the British government and of the overseas Dominions there present, Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved a resolution asking that an imperial commission be appointed to go into and endeavour to settle amicably this great and vital question. This resolution of Sir Wilfrid's was passed by the conference, and shortly after returning to this country he appointed as the commissioner for Canada to inquire into this matter no less a person than Hon. P. C. Larkin, now Canadian High Commissioner in London. However, we had an election that fall, and a great disaster befell this country-the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was defeated.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Another one is coming.


William Duff: Yes, and there will be more
than one. There will be some after you and I are dead I am afraid. Although, as I said, the government was defeated, and although the nominee of the Liberal party, Mr. Larkin, did not enter on his duties on that commission, the matter was of such great importance that the government which followed that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the government of Sir Robert Borden, decided to enter upon a consideration of it, and Sir Robert Borden, very wisely I think, appointed Sir George Foster, now Senator Foster, as his representative on that commission. The commission met but there was not very much done. The imperial authorities moved very slowly, like some great bodies in Canada, with the result that very little was done. Subsequently the matter came up again. In the spring of 1913, I think it was, the flour millers of this country came to the government with a complaint that the ocean steamship lines were charging too high a freight on their products, and the government of the day then appointed Sir Henry Drayton, the present member for West York, to investigate the question. I think we must all agree that the hon. gentleman, whose name I have just mentioned was very well qualified to go into an important matter of this kind, and that anything he said on this subject should receive the attention of this House. The hon. gentleman proceeded to London and, after investigating the conditions there and at other important centres where steamship lines were doing business, he set forth certain findings and made certain recommendations. While he realized that this was a very im-

portant question and it was necessary that it should be dealt with carefully, not only in the interests of Canadian shippers but in the interest of steamship lines as well, still I think I am safe in saying that Sir Henry Drayton's report of that time found that there were certain grave grievances which should be remedied. The hon. gentleman is not the only one who has felt that way. Some three years ago, it will be remembered, at the demand-the insistent demand shall I say?-principally of hon. gentlemen representing the three prairie provinces, and perhaps with representations made by other hon. members, this government appointed a special committee of the House to go into this question, and the report of that committee is certainly very illuminating. Whilst I cannot agree with everything that committee said and reported, there is no doubt it was proved conclusively that there were certain agreements made with certain steamship companies which were not in the best interests of the shippers of Canada.
Perhaps I may be allowed here to make a personal reference, and that is to the effect that previous to the appointment of this committee and to the investigation which it made, I offered certain observations on this important matter. Hon. members who were in the House during the session of 1921 will remember that in the few remarks which I made in regard to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine I showed conclusively that the merchant marine was taking part in the meetings of what is known as the steamship conference, and while I did not know whether the rates set by this conference were excessive or not, nevertheless I stated at that time that in my opinion a steamship line owned and operated by any government should not sit in at a conference to fix rates on different articles. Even the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) in his speech the other day admitted that there was-shall I say?-a conference to fix rates, a combine. I do not want to be too hard on the steamship companies; indeed, I wish to say that these companies deserve a great deal of credit for what they have done for transportation, not only for transportation between Canada and Great Britain but for transportation on the seven seas of the world; and it seems to me that we should discuss this matter fairly and squarely and without doing anything which would unduly hurt these great companies. Personally I have a great deal of sympathy -shall I say natural sympathy?-for anybody who does business upon the great waters; and I think that any person who has either

Ocean Shipping Rates
travelled on these great steamship lines, or who has had business to do with these companies, or has watched them for the last fifty years and noted their progress and development, must certainly realize that they have been a great asset in the transportation service of the world. I am sure, therefore that this parliament will not take any action that will in any way affect or prejudice these companies as long as they do what is right for the plain people of this country.
The matter of discrimination in rates, as I said a moment ago, has been discussed a great many times, and shortly after the hon. member for West York and Right Hon. Sir George E. Foster were identified with this question it was shown that a certain company offered to take up the matter of fixing rates. Let me say before I read a letter in that connection, that it was decided by the Dominions Royal Commission:
That it is not desirable that the operations of the steamship companies should remain longer without some measure of government supervision.
They go on to say:
For ourselves we regard it as intolerable that British ship owners should be in a position to initiate or countenance practices of a kind so directly inimical ito British trade.
Now, Sir, it is contended, of course, that the reason these rates are so high at the present time is, that there is not sufficient shipping to permit the charges to be lowered. It is a well known fact, however, that there is at least 15,000,000 tons more shipping to-day than there was before the war-in fact there is a total tonnage of something like 28,000,000 tons, representing an aggregate of some ten thousand and some odd hundred vessels.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but is not that the tonnage in only one area? I observe from the authoritative figures I have that the total tonnage is about 61,000,000 tons.


William Duff: I get the figures I have quoted from Lloyd's classification.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is only for one area;


William Duff: I think the right hon. gentleman is correct, as I notice in a report of the United States merchant marine that in the United States in 1914 there were 7,920,000 tons, and in 1921 there were 18,282,000 tons; and that the gross tonnage of American and foreign vessels in 1921 was-American vessels, 67,946,000 tons, and foreign vessels, 70,000,000 tons. But the figures show conclusively that the reason given-that tonnage is not available-cannot be accepted in view of the
fact that there is such a large amount of tonnage offered all over the world.
The proposition made by the government in order to arrive at some conclusion in this matter is a very important one. They say in the resolution that repeated and continuous representations have been made by the agricultural community of the Dominion and the manufacturing, producing, commercial and financial interests as well as the general merchants throughout the country, that these trading communities and interests have been and are still seriously handicapped and hampered in their trade relations with overseas countries. Perhaps this agreement, which I will refer to later, may not be the ultimate solution of this great question, but one thing for which we must give this government credit is that they have had the courage to tackle this problem, and this is certainly in their favour. They have been told by merchants and shippers all over the country that there is a grievance. Whether there is as great a grievance as these people try to make out is a matter to be decided later, but the fact remains that this government decided there was a grievance, and in order to remedy this grievance they have brought down before parliament the agreement which I have in my hand, which you have all heard read.
We have heard several speeches both for and against this proposition, and it seems to me this question is entirely too big to introduce personalities. Of course, it has been claimed that all the information which the government has is contained in a report made by a certain gentleman whose name I need not mention. Whether that is so or not- and I do not think it is so, and I think I can show that the government has had a great deal more information than is contained in that report-it is not a sufficient answer to the government's proposition to say that because this gentleman made the report this parliament should not favourably consider it; and it is useless to draw a red herring over the trail referring to the fact that this gentleman, like the rest of us in parliament, and others outside, at one time and another took part in certain by-elections. That in my opinion will not satisfy the people of this country, and hon. members who speak on this subject must certainly give better reasons for refusing to adopt this resolution than statements made with regard to the gentleman who has made the report. As I said, the question is too big entirely for that. What we have to decide is whether there is a combine, or not. If there is a combine, then I think it is up to this government and parliament to try to find a remedy. Perhaps the
Ocean Shipping Rates

word "combine" is a little harsh; for my part I think it is. But if, after hearing all these reports about the supposed combine, it seems to me it is in the interests not only of the people of this country but also of the shipping companies themselves to lay their cards on the table, to have a full and free discussion as to whether there has been a fixing of rates -a combine-or not, or whether excessive rates were fixed; so that the people of the country may know whether the steamship companies have or have not overcharged them.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Will the hon. member permit a question.


William Duff: Yes.


Edmund James Bristol: Is it correct to say that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine have been members of this combine for the last three or four years; and if so has the government obtained from the people who are running the Canadian Government Merchant Marine a full and accurate statement of what has happened in the last three years, when as I understand it they were members of the alleged combine?


William Duff: A few moments ago I said they were members of this combine, and in 1921 I called the attention of the then government to the fact; and no action was taken. I might further say that I called the attention of this government to the fact, and action I believe has only been taken lately.


Edmund James Bristol: The question is, what information have they got from former governments concerning our own merchant marine?


William Duff: I am sorry I cannot answer that question. As a private member I would not know. All that I do know is that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were in this conference and sat in during the years 1920 and 1921. In 1920 the matter was brought to the attention of the late government, and the merchant marine have been sitting in on this conference ever since. That is absolutely wrong, in my opinion.


Edmund James Bristol: Therefore they should be able to give accurate information as to whether there is a combine or not, and if there is a combine they could tell us the character of it. We pay the merchant marine money for their services, and we should be able to get information from them.


William Duff: When the committee meets, some member of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine should be among the first witnesses called.


William F. Carroll: Do I understand the hon. member to say that they have not withdrawn and that they are still members of the conference?


William Duff: I understood the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to say that they had withdrawn, but I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that they have not withdrawn, because they are still members of a conference on their lines running from the Maritime provinces to the British West Indies, and they are exacting rates on freight the same as the Royal Mail Packet are exacting. There is a conference or an understanding between the Royal Mail Packet Company and Canadian Government Merchant Marine with regard to freight rates on goods between the Maritime provinces ports and the West Indies.


Mr. BOYS:: Can the hon. member inform the House as to the date when the Canadian Government Merchant Marine withdrew from the conference?


William Duff: I am sorry I cannot give any information as to that. It is impossible for me as a private member to give the information.


William Alves Boys: I suppose there can be no doubt they were members of the conference on 31st December last, on which date the report was signed.


William Duff: I am sorry but I cannot answer that question. The Minister of Railways stated that they had withdrawn, but I personally think that whether they withdrew in December or earlier, it was too late. They should have withdrawn long ago, they should never have been in the conference. My information, however, is that they are still in the conference with regard to fixing rates between the Maritime provinces and the British West Indies, I say it is wrong and the quicker they get out the better.


William F. Carroll: That is not this conference


William Duff: No, but it is a matter of making rates and that is what we are discussing when we are considering this resolution, and I still think the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine should be out of it. I said before that in discussing this question we should look at it broadly. I remember, and no doubt other member's here who are as old as I am will remember, that the steamship companies operating on the north Atlantic are a different class of vessel entirely from the vessels operating some years ago, and for that reason those who have invested

Ocean Shipping Rates
millions of dollars in their different ships should have every consideration from this government and from parliament. These lines are operated, of course, principally in the interests of their shareholders, but after all is said and done we must give them credit for helping in the great transportation problems of this country.


Mr. SHAW:: My hon. friend says there has been a change in the character of the ships. I would like to know generally the nature of the change in the character of the shipping.


William Duff: The steamers are very much larger and much more luxurious. There has been a great deal of comment with regard to the carrying of immigrants and the prices which these steamship companies charge immigrants coming to this country, and while peihaps it is true that the charges are a great deal higher than they were some years ago, and while it is quite true that the charges are altogether too high, yet the fact remains that accommodation on the ships which are plying between Liverpool and Montreal and Liverpool and Halifax is different altogether from that afforded in the ships in which immigrants came over some years ago. I do not remember it myself, but my father and mother came over in a sailing ship, an entirely different kind of vessel from the present day ships such as the Aquitania, or the Olympic; or some of the great liners of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I have heard a good deal about the rates which are charged in these days, and there can be no question that there is discrimination. Whether the steamship companies can explain that away or not, I do not know. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) when he spoke on behalf of the government, did the right and proper thing in telling this House, that he was quite willing to appoint a committee and wanted to appoint one. In my opinion, that is the only way to get at the bottom of this question. I have no doubt it is impossible for the government to lay all their cards on the table before this House, but when the committee is appointed they must certainly, and no doubt they will, give this House a great deal more information than they can at the present time. It is up to them to show, and no doubt they can show, that something must be done in order to protect the people of this country who ship goods, whether those goods are shipped from the far west or from any other part of Canada. The government is to be congratulated, I think, on the fact that in the very first speech which was made on this subject, that made by the Minister of Trade and Com-69
merce, he told the House that he intended to have a committee appointed which would investigate this matter thoroughly. I presume he means in the interest, not only of the government and the people of this country, and of the proposition which he has brought down, but, as a matter of fair play, of the steamship companies.
There is no doubt that the people of Canada are very uneasy and feel that there is something wrong with regard to the matter of ocean freight rates, and it is right and proper, as I said a moment ago, that a full investigation must be had. For instance, we are told that shippers have complained to the department very bitterly about the discrimination. Take, for instance, the difference in rates between shipments from Hamburg, and the United Kingdom, to Bombay and Calcutta, and Shipments from Antwerp and Hamburg to Canada. There must be something radically wrong when you can ship goods from Hamburg to Bombay and Calcutta at 25 shillings per ton, and a shipper sending goods from Antwerp to Canada has to pay the same price. It is also true that if you are shipping goods from the United Kingdom to Calcutta, they must pay a rate of 40 shillings per ton, and that if you are shipping goods from the United Kingdom to Canada, they must pay a rate of 45 shillings per ton.


Edmund James Bristol: Does the rate not largely depend on whether they are getting a return cargo from the place to which they are going?


William Duff: I was coming to that. I want to be quite fair to the steamship companies. I intended to say, and I may as well say now, that there is no question that the reason the rate is higher from England or Europe to Canada than from England or Europe to the United States is the fact that these ships, on both voyages, whether going east or coming west, in plying between England or Europe and the United States, have full cargoes, and in plying between England or Europe and Canada, they have part cargoes or go in ballast.


Edmund James Bristol: About twenty-five per cent sometimes.


Mr. HOEY:: That is a good argument for encouraging the incoming cargo.


William Duff: I -agree with that. For that reason I presume the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) agrees with me that we ought to have lower tariffs on goods coming into this country.


William Irvine: Why do you not lower the tariff?

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Duff: The only reason that the tariff is not lower is that the hon. member for Springfield and I are only two members of this House. If we had the full power, I think we would lower the tariff.
The Imperial conference which met to discuss this important matter made a summary of tiheir findings, and in order to approach this matter properly and get all the light on it we possibly can, it might be as well for me to place their findings on Hansard. This is what the Royal Commission on Shipping say in the conclusion of their report:
(1)	The conference system with the deferred rebate- the natural evolution of a highly organized trade dealing with customers for the most part scattered or disorganized-has created on almost all the chief ocean routes a monopoly, the limitations upon which are in many cases illusory, and which generally tend to decline;
(2)	The sytsem was introduced in the first instance with the object of raising rates or preventing their fall and diminishing competition;
(3)	It has been successful in raising or keeping up rates;
(4)	The public have, as a rule, to pay higher rates of freight than they would pay in an open market;
(5)	The system has been injurious to " tramps," the strangest element in the British mercantile marine and it leads as to them to waste and to higher rates of freight;
(6)	The system tends to waste in various other directions owing to the manner in which the rings are constituted;
(7)	There is no satisfactory evidence that the saving in cost, if there be any, under the system of shipping rings exceeds the waste which is due to that system;
(8)	The system tends to inflate the amount of tonnage and consequently the amount of capital invested upon which interest has to be paid;
(9)	It has diminished or tends to diminish the ports of sailing;
(10)	It gives a country such as the United States, in which the system is illegal, an advantage as compared with the United Kingdom;
(11)	It has caused in the case of South Africa diversion of British trade;
(12)	There is no evidence that it has appreciably increased regularity of sailing or greatly improved the quality of steamers; but it has tended to bring about equality and stability of rates.
A good deal of what is said in that report is correct, and I have often wondered why the steamship men themselves, after that report was made by such a prominent commission, did not take steps to show the public that there was not very much, if anything, in what the report set forth.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What commission made that report?


William Duff: The British government-the
Report of the Royal Commission on Shipping in 1909. I notice-and I say this not at all in a spirit of criticism-that the greatest criticism of this resolution so far has come from my friends of the official opposition. I notice also that the complaints which have come from people in this country have come

from the friends of the official opposition, because if you will read the correspondence which has been tabled in the last few days, or if you go to the Department of Trade and Commerce, you will find that there are- shall I say-hundreds of letters there from prominent manufacturers from all parts of Canada complaining about excessive freight rates. It might be interesting, perhaps, to make a few comments-and I will be as short as I can-in order to show that the government has certainly done the right and proper thing in taking cognizance of all those complaints which have been made by prominent manufacturers and shipping men in this country, and that nobody should blame the government for endeavouring to find a way out to regulate and to make freight rates on the north Atlantic lines as reasonable as it is proper to make them. This is a letter from a prominent manufacturer:
At the present time, as you will see by the ocean bill of lading, we are paying 30 cents per cubic foot or $12 per ton of 40 cubic feet, on organs or pianos going to Liverpool. In 1910 we paid on similar instruments, six shillings and ninepence per ton of 40 cubic feet, which is practically $1.50 per ton of 40 cubic feet, as you will also see by the enclosed ocean bill of lading. . . .
In 1910 and 1911 and for many preceding years, we were shipping a carload of instruments to Liverpool every week. The car would contain eighteen instruments. To-day we nor anyone else ship a carload in a j^ear, simply because the freight rates, added to the price that we must get for our instruments, brings them up to the price of what they can purchase a cheap piano for in England, of German or English make.
Now listen to this:
If I can be of any further service to you, do not hesitate to ask me, as I feel that the steamship companies, including the Canadian merchant marine, are only preventing trade coming to them by demanding such exorbitant freight rates, and I sometimes think that the Canadian merchant marine are the worst sinners of the lot.
For instance, we had a number of instruments going to the West Indies some weeks ago, and have also a shipment of five going this week, and we found that the Canadian merchant marine rates were much higher than what we were quoted from Pickford & Black of Halifax, so instead of sending the instruments to Montreal, we had to send them to Halifax and the amount saved on the ocean freight more than paid the difference on the inland freight between Montreal and Halifax.
When prominent business men complain so bitterly about the rates that are being charged, I think it is only proper that this government should endeavour to do something to regulate those rates and to provide cheaper carriage for shippers. I could cite a number of other instances but I do not think it is necessary.
I realize, of course, that the steamship companies cannot carry freight to-day at as low a rate as they could before the war, but that is no reason why in March, 1924, there should

Ocean Shipping Rates
have been an increase of some twenty-five per cent. It is said that the shipping rates are governed by the law of supply and demand. Be that as it may, everyone knows that at that time there was far more shipping available in the country than there were cargoes to be carried; so that I cannot possibly see why the conference should have raised the rates twenty-five per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: A moment ago the hon.
member was quoting from a letter written by a shipper in which the statement was made that the rates quoted by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were higher than those charged by Messrs. Pickford & Black. But the hon. gentleman also told us, of his own knowledge, that Pickford & Black and the Canadian merchant marine were "in cahoots" as regards rates and were quoting the same figures.


William Duff: I did not say that; I said the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. These goods to which reference is made in the letter I have quoted were shipped evidently from Montreal. The rates quoted by the Canadian Merchant Marine were charged on * cargoes from Montreal direct to the West Indies, and the shipper could afford to pay the railway freight from Montreal to Halifax and ship from that port by one of the boats of Messrs. Pickford & Black and still save on the shipment; the rate all-told was so much lower than the rate quoted by the agent of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in Montreal. The hon. member will see the point without my going any further.


Mr. LEWIS:: As an experienced vessel
owner, will the hon. member give us his opinion as to what effect the operation of the ten vessels now proposed will be as against the alleged combine?


William Duff: That is a large order.


Arthur John Lewis: I ask the hon. member that
question because I know he is experienced in this regard.


William Duff: Well, the operation of ten
ships may not have the desired effect, but at least it will show the people of the country that this government is anxious and determined to do what it can to break up this so-called combine, if it exists. They may not succeed, of course, for one reason and another which will appeal to my hon. friend. If I owned or controlled one of these great shipping lines I would try to get the rest of my friends to co-operate with me in an endeavour to drive the Petersen concern out of business 69i
altogether. There are a number of ways that might be adopted to frustrate the scheme. I say, however, that the government is justified in endeavouring to do something to bring down rates, if they are too high, and to show the people of the country that it is standing by them and will make every effort possible to reduce the cost of carriage on the Atlantic.


Arthur John Lewis: In case the committee comes to the conclusion that the rates are not too high under present circumstances, will the hon. gentleman still support this legislation?


William Duff: I want to hear the evidence
first. But after reading through the evidence given before the agricultural committee two years ago I expect to see my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) support the action of the government in this matter.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The hon. member
has referred to the desire of the government to do something practical in this matter. If he will look up the seventh report of the committee that Sat two years ago he will find that they pointed out that owing to the wide range of subjects submitted to them they were not able to give this whole matter the consideration which it merited. They therefore recommended to the government that a similar committee should be appointed subsequently, which would have been last session. Why did not the government carry out the recommendations of that committee if they attached so much value to the evidence then taken?


William Duff: I cannot, of course, answer for the government, but it seems to me that even apart from the findings of that committee there is enough evidence on the files of the different departments, particularly of the Department of Trade and Commerce, to warrant the government in taking the step now proposed. I have not wearied the House by reading all the letters that could be submitted on this subject, but I could quote letter after letter from prominent manufacturers throughout the country in different lines of business, complaining bitterly that the rates are altogether too high. As I said before, however, I am not going to say whether the rates are too high or not; I believe in giving a square deal to the steamship companies. The steamship companies deserve a great deal of credit for the service they have put on not only on the north Atlantic but on every sea, and I am willing to wait until the proposed committee has met and taken evidence before I pass any judgment on the question of rates. Until that evidence has
Ocean Shipping Ratet

been adduced, and until the committee reports to parliament, I am content to suspend final judgment in the matter.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
no doubt realizes that he has not answered my question. Why did the government not take action last session to carry out the recommendation of the committee a year before, that a similar committee should be appointed the following session, that is, last year? Why did they not do something last year if conditions were so bad as to call for a remedy?


William Duff: I agree that to a certain
extent it might have been possible for the government to take some quicker action. But there is this much to its credit, that this government is taking action now, which is something that the late government failed to do. The late government knew all about the situation. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had moved a resolution at the Imperial conference, prior to the defeat of his government in 1911, to have the whole matter. investigated and he appointed a commissioner in the person of the Hon. Mr. Larkin. After the Laurier government was defeated Sir Robert Borden appointed another commissioner, and from that time on until 1921 the matter was under consideration but no action was taken either by the Conservative government, or by the Union government, or by the Liberal-Conservative government led by my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). But this government is doing something; it is making an attempt to solve the problem. Whether the present proposal is all that could be done, or even whether it is the right thing to do, I am not quite sure. But the government should be given credit for its sincerity and its honesty of purpose in endeavouring to grapple with the situation which is complained of and Which has been brought to its attention by the shippers of the country.


Donald Sutherland: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but why stress the importance of the evidence taken before this special committee when you ignore the recommendation in their final report that, owing to the impossibility of doing justice to the evidence, a similar committee should be appointed at the next session, which recommendation was absolutely ignored by the government. Yet the contradictory evidence submitted to that committee is being constantly referred to in the course of this debate.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
I can say anything more to my hon. friend; I have endeavoured to cover his question.


Arthur Meighen: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds:	Assuming I am right as to
What he really thinks of the Petersen contract, judging from his speech, does he consider that this House is taking a right course in voting for anything at all providing it goes to a committee afterwards?


William Duff: I would refer my right hon.
friend to something which happened in this House last year when a bill was introduced. I objected to the principle of it, I objected to the second reading; the bill went to a committee; the committee made some changes, but not so many as I think they would have made had they known what has since happened; that committee reported the bill to the House; and the House voted against the report of the committee which they themselves had appointed. Now, that may happen in this case, although I do not say it will or should.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman did
not believe in the bill he is referring to, and he opposed it. He does not think now that he was wrong, does 'he? And if he was right then, why does he not follow the same course now?


William Duff: Time has proven conclusively that I was right, and I am sure my right hon. friend feels in his heart that he was wrong in the way he registered 'his vote last session.


Arthur Meighen: That is another question.


William Duff: With regard to this matter,
I certainly do not want anybody to think or say that I am opposed to the contract. I think it is a step in the right direction.


Arthur Meighen: I think you are.


William Duff: Again, time will tell.


William Irvine: I understood the hon.
member to say in reply to a question that he did not anticipate that the ten ships proposed to be built would have .any effect upon the combine. Does he not think that the million and a quarter of the people's money to be spent by the government to prove its good intentions is a little too much money to spend on such propaganda?


William Duff: I did not say what the hon.
gentleman says I did say.


William Irvine: That is correct.


William Duff: Not at all. I said that although we may differ with regard to the remedy proposed, we certainly should give the government credit for attempting to cope with this grave situation. I think that in the opinion of people who are vitally interested

Ocean Shipping Rates
on the other side of the question this contract is going to do some good. We hear that opinion expressed every day as we walk around this city. They evidently think that the Petersen contract is going to be of some effect. While this particular agreement calls for the construction of only ten ships so far as Petersen and his company are concerned, there is no reason why the government should not enter into a contract with other companies, if they deem it necessary, in order to regulate these rates more effectively-for instance, with the Canadian Pacific company. It seems to me that this company should be in the arrangement, because after all is said and done, whether they have been guilty of charging excessive rates to the people of this country or not, they are a business organization, and so long as the people and the government of Canada stood for it, I do not blame the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company for getting as high ocean rates as they could get. But, as I have just said, I feel that this great organization should come in and help straighten out the matter, and that therefore if necessary the government should make a contract with the company to use their ships for the purpose of breaking the alleged combine.


William Irvine: Does that imply that the
government should issue another million and a quarter dollars annually for ten years to the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company or to any other company that might engage in this bold effort to break the combine? Does the hon. gentleman not think that in that event it is not likely we would receive in reduced ocean rates sufficient to pay the taxes required to provide the subsidies?


William Duff: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend speak in that way, because I thought that he came especially to this House to lead us out of the wilderness not only with respect to high freight rates but also in regard to the high cost of living. I am surprised, I say, that he throws cold water on this simple proposition of the government to bring down the cost of living and so enable the people of this country to benefit. Whether the arrangement will work out satisfactorily or not, I am not prepared to say; it is a big question; but I do say that the government should be given an opportunity to put all the information it has before the committee and before the House so we may deal with it intelligently. I am convinced from what other speakers have said that the government has a good deal of information in its possession to prove conclusively that high ocean rates
have been charged, and that the government believes that in this contract, it has an effective way of reducing those rates on the north Atlantic.


William Irvine: Where is this information? That is what we want.


William Duff: As I said a moment ago, I presume the information will be given by the government when this special committee meets, and I think it will be the duty of the government to have someone present to give the committee all the information which it has on the subject.


William Irvine: Why not give it now?


William Duff: I have been giving some this afternoon; I do not know whether my hon. friend heard me. I can give him some further information, but I do not want to weary the House with too many quotations. Let me give him some information from his own province. I presume my hon. friend is interested in the cattle industry of southern Alberta, the province from which he comes. This is what the Lethbridge Board of Trade said a short time ago about the ocean freight rates on cattle:
Whereas the ocean freight rates on cattle from the Atlantic seaboard to the United Kingdom are at present excessive in the extreme, being practically prohibitive of the success of building up an ex/port trade in cattle from the province of Alberta to the United Kingdom.
And whereas it is the considered opinion of those qualified to judge that cattle can be profitably carried across the Atlantic at rates much below those now in force.
And whereas the production of cattle is an important industry in southern Alberta, and the growers desire to export cattle to the United Kingdom.
Therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada be urged to take such steps as may be necessary to have Atlantic rates on cattle reduced to a point where cattle from Alberta can be profitably exported to the United Kingdom.


Edmund James Bristol: Will the hon. member permit another question? I understand that grain rates are not controlled by the combine-if you want to call it a combine; that is, you have the greatest competition in the world between the tramp steamers on the one side and the liners on the other fighting to get all the grain they can. In view of this competition, how is the western farmer going to be helped on grain?


William Duff: I think I said earlier in my remarks that I did not agree with everything we have heard with regard to there being a combine, that I did not agree the rates were too high in some cases. All I said was that there was such an agitation all over the country by manufacturers, farmers, lumbermen and
Ocean Shipping Rates

others with regard to excessive ocean freight rates that it seemed to me the proper thing for the government to do under the circumstances was to endeavour to settle this question in the way they propose to settle it, that is, by appointing a committee to bring out all the evidence bearing on the question and giving the steamship companies, the manufacturers, and all other parties concerned the fullest scope to lay their arguments and evidence before the committee, which could then decide whether there is justification of the allegation that to-day excessive ocean freight rates are being charged by the north Atlantic shipping conference lines.


Edmund James Bristol: Where you have tramp
steamers on the one hand and liners on the other competing for grain, how do you hope to lower the price by any other method?


William Duff: Here is a letter from the
Dominion Millers' Association written on January 15, 1931, addressed to the present right hon. leader of the opposition.


Edmund James Bristol: That is with respect to
flour. I am dealing simply with grain, which is the biggest thing grown in the west to-day, and in the rates on grain you have the greatest competition in the world.


William Duff: It is quite true there may be open prices on grain, but my hon. friend must realize that there is a conference-I will not call it a combine; but there are meetings of the different steamship interests, not every day perhaps, but every week or whenever any important matter comes up-and while cattle and grain rates may not come under this conference, you cannot tell me that these people, meeting and discussing the rates they shall charge on other commodities, do not agree among themselves what they shall charge on grain and cattle.


Edmund James Bristol: They have to meet the
tramp situation from day to day. Sometimes in Montreal there are a large number of tramps, and the price goes down. Sometimes the liner wants to fill up space, and she will take grain for that purpose; but that is a distress cargo; it is totally different. Wheat is the great basic commodity, and there you have the greatest competition in the world, and you cannot get away from it.


William Duff: But if it were not for the
tramps, the rates would probably be very much higher than they are.


Edmund James Bristol: They might be, but you
must remember the tramp is the greatest thing in the world to bring rates down.


Mr. MORRISON:: Does my hon. friend
know that the tramps charged more for carrying wheat from this side to Liverpool during the last year than the liners?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has the floor.


William Duff: I do not object, Mr. Speaker, to questions.


William Irvine: I understood the hon. member was giving information for my special benefit just now, and I would like to say that is not what I need. I am quite willing to admit that freight rates are high, although I do not know that they are. The information that I want is this: Does this proposal which the government has advanced guarantee to us any hope that the rates will be reduced? That is the kind of evidence I want, and my hon. friend has not given me any reason why I should vote for the government's proposal in the hope that it will reduce rates.


William Duff: Then I presume my hon.
friend wishes to leave the rates as they are, and not try to do anything.


William Irvine: Do not presume that. I
will tell you what I wish later. What I am asking for is some evidence that this proposal will bring down the rates.


William Duff: In my opinion the government deserves credit-


William Irvine: I am not worrying about
credit, but about the reduction of freight rates.	-


William Duff: You are not worrying about
them as much as the manufacturers and others whom I have quoted are worrying. You evidently do not want to do anything. You say you do not know whether this proposal is going to do anything or not. Now in everything in the world, whatever the enterprise may be, people go into it without knowing definitely what the result is going to be, but they go into it with the hope and expectation that better conditions will result, and I feel as other people feel, and as the government must have felt, that even an attempt in this small way is going to bring good results. I believe that it will bring good results, and the steamship companies to-day are worrying more about this thing than my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine).


William Irvine: Does the hon. member not admit that a little common sense would perhaps be of as much value in a proposal of this kind as mere hope?

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Duff: I do not know just what my hon. friend means by that. If he is comparing his common sense and mine, I am willing to admit he has more than I have.


William Irvine: I was not making any such comparison. I asked my hon. friend for a reason for the hope he has expressed that this proposal will bring rates down. That is what I referred to as common sense. If you can give me a commonsense reason for this hope, I might be inclined to hope with you.


William Duff: Perhaps my hon. friend was
not listening to the question asked me by an hon. member sitting at the other end of the House with regard to the rates on grain. The argument was that there was no conference rate on grain, that grain rates depended on the number of tramp steamers coming into port at different times and looking for a cargo. If it is true,-and it is-that the more tonnage there is available, the lower the rates are going to be, when the government brings down this proposal, whether it is for ten or twenty or more ships, if they set the rate at which these ships shall carry freight, that certainly is going to have an influence in reducing the rates, because it brings in just that much additional competition for the traffic. I think that is a sufficient reason why my hon. friend and every other member of this House should support this proposal, provided the government can give us sufficient information to warrant us proceeding with it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member made
reference a moment ago to a complaint filed with the late government in 1921 from the Dominion Millers' Association, and made the statement that the government did nothing.


William Duff: I did not get as far as that.


Arthur Meighen: He made it some time
before. I know he will be glad to get the information that, on the contrary, the government called a conference in relation to that complaint, which had to do with the differentiation against flour as compared with wheat, and as a result of the conference, when all got together, the large shippers of wheat admitted there was not any unjust discrimination, and consequently no step was necessary.


William Duff: I do not know exactly where
I left off, Mr. Speaker, but I will try and proceed. I think I was saying to my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) that the people of Alberta certainly think they have a grievance with regard to freight rates on cattle. I can only repeat that if that is so, it seems to me that everybody in this House should endeavour to support the government
in the proposals which they are making, and should be willing at least to allow those proposals to go to a committee, which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) has told us he is willing to appoint so that the House can be apprised of both sides of this important question. There is no doubt that the question of ocean freight rates is a very important question to the people of this country, and especially in view of the fact that the country to the south of us has in the Fordney tariff put up a very high tariff wall. And I should just like to say here that the greatest mistake this countiy made with regard to the cattle business, and business generally, was in 1911 when it turned down reciprocity with the United States. If that agreement had been carried through, we would not perhaps be compelled now to ship all our cattle and wheat and other commodities to Great Britain and the continent of Europe. But we are faced with that condition, and it seems to me that as long as that condition continues, we should do what we can to remedy the situation. I think that the government is justified in doing everything possible to preserve our present markets and to increase future business, and this is one way by which the government can perhaps get rates reduced, so that our traffic will flow east and west, instead of north and south. It seems to me, therefore, that every encouragement should be given the government in this matter.
It has been held by some people that instead of making this contract with Sir William Petersen, we should use the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Now if I have one complaint to make in regard to this contract, it is that perhaps the ships will not be fast enough. In my humble opinion, instead of being 11-knot, they should be 13-or 15-knot boats. Because in the winter time from November to March coming west over the Atlantic ocean, there is no question about it, a small low-speed boat cannot make regular trips. For that reason I say when anybody argues that the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine could take the place of even those ships which are proposed under this contract there is absolutely no ground for making such an argument. Those ships are slow, they are not fitted for this purpose.


Arthur Meighen: They are faster than
these ships.


William Duff: No, they average about nine
knots.


Arthur Meighen: In actual operation nine to ten knots but the test speed, as compared with this, is higher.
Ocean Shipping Rates


William Duff: I shall not argue with my
right hon. friend, I think we both threshed that question out before as regards the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but not the comparison.


William Duff: The fact remains that these
ships of eleven knots, even would be faster.


Arthur Meighen: That is the test speed.


William Duff: You will find that with the
Diesel engines with which these ships will be equipped, they will be able to make their eleven knots at any time except, of course, in a very heavy gale of wind. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships are of very different construction and, with the engines they have, in very rough weather cannot make more than five knots actual speed. In mild weather, when the sea is smooth and calm, they could make, perhaps, nine knots. Nevertheless these ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine every year are getting slower and slower, with the result that if the government retains them much longer they will some day go on a voyage and never come back.


Arthur Meighen: You are prejudiced on
that subject.
_ Mr. DUFF: Let me say this also. There is no question but there is discrimination between American and Canadian ports- and sometimes in the Maritime provinces you hear a great hullabaloo, about the government operating a line of railway between Montreal and Portland, and our goods being shipped from the latter port to the Old Country instead of going through Canadian] ports. Let me say that if this agreement does nothing else it will have the effect of bringing more goods to Canadian ports and having more ships come to those ports.


Mr. LADNER:: Would the hon. gentleman point out in the agreement where there is any restriction against these boats calling at American ports as provided in the old agreement of 1897?


William Duff: Well, I do not remember if
the agreement says these ships must sail from Canadian ports, but I certainly do say that no government would be fit for their position, and no Minister of Trade and Commerce would be fit for his if they or he entered into such a contract as this and allowed, as the old government did and as this government does vessels of the 'Canadian Government Merchant Marine to load in Portland and other American ports.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Quite right, but the hon.
gentleman will find that there is no control of that feature under this agreement.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, paragraph (a) of
clause 1.


William Duff: Perhaps if I quote the paragraph it will satisfy my hon. friend:
Build, equip, provide, establish and during this contract, continue and in the manner hereinafter mentioned, operate a regular shipping service between such ports in Great Britain or Ireland or the continent of Europe, and Canadian ports as may be designated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada or his representatives -from time to time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that having provided such a service the boats cannot call at foreign ports?


William Duff: I would certainly say in the
first place that if there is not sufficient business for them in Canadian ports then it is a bad look-out for Canada. In the second place, as I said a moment ago, the government should not enter into a contract permitting these vessels to call at foreign ports as the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine now do. As I have already stated, one reason why I think we should support this contract is-that all the freight on these boats, either going east or coming west will be shipped from or arrive at Canadian ports instead of that freight going from or to Portland, New London, and other American ports. This arrangement will have a very direct effect upon the routing of that traffic. The British preference, which this government introduced1, has had a certain effect; but under the present arrangement with the vessels coming and going through Canadian ports the cry should be stopped that the government are not doing anything to divert traffic from Portland to St. John, Halifax, and other Canadian ports.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman follow that through just a moment? The ships of the Canadian Government Mer- . chant Marine at present are not confined to Canadian ports but call at other ports. Now, what my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner) was pointing out is that this contract in no way prevents the Petersen boats from doing the same thing or empowers the government to prevent it.


William Duff: The difference between these boats and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats, as I understand it, i-this-that these boats are going to make direct trips to Montreal or other Canadian ports.


Arthur Meighen: The contract does not say so.

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Duff: It provides that the service shall be between ports in Great Britain or Ireland or the continent of Europe and Canadian ports.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Duff: But the contract does not say that they are to leave Montreal and go to Portland or New York, and1 then cross to Queenstown, Ireland, and then go into Liverpool and Antwerp.


Arthur Meighen: But there is nothing to enable the government to prevent them from doing that very thing.


William Duff: We can provide for that, of course, in committee, if it is thought necessary.


Arthur Meighen: I see.


William Duff: That is one of the things we might do. I do not believe the government would object to making that change.


Edward Joseph Garland: Did not the Prime Minister intimate the other day that changes could not be made until after there had been a conference with Sir William Petersen? Therefore the committee can hardly make any such change.


William Duff: Even if such a conference as that is necessary the matter can be arranged and Sir William Petersen, I am convinced, will agree to it. As it is the contract is very explicit in its terms, that is that these ships must sail from Canadian ports direct to ports either in Great Britain or Europe.


Ernest Lapointe: With all despatch.


William Duff: Yes, with all despatch-which means direct. However, that need not worry us at all. The point I was trying to make is this: The reason why we should support this contract, if for no other reason, is that under this arrangement these ships will have to go from Canadian ports to Great Britain and Europe. That is why the contract should be supported especially by members from the Maritime provinces who are talking all the time about Portland being used by shippers of grain from the west and shippers of other goods from Ontario and Quebec. That is the reason why we in the Maritime provinces, at least, and I think western men too, should vote for the agreement-because it is going to divert the trade which now goes to Portland to Canadian ports.
A question came up a few minutes ago with regard to the matter of wheat, and perhaps on this subject I may be allowed to make a quotation from the report of the
Royal Grain Inquiry Commission. I might preface the quotation by the observation that the rates on wheat vary very much. At any rate here is what the commission said-page 206:
It is evident that Canadian seaports must have a margin of three cents per bushel, or perhaps more, in their favour in the inland rate to the seabord, if they are to get this shipping business, or any considerable share of it, under the present conditions.
Notwithstanding the fact that New York is 500 miles further from Liverpool than Quebec is, ocean rates of freight from New York to Europe are considerably cheaper than from the St. Lawrence.
For instance, in October 1923-October is the busy month for Canadian grain shipments-the ocean rate from New York to Liverpool was two-thirds or 6| cents per bushel, whilst the rate from Montreal was three shillings per quarter or 9 cents iper bushel, a difference in favour of New York of 2f cents per bushel. Authorities most familiar with the trade state that the spread in ocean rates, as between Montreal and New York, averages one shilling per quarter of 480 pounds to United Kingdom ports, which is equal to three cents per bushel in favour of New York.
Now, Sir, although the grain rates do not figure in this conference or combine there is no question but that this reveals discrimination, and it is the duty of this government and this parliament to see if the condition complained of cannot be remedied.
I notice in the statement which has been issued by the shipping companies that they object to the subsidy used in this agreement with Sir William Petersen. Perhaps if any other way could be found out of this difficulty-as the hon. member (Mr. Irvine) said a minute ago-it would be wise for this country to endeavour to take advantage of it and not pay this subsidy. But the question is so serious that it seems to me that if a subsidy is necessary nobody should object to this subsidy being paid. The steamship companies who, in their pamphlet, are objecting to the payment of this subsidy, should be the last people in the world to say that no subsidies should be paid. I do not know exactly what subsidies have been paid to steamship companies in the last few years, to the Canadian Pacific Railway steamships and other lines. No doubt the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) can obtain the information from his officials and tell us how much money in subsidies has been paid to the White Star-Dominion line, to the Cunard line, to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, to the Donaldson line, to the Manchester line, to the Allan Steamship Companies and to the Furness Withy Company. I am not objecting to the steamship companies receiving the subsidies, but I say it does not lie in the mouths of these companies to object to this government arranging to pay Sir William Petersen a subsidy for ten ships,
Ocean Shipping Rates

when these same companies have been receiving, and are receiving to-day, large amounts in subsidies, something like thirteen million dollars if I remember correctly. They should be the last ones to come in and make a complaint when this government is paying a subsidy to Sir William Petersen or to certain contractors.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would it not be fair if the hon. gentleman would point out to the House that these subsidies which have been paid are in relation to mail contracts and not in regard to freight? That has been the policy of the British government for years.


William Duff: My hon. friend knows that
whilst that might be quite true, the fact remains that they have always complained that if they did not get the subsidies they could not do the business or keep the boats on the routes. We have heard from the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, and from the late Minister of Trade and Commerce when the Conservatives were in power, that these steamship companies complained if they did not get the subsidies. We who have read the history of the country know very well that subsidies have been paid for >a number of years. For instance, take the great question of the Crowsnest pass railway, in which our friends from the west are so much interested. They desire to get the benefits of the Crowsnest pass agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and rightly so. They say that a previous government gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway certain concessions for fixing a rate on the Crowsnest pass railway; and in view of the fact that the previous government gave these concessions to the western men, these men felt quite justified, and rightly so, in asking that the contract should be carried out by the Canadian Pacific Railway. My hon. friend says that some of the subsidies have been given to the railway for carrying mail, yet we know how much money has been paid to the railways in the country, the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific, to build lines; and if we can vote subsidies to build railways, and grant millions of acres of land for the same purpose -which is another form of subsidy-why can we not under this agreement, if the government feel it is necessary, give Sir William Petersen a bonus for putting in operation a line of steamships, when, in consideration of this subsidy, it is understood that this line of steamers must carry the products of this country at a cheaper rate than they would if they were receiving no bonus? If that line of steamers were to receive a subsidy of 
81,300,000	per year, and charge the same rates as the conference is now charging, my hon. friend would be quite right in objecting, but the subsidy is being paid to the company with the distinct understanding that the government has power to fix rates on all commodities, and these rates must certainly be lower than the present rates or the rates fixed by the different steamship companies.


Arthur John Lewis: The hon. member stated
that our own steamers have already received subsidies for the mail service. In this case did the government approach our own Canadian companies, rather than go outside to Sir William Petersen, to make a contract with them?


William Duff: I am sorry the hon. gentleman is putting me in the position of a minister of the crown. I cannot answer. I do not know. I presume they did. But whether they did or not does not change the fact. I think it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the Prime Minister, who said there was no reason why they could not make a similar agreement with the Canadian Pacific steamship line or some other line. If hon. members will look at clause 1, subsection (f) of the agreement they will see that under this contract this line of steamers must carry immigrants from Great Britain or the continent of Europe at rates to be fixed by the government, and carry all Canadian mails free. So that this line of steamers will carry mails as the other lines which receive subsidies are doing.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the hon. member read further? The clause says:
If and when the parties hereto agree upon tile establishment of a passenger service-
That may be when the boats are worn out.


William Duff: It may be when the boats
are worn out, it may be to-day or tomorrow, or it may be forever. However, that does not change the fact that the government can compel them to carry mails.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
really think they are going to put on a
passenger service? Or is it not merely a question of dealing with the freight combine?


William Duff: It is primarily done to get
lower freight rates, there is no question about that. But there is no reason why a passenger service could not be carried on in conjunction with the freight service, and yet the rates be lower than they are at the present time. I do not know what kind of boats the other ten or twenty or fifty may be. They may be all passenger boats, but this government

Ocean Shipping Rates
under the contract can make any arrangement with the contractor to put on other freight boats or passenger boats or boats to carry mail.


Arthur Meighen: But the contractor has
to agree to the new terms. The terms may call for a large amount of money, and he does not need to agree if he does not want to.


William Duff: I cannot answer all these
questions. I am not in the confidence of Sir William Petersen or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am taking the contract as I read it, and in view of all the questions that have been asked, and all that has been said in regard to the contract, it seems to me that the only right and proper thing to do in order to get sufficient and proper information is to allow this resolution to go to a special committee, let this special committee summon witnesses, examine Sir William Petersen, summon the government officials and summon men from the steamship lines. In that way the committee will be able to decide whether the government is justified in asking parliament to ratify this contract or not.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
not think that should have been done before the contract was made and the government committed to this matter?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I am afraid I cannot follow
the hon. gentleman. The government must have a policy. They do not come into parliament and wait for a committee to investigate the matter before they bring down a policy.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They have done it before
in regard to freight rates.


William Duff: When?


Leon Johnson Ladner: In 1922, in connection with the Crowsnest pass agreement. When the committee reported then they adopted the policy.


William Duff: Then they have received
sufficient information from this agricultural committee and this is the policy which they think is right and proper.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am not trying to argue
with the hon. member. I am impressed with the soundness of his argument and his information; and in view of his suggestion that the matter should go to a committee, where the information could be obtained, and submitted to parliament, I am merely asking his
opinion, which would be of value to me and other members, as to whether he does not think it would be wiser that the committee should inquire and obtain the information before the government commits itself to the agreement.


William Duff: I do not think so. I have
read letters from prominent manufacturers, and I showed that it was not a new thing. The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier dealt with it in 1911. The government of Sir Robert Borden started to deal with it, but for some reason, perhaps because of the war, they did not get around to it. This question has been before the people of this country for many years. No less a personage than the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was sent to London to make an investigation. He made a splendid investigation, and he came to the conclusion that something was wrong that needed to be rectified. But because of the war and for other reasons, nothing was done by the government of either Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Sir Robert Borden. This government, however, which is a courageous government, has investigated the matter, and after hearing the evidence placed before the agricultural committee, it has laid this proposition before the House. It seems to me that we should certainly be willing to pass this resolution and let it go to the committee. After the committee investigates the matter and reports to parliament, and after we have an opportunity of reading all the evidence, if we are not satisfied, then it is time enough for us to object to any of the clauses in the agreement or in the bill based upon it. The steamship companies have nothing to fear from this government, and I do not think it is wise for them, in their pamphlet, to refer to the fact that, as I said a moment ago, this subsidy was granted. They are taking a rather peculiar attitude, which reminds me of the ditty which says:
The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;
The devil was well, the devil a monk was he.
That seems to be the way the steamship companies are looking at this proposition. When they and the railway companies could get subsidies, that was all right; but when this government in order to reduce freight rates wishes to give another company a subsidy, they object to the subsidy being paid, I think, under all the circumstances, this government is perfectly justified, in order to get the rates reduced if they are excessive, to give a subsidy to this steamship company, especially in view of the fact that the government has full power to reduce rates.
Ocean Shipping Rates

The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark! has moved the following amendment:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair but that it be resolved: That effective control of ocean rates can be exercised only with the co-operation of all portions of the empire, and by a body on which all are represented, and the contract made by the government with Sir William Petersen, based on the report of W. T. R. Preston is ill-advised, costly and futile and unworthy of the serious consideration of this House.
The hon. member, on a very grave and serious question of this House, was certainly ill-advised in introducing such an amendment, when the principal thing he said in his amendment was that this contract was based on a report by W. T. R. Preston, and was ill-advised, costly and futile and unworthy of the serious consideration of this House. That, to my mind, should make every member of this House vote against that amendment. The fact remains that this resolution is not based on Mr. Preston's report at all. This agreement was entered into on the 11th day of December, 1924, whereas Mr. Preston's report was mailed in London, England, only on December 31, 1924. How could the government make an agreement with Sir William Petersen based on the Preston report, as the hon. member states in his amendment, if Mr. Preston's report left London twenty days after the agreement was entered into?


Arthur John Lewis: Does that not nullify the report altogether, if the agreement was made before the report was received?


William Duff: The agreement is not based on the report. The report is a sort of annex to what the government already knew. It only confirms the fact that there are excessive freight rates, because as I said first in my speech, and as I repeat now for the seventeenth time, the agreement is not based on the Preston report. Prominent manufacturers have written reams of letters to the department complaining about these freight rates, and I presume the action of the government was based on this accumulation of evidence which came in from all parts of the country, and not on Mr. Preston's report.


Arthur Meighen: I read in the preamble:
And whereas the government of Canada after an investigation of the representations brought to its knowledge and after giving the same serious consideration has thought it wise-	i
And so on. What does that investigation refer to?


William Duff: I am sorry I cannot use sufficient language to make either the right hon. gentleman or some other hon. members under-

stand what I mean. Let me see if I can put it in other language. What I said was that this legislation was not based on the Preston report: that year after year complaints had been coming into the Liberal government of 1911, the Conservative government of 1911 to 1917, and my right hon. friend, when he was Prime Minister, that these freight rates were too high and that there was discrimination in certain respects. Therefore, the government had sufficient evidence to warrant them in making this agreement with Sir William Petersen or anybody else without waiting for the Preston report, whereas the hon. member for Burrard claims that the agreement is based on that report. I do not think this parliament should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Burrard, first, because there is no necessity to drag Mr. Preston into the matter at all. If the hon. member cannot give a better reason why this House should vote for his amendment and vote against the resolution, then he would have been far better advised if he had not moved it. He also states in his amendment:
That effective control of ocean rates can be exercised only with the co-operation of all portions of the empire and by a body on which all are represented.
That means that the hon. member for Burrard wishes us not to deal with the situation now, not to trj' to find a remedy in 1925, or 1926, or even 1927, because the experience of previous governments who appointed Sir George Foster and Sir Henry Drayton to look into this matter and who appointed Sir George Foster as a member of the Imperial commission, has been that it took five years for them to make a report. How could my hon. friend expect, if his amendment is adopted and an Imperial conference is called, that anything is going to be done for the Canadian people in the next two or three or, perhaps, five years? This is a matter for Canada; it is a matter for the Canadian parliament to deal with, and there is no reason why we should not make the first step in this direction, why we should not ourselves go ahead and fix these rates without consulting any other part of the empire. There is no reasonable probability of such a conference being arranged to meet in London or elsewhere within one or two years. There is no reasonable probability, should such a conference ever be held, of members of the conference arriving at any satisfactory conclusion respecting Canadian interests. We must not forget that a great deal of the capital invested in these steamship companies is British capital and that an Imperial conference is certainly not going to give to Canada anything other than it is compelled to.

Ocean Shipping Rates


Arthur Meighen: Why was the matter
not taken up at the Economic conference?


William Duff: I really do not know. Further, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand could not possibly be expected to understand Canadian conditions so as to arrive at any conclusion that would be satisfactory to this country. The history of the Imperial conference and Imperial Colonial conference is that years elapsed before any reasonable conclusions were arrived at. The Colonial conference of 1911 suggesting the appointment of an Imperial Dominions Royal Commission reported in 1917, or six years after they first met. The conclusions of this conference of 1911 which reported in 1917 have not been acted upon prior to this date. Does that answer my right hon. friend's question why the Imperial Economic conference cannot deal with this matter? The English people are great people, but they are pretty slow in some matters, and we Canadians, who are swift, do not want to wait until the British government reports on this matter. With these facts staring one in the face, the futility of suggesting that the present question should be referred to another commission of this character is obvious, and the suggestion too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment. I therefore think that parliament should unhesitatingly reject the amendment that has been submitted by the hon. member for Bur-rard (Mr. Clark). Rather, let those hon. gentlemen who may be appointed to act on the proposed committee get together and consider all the facts from every possible angle; let them take all the evidence which they deem necessary, either from government officials or from representatives of the steamship companies, so that they may be able to come to a sound and a fair conclusion. We want to give everyone a square deal, and if the committee should find that rates cannot equitably be reduced on any commodity, whether it be wheat or cattle or anything else, then let them report to parliament accordingly. I do say, however, that it is time the air was cleared. In t'he interests not only of the companies concerned but of the common people of the country as well it is highly essential that there should be a show down, and I trust that the committee after proper investigation will report to parliament something which will be satisfactory to the people of Canada at large, whether they be shippers, producers, or the plain folk in the ordinary walks of life.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) who is a practical man in the shipping business, had concluded his well-reasoned address, in which he told us that the objections to the Petersen contract came from the friends of the official opposition. But it is significant that these objections come from the rank and file of the people, demonstrating their endorsation of the attitude of the official opposition towards the proposal of the government. For instance, I have before me a communication from the Vancouver Board of Trade, one of the largest organizations of commercial and business men on the Pacific coast, containing some 2,000 members and representative of all the business interests of Vancouver- yes, and of inland districts of the province. This is in the form of a letter to the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and after pointing out that the council of the board had met, it proceeds:
Having had an opportunity of perusing the report of Mr. W. T. R. Preston regarding the North Atlantic Steamship Combine, and having studied the proposed agreement contained in the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day for Monday, February 23, the council unanimously resolve, that this board again express to you the strongest opposition to the granting of this subsidy on the ground that it is not in the public interest and will not be effective in 1 educing freight rates.
There is the opinion of a body of business men who know what will conduce to the best interests of the country generally. In today's papers I notice that the Montreal Board of Trade and the Montreal Corn Exchange have taken a similar stand. I also have a telegram from a body of men who probably are better acquainted with the shipping business than even the members of the Vancouver Board of Trade; I refer to the Vancouver Merchants' Exchange. They have addressed a telegram to Hon. T. A. Low, Minister of Trade and Commerce, which reads as follows:
The Vancouver Merchants' Exchange, representative of the shipping and exporting interests of this port, is of opinion that there exists no need for the reported subsidy to shipping or any interference with the operation of the regular economic laws in this regard, but that if it be deemed advisable by reason of conditions of which we are unaware to take such action, opportunity should be first given a full examination and discussion of the matter as affecting the entire export trade of Canada. It is further requested that no action be taken by the government until such opportunity has been afforded.
Ocean Shipping Rates

The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) urged as the chief point in his address that the government should be commended for taking some steps with respect to the alleged combine; but he adds the qualification, that they should first, through a special committee, find out if such a combine exists; and, if so, the way in which it adversely affects the interests of Canada; and thereupon the special committee should recommend to this House ways and means of meeting the situation in the interests of the people generally. It seems to me that the government has got the cart before the horse. Having received this report from Mr. Preston, they at once proceeded to conclude a contract with Sir William Petersen.
As to the report, I think hon. members looking at it dispassionately will declare it to be full of political prejudice and intended for party propaganda. It contains statements of fact, but interwoven with these statements are subtle implications reflecting upon what he deems to be the failure of preceding governments to take obvious steps to remedy the condition of affairs which he assumes to be long standing. Here is a paragraph which T find on page 7 of the Preston report:
Following the defeat of the Laurier government, however, Mr. Larkin was replaced by Sir George E. Foster, the latter being nominated by the new Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden. It was expected that the report would be produced by this Imperial commission [within two or three years, but five years elapsed before it was available.
Now the implication, of course, which is here is that the Conservatives, having assumed office and being in league with the big interests, allowed this matter to stand in order that it should be rendered fruitless; and reading the report from one end to the other I say it is a fair statement to make that there are political insinuations and propaganda for elections sticking out of it in every line; it is not a report founded on the real merits of this question. If the government had been sincere in trying to arrive at the real unadulterated truth and facts of this question so far as the north Atlantic conference is concerned, they would have done as the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) suggested they should have done-they would have had either a commission or some semi-judicial body sitting in an unprejudiced manner to hear the merits and demerits of all sides of the case; they would have had witnesses from the north Atlantic conference come there, representatives of the steamship companies and of public bodies such as boards of trade and railway corporations-in fact everybody interested in this matter-they would have submitted 
the facts and the evidence to this body or commission and then this parliamentary committee, as is now suggested, would make a report to the House of the facts with theii recommendations.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware whether the government made a contract with Sir William Petersen before or after the Preston report?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think the facts disclosed show very clearly that the contract with Sir William Petersen was made about the time of the Preston report or before it. At any rate the report was based largely upon the information which, perhaps, the government had received in an unofficial manner from Mr. Preston, and from other sources in a general way. But my point is this: That the parties who are really interested, and who have been carrying on the transportation business on the Atlantic ocean for many years, and who would be adversely affected by the proposed legislation, have not, according to their own declaration, been allowed to submit the facts as they see them, or to suggest what they would propose to do as a solution of the problem; and in my humble opinion the government in levelling this popgun of a combine breaker is doing so largely for political purposes prior to an election; it is not pursuing a wise course and it is not sincere.


Thomas Andrew Low: The "popgun" appears to be
creating quite a stir.


Leon Johnson Ladner: No, what is causing the
stir is the amount of money that will be required to shoot the popgun off. Mr. Preston in his report states that his investigation extended months beyond his expectations, and yet he did not, according to their own statements, go and see the very people, who constitute the combine or north Atlantic conference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this question seriously and vitally affects western Canada, and particularly the port of Vancouver. That is one of the reasons why I am addressing the House in respect to it. The exports from British Columbia for the year ending March 31, 1922, amounted to $71,000,000, and for the fiscal year 1923, to $97,000,000; and in 1924 they jumped to $140,000,000, an increase of $43,000,000. There are over forty-five different steamship lines operating out of Vancouver, and most of these are running between that port and the United Kingdom and the continent. Under this proposed agreement the country is not only risking $13,000,000-not risking it but giving it away-but the commercial and transportation interests of Canada, and the people

Ocean Shipping Rates
as a whole, are facing a dislocation of national trade conditions. It would be impossible to know at what moment Sir William Petersen may fail in his undertaking and thus bring about the consequences likely to result from a failure. Later I will deal with the agreement which he entered into in 1897 with the Dominion government in connection with the steamship proposition at that time.
I have taken the trouble of looking over a history of shipping so far as the British Empire is concerned, and I have found that during the four hundred years' experience in Great Britain, shipping subsidies having commenced about the reign of Elizabeth, there is no record of any such experiment as this government proposes to carry out on the north Atlantic against this huge shipping combine. The report to the British government of the select standing committee on steamship subsidies as far back as 1902, when a very thorough report was given, makes the statement, which is very significant in view of the present proposal of this government, that:
Trade interests are not considered except so far as mail services follow the line of great commercial traffic.
That is, in giving mail subsidies the principle the British government has evolved, after generations and centuries of experience in the actual world of shipping, is that they do not give subsidies to influence rates or-to seriously influence trade, but they have given subsidies for mail services so far as mail services follow the line of great commercial traffic. The reason for giving these subsidies, according to the statement, was to follow the great commercial routes. The object of subsidies, according to the policy of the British government during the last one hundred years, has been to provide speed and regularity of postal service, and they also provide for the use of the vessels during war. There is only one instance where that rule has been departed from, and it is in the establishment of a subsidy for the West Indian service to Jamaica, to encourage the fruit trade of those islands.
It is significant to note the hopes of Sir William Petersen in connection with this contract. These words have been mentioned before but they can bear repeating. Sir William Petersen is addressing his shareholders and as the head of this company is telling them what fine things are in store for them. I quote this from a publication of the Vancouver Board of Trade. It says, quoting the words of Sir William Petersen to his shareholders :
You have to go in search of business now-a-days.
Apparently he headed right for our government here.
I have been on a business trip which may bring a considerable measure of success to this country.
It will materialize within the next few months, and in the early spring we will see our ships sailing under very much more prosperous conditions than at present prevail, with steamship companies dependent on existing low freights. We will be independent of the existing freight market. It is not a prophecy but also an almost accomplished fact. I am the biggest shareholder in this company, and I shall try to get as many shares as I can. Do not sacrifice your shares.
Are those the words of a man who expects to be an altruist to the people of Canada? Those are the words of a keen business man who has got a contract made against the people of Canada, and he is advising his shareholders to pick up all the shares they can because they are going to make som* money on them. Sir William Petersen at the present time owns three steamers that we in Vancouver know about. They had one in 1924 under time charter to a Vancouver firm; another is under time charter to a Vancouver firm at the present time. In working out this contract, Sir William Petersen, as has been pointed out by various speakers, has it within his power under the terms of the contract to substitute in his place a company which the government are bound to accept, without qualification. No matter what kind of a company he may get hold of, no matter whether it is loaded up with mortgages, heavily bonded or otherwise under obligation, Sir William Petersen may bring the ships under that company and always be within the terms of the contract. In so doing, as has been pointed out by at least two speakers, he receives $1,350,000. The boats will cost, I understand, about $500,000 each or $5,000,000 for the ten. The ten boats can be purchased on time payments of one-tenth each year, or $500,000. The interest on the money amounts to $250,000 for the first year. So that the payments which Sir William Petersen or his company must make in any given year, or rather in the first year, amount to $750,000. He receives $1,350,000; so he has a net profit, or money available, of $600,000 if he operates his boats at cost, without making anything on the freight. If the North Atlantic Steamship Conference are operating boats at a rate at which they must make a profit, naturally it will be very easy for Sir William Petersen to carry on his operations at a lower rate than theirs, complying in that respect with the agreement that he has with the government and thereby put in his pocket $600,000 a year. I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) if he has got any answer to that proposition. He has made no reply to any hon. member who has urged it so far, nor is there anything in
Ocean Shipping Rates

the text of this agreement that can be argued as giving the minister power to stop Sir William Petersen making a profit of $6130,000 a year, which amount increases every year of the contract. The minister is silent.


Thomas Andrew Low: He will have an opportunity
later.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have heard three speakers make that point, and it is a very important one, and I have not yet heard the minister reply to it. I do not see how he can get around it. It seems to me that with the many one-sided features of this contract, Sir William Petersen has a very fine agreement, and can carry on his financial operations to an even greater extent than is indicated by these figures.
The Foreign Trade Bureau of the Vancouver Boardi of Trade, whose chairman is one of the largest exporters of lumber in Canada, or in British Columbia at all events, makes a very good comment with respect to this question. They say: One steamer will carry 1,800,000 bushels of wheat. It earns a subsidy of $135,-
000.	That subsidy equals 7| cents per bushel, which is the total freight rate from Montreal to Liverpool. But unfortunately these ten steamers could only move about ten per cent of Canada's usual transatlantic wheat movement; so ninety per cent must pay the higher freight rate. Now, who is going to be favoured in the ten per cent of that movement? And who will have the power to give the favours? That is something which I think would be hard for the Petersen people to carry out. If you apply the carrying capacity to lumber, the subsidy amounts to $16,000 per voyage, and in sixty voyages, which is all that the ten steamers can make in any one year, the lumber rate will amount to $4.50 per thousand feet board measure; and they can carry only a very small proportion of the export lumber business of British Columbia.
Now, I shall say a few words on the agreement. Sir William Petersen made an agreement with the Dominion government many years ago, in 1897.


James Arthurs: Are the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine carrying much British Columbia goods at the present time?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The merchant marine does carry considerable goods in the way of export from British Columbia, but the unfortunate thing is that although the government some time ago, after a great deal of persuasion and hundreds of telegrams and after eight or ten

visits of delegations from boards of trade, made the promise that they would establish a customs officer in New York-and headlines a yard wide appeared in the government papers telling us the good news-yet they surrounded that officer with regulations of such a kind that he was absolutely useless, and he does not help the freight at all-that is, the trade between eastern Canada and Vancouver and vice versa.


James Arthurs: What about the export trade ?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The merchant marine does carry a considerable quantity of lumber, and I believe is getting along very well in that respect.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Would the hon. member be in favour of continuing the merchant marine in that trade and on that route?


Leon Johnson Ladner: My idea would be to continue the merchant marine on those routes where the steamers are paying or giving a service of value to the country; but where they are not paying or giving a service of value to the country, the government could use them instead of buying these ten new ships, or paying some other man to buy ten new ships.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Are the ships
not doing better on the Pacific coast than on the other coast?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I believe in most cases on the Pacific coast they are making a profit, and where they are making a profit it is only common sense to leave them there to continue making a profit, because government institutions are so much the other way that when we find a ray of light in that respect, we ought to encourage it.


Donald Sutherland: The Prime Minister says they are no good.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They seem to satisfy the trade of British Columbia in a number of lines.


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. member advocate us withdrawing the east-and-west service through the Panama canal that has been established by the merchant marine?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I certainly do not; I would be insane if I did.


George Perry Graham: I do not want my hon. friend to go that far; but he takes strong ground that we should not run any of these boats where they are not at present paying, and I thought it rather queer.

Ocean Shipping Rates


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman perhaps was not paying attention to my remarks. I took good care to say, where they were not paying or giving good service to the country. In 1897 the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier made an agreement with Sir William Petersen and his associates, and I am told that Sir William Petersen failed to live up to the contract and forfeited his deposit, which was afterwards returned to him. The point I wish chiefly to make ia that connection is this. Why not insert thp same precautions and equally sound provisions in this agreement? This agreement, from a lawyer's point of view, is the most one-sided and open agreement you could possibly conceive of. There are no penalties. The worst the minister can do is to serve notice that the agreement is at an end. That may be very favourable to Sir William Petersen, and would not be helpful to the government.
I would like to draw the attention of the government to one or two of the clauses of this agreement, because they are very important, and we do not know whether the government is going to hold us hard-and-fast to the letter of this agreement, or whether the committee is going to change it, and whether a compromise is going to be reached after a further conference with Sir William Petersen I therefore think it is necessary to comment on these clauses, because we may be faced with that condition when the bill finally comes down. The first clause, as I have already pointed out, provides that the government shall accept the company which Si; William Petersen forms. In my judgment there should have been a provision by which that companj' should be such as met with the approval of the minister, because in company promotions and organizations it is possible to so organize a company as to completely defeat the end that the government seek in a contract of this kind. It is possible to work all kinds of ingenious schemes by means of control of directors, encumbrances, bond issues and many other matters, by which a company would be an empty quantity, so far as being a party to a contract of this kind is concerned.
My next point, -and one which chiefly aSects British Columbia, is found in subsection (d) of clause one which says:
That the control and regulation of the rates to be charged by the contractor shall rest with the government of Canada and that the government shall fix such transportation rates on all commodities from time to time.
British Columbia received a very severe blow at the hands of this government when 70
they allowed the Crowsnest pass agreement to come into force. We have been attacked by land on the railways and we are now being attacked by sea on the Pacific coast, because just as soon as the government brings in preferential rates under the Petersen contract, if it accomplishes the purpose for which the government made this contract, it is going to lower the ocean rates on the Atlantic coast, and in that way create a discrimination against shipping rates from the British Columbia coast or from western Canada, because the government will not be exercising that paternal and wise influence and directing their forces against any combines on the Pacific side of the North American continent. I should like to ask the minister how he is going to protect the western provinces against an adverse result under this contract and according to that provision, or how he can protect it. If the minister is reading his notes I will wait for a reply. If he does not propose to answer the question I will go ahead.


Arthur Meighen: He will never answer it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I take it our addresses
on this contract are in the nature of a debate, when an exchange of ideas would be of some advantage, and coming from Vancouver it is my duty and purpose to place before the government my views of our responsibility in the matter as we see them, and when the time comes to face the public we will tell them what we have done and the answer that the government has given us. I suggest this clause should be added to subsection
(d)-


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Then the hon. gentleman is admitting there is a combine?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am not admitting there is a combine. I do not know.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I thought the hon. member admitted that by inference.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the government is
serious in the attempt to lower freight rates on the Atlantic, and their proposition is well conceived and they do lower these rates, is it not plain to the hon. member that it will have an adverse effect upon shipments from the Pacific coast through the Panama canal?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens, P.E.I.):: That is quite true, but the agreement embodies all the ports, and Vancouver would be included,
I think.


Leon Johnson Ladner: No. The intention of the agreement is to control freight rates on the Atlantic between Europe and Canada.

Ocean Shipping Rates


George Perry Graham: Would this be a fair inference: that if the government is right and my hon. friend is partially wrong, and it does transpire that the ocean rates on the Atlantic are controllable by the government, immediately following that the same principle would apply to the Pacific?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Apply to what?


George Perry Graham: To the Pacific ocean.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Apply .the agreement?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member does
not get me, perhaps. I ask him if this would not be a fair inference: that if it transpired that the government was right and succeeded in this attempt to control ocean rates on the Atlantic, taking his version of it would it not follow,, as night follows day, that that success on the Atlantic would immediately be followed by the application of a like principle on the Pacific?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Not necessarily at all.


George Perry Graham: Well, I might say that it would.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The goods are shipped from Vancouver to Europe; the competition is between the ports on the St. Lawrence in eastern Canada and Europe-


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman does not get me.


Mr LADNER:: Yes I do. The point is
that if you reduce the freight rates on the Atlantic from an economic point of view, it has an effect on the Pacific.


George Perry Graham: No, I said that if the
government were successful, as they hoped to be, in getting control of ocean rates on the Atlantic, it would follow as a matter of course that that success on the Atlantic would immediately be followed by the government applying the same principle on the Pacific.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the government prepared to say they will do so?


George Perry Graham: Most assuredly.


Arthur Meighen: A safe promise.


George Perry Graham: This government always
makes safe promises.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister really
think that a proposition like this which would control about two per cent of the freight between Canada and the continent is going to affect the freight rates on the Pacific?


George Perry Graham: If it does not control more than two per cent, I should imagine the other ninety-eight per cent would not be making such a fuss.


Arthur Meighen: What fuss are they
making?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not think there is any suggestion beyond the inference in the minister's words, that they are making any fuss. They are placing their case before the body that is going to make the law and they have not had an opportunity to do so previously. Mr. Preston in his report says:
My only regret is that the investigation extended months beyond my expectations.
And yet the statement of the steamship companies is that he never came near them. What kind of information is that to justify the government entering into a contract of this kind? I presume the minister also includes the boards of trade of Montreal and Vancouver and all the business men of the country , among those who are complaining against the proposed subsidy.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member is wrong again. He asserted that only two per cent of the traffic would be affected.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Of the total trade.


George Perry Graham: The other ninety-eight
per cent need not be very much afraid of our making a very great disturbance. He need not worry about the effect that two per cent of the trade would have on the other ninety-eight per cent. The other question the hon. member asked was, would there be an opportunity for the people who were reasonably opposed to this scheme to be heard? That is just what the government proposes in submitting the whole thing to a committee, where all objections can be heard.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. minister
think that if business men are lampooned in a reckless report they are not likely to protest?


George Perry Graham: I do not object to that at all. If I were one of the ship owners I would feel that my business was interfered with and I would protest.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister pot
agree with me that what the steamship companies are complaining of is not so much that they fear the competition of these wonderful boats of Petersen's, but that they object to a wrong accusation, and, as they say, the false statements made against them and affecting their honour without consulting them.

Ocean Shipping Rates
They feel it is a dishonourable thing for a government to appoint, in an official way, a representative who pretends to go into the matter and gather evidence, from the very companies affected, when on the facts submitted it appears he did not do any such thing. They have a reason to object, whether their interests are materially affected or not. I would suggest that a provision which I shall give should be added to subsection (d) of clause 1. The present clause reads:
That the control and regulation of the rates to be charged by the contractor shall rest with the government of Canada and that the government shall fix such transportation rates on all commodities from time to time.
I suggest that there be added these words:
But such rates shall be made with due regard to rates on similar classes of goods, products or commodities between the province of British Columbia or other western /provinces of Canada and Great Britain or Ireland or the continent of Europe, so that there shall not be any unfair discrimination of rates as against goods, products or commodities between British Columbia via the Panama canal or other ocean route and the said western provinces of Canada on the one part and Great Britain or Ireland or the continent of Europe on the other part.
I would refer the government also to a provision in the agreement which makes it possible, at the option of Sir William Petersen to put on any number of ships that he likes and then to call on the government to pay the money. This point was referred to before, but I want to refer to it again. That is contained in clause 3 which states:
And the subsidy aforementioned shall be increased or reduced as the case may be in proportion to the number of ships operated and maintained by the contractor in the service aforesaid from time to time and such increase or reduction of subsidy shall be added to or deducted from the monthly payments hereinbefore provided for in paragraph two.
Therefore, if Sir William Petersen gets the idea that he wants to put on twenty ships instead of ten, he is able to ask the government to give him $2,700,000 instead of $1,3150,000 a year, and instead of making $600,000 for himself, as he can,-and as to this the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) refused to answer or to give any explanation-make $1,200,000. It was said the other day that clause 6 provided a remedy in the hands of the minister. Clause 6, I submit, merely gives the minister power to act if Sir William Petersen does not act. It is an option in favour of the minister, by which the minister may say: In my judgment that trade requires more boats: therefore I give you three months' notice, and-*
The contractor shall arrange to place additional ships up to the number of ten in this service on an increase in subsidy in proportion to the number of ships actually placed in service.
70J
No one can deny that there is at least a possibility of a double interpretation, to pul the case mildly and in the most favourable aspect to the government. Clause 9 states:
And the contractor covenants and agrees that the vessels in the said service shall prosecute all voyages made by them with all possible speed and despatch.
I submit that the minister should have some power to fix the dates and ports of sailings in order to meet the needs of the trade. The whole thing is in the hands of Sir William Petersen. He can fix the dates of sailings to suit himself. Clause 10 states:
The minister shall have the privilege at his option of entering into contracts for like purposes with any other contractor or contractors.
For my part, I would object to any government, whether Liberal or Conservative or any other kind, giving to a minister unlimited and full power to make contracts with sundry people unknown to parliament for any number of ships and on the basis upon which they might agree. It was said the other day that parliament would have to vote the money. That may be so before the money is paid, but the contract is binding upon the Parliament of Canada just as a contract would be upon an individual once it is signed. This contract gives to the minister full power to make whatever contract he likes and on whatever basis he may determine.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest to the minister that when he revises this contract, as he is going to do, because the Prime Minister said so, he should read the contract made between Sir William Petersen and the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1897. This contract will be found at page 3977 of Hansard of June 14, 1897. There are in that contract provisions which are so palpably and clearly in the interest of the people of Canada that it is beyond me to understand why the government has left them out of this contract, unless it has done so for some purpose beneficial to Sir William Petersen as regards which the people of Canada might be suspicious. I will refer the House to some of those provisions. This afternoon, we had a little discussion back and forth with the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) in regard to these vessels having to travel between Canada and Great Britain. In the contract of 1897, almost the same words are used. The contract reads that the contractor is:
To build, equip, provide, establish, and during this contract to continue and in the manner hereinafter mentioned, a regular steamship service between the port of Liverpool and the Canadian ports hereinafter named.
The ports were specified. Yet they took precaution to insert another clause in these words:
Ocean Shipping Bates


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: After hearing the exhaustive address this afternoon of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), himself a practical shipping man, I approach the subject of the debate with a rather greater degree of diffidence than usual. I realize that I am uttering what is a truism when I repeat the statement that has been so often made in the debate that the question of transportation, both by land and by sea, is one of very great importance to the people of the country and, I would add, a constant challenge to the best efforts of the government and of parliament. It is also a truism that a nation that has not the facilities for quick and easy communication, for rapid, efficient and cheap transportation, is a nation
that cannot hope to hold its own in competition with the other nations of the world. This country is in urgent need of the very best facilities in the way of transportation, because of its great distances internally, from coast to coast, and the considerable distances that must be covered in the carnage overseas of its surplus products of factory and farm. I refer to this particularly because it closely affects the question of ocean freight rates. The farmers of western Canada produce large quantities of wheat in excess of the requirements of the country itself, so that of necessity this surplus must find a market overseas. Ont reason why it is indispensable that there should be a market overseas is the fact that the country to the south of us, which otherwise might be available to our producers, has erected high tariff walls against practically all the products of Canada. The products of our factories must also to some extent find a foreign market. It would I think be possible to prove that we have over-built in the matter of manufacturing establishments. And that is not a reflection on anyone. During the optimistic years of the war, or immediately following the war, our manufacturers with laudable enterprise branched out, perhaps just a little further than was justifiable. The result is that if these establishments are to be kept going and our workmen are to be employed, markets must be found in other countries. We speak of the necessity for greater production. But production to an extent greater than is needed to supply the needs of our own country is useless unless we can find markets for our surplus; and markets cannot be found, or if found cannot be taken advantage of, unless we have transportation at such a cost as will enable us to compete with other nations. I say therefore that the question of transportation rates, both by land and by sea, indirectly concerns all the people of Canada; so that all should work together with a view to providing whatever remedy may be necessary to improve such conditions as may be at fault at the present time.
Now, Sir, I make no claim to special knowledge of the shipping business and for that reason, asT said before, I approach the subject with a good deal of hesitancy. I have not the knowledge of my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. McBride) or of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), both ship owners, who both speak with authority. But I have followed the debate thus far with close attention and an open mind and certainly without any partisan feeling, and I am now trying to form my conclusions on the basis strictly of common sense and fair play. In this regard I
Ocean Shipping Rates

deplore the attitude of some of our friends diagonally opposite, who rather than debate the case strictly on its merits seem to find considerable enjoyment in abusing what one might call the plaintiff's attorney; they are paying more attention to the personality of the author of what is known as the Preston report than to the statements of fact and the findings thereon as presented in the report.
I should say that the subject might with advantage be approached in a threefold way: First, is there a combine? Second, is there a malignant combine? If such a combine exists, has it been using its power as a monopoly, to extort unfair rates and profits from the people of this country? And, finally, is the remedy proposed in this resolution best calculated to serve the purpose which we desire to achieve? I contend, Mr. Speaker, there is very little necessity for attempting to prove that a combine exists. One might almost say that the conference itself admits the existence of a combine, for the word "conference" in my mind connotes the word "combine", in this particular instance, and to me it seems to be a distinction without a difference. Certainly it is admitted even by those associated in the conference that they have an understanding for the fixing of rates, and that they abide by those rates. As to whether the combine is unfair and rapacious in its operations, one must judge by the evidence that has been adduced. I admit that after reading the Preston report I felt that a very good case had been made out. I have also read some of the reports and heard some of the speeches referring to the findings of my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton); I have read some of the statements and some of the letters by the former Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition, which rather bear out the contention that there was a combine, and that it was acting in such a way as to prejudice unfairly the interests of Canadian exporters and importers. So it seems to me there is very little reason to doubt that this combine did use its power to charge "all that the traffic would bear." And is not that the very nature of a combine? Every combine is formed primarily for the one purpose-to benefit itself. There is no doubt about that, and it follows logically and naturally that the benefits sought by the combine will be provided at the expense of those with whom it does business. Consequently, while I am ready to admit that possibly a combine might be conducted without disadvantage to those doing business with it, yet I think that is pretty much a matter of theory and not of practice. I believe it is possible, and some-

times quite desirable, to unite several lines of business into one organization, for by so doing they may be able to operate more cheaply through improving their methods, and they usually eliminate considerable overhead in the marketing of their product. But I also believe it is almost axiomatic that where a combine exists, especially if it reaches the point of being a monopoly, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is conducted so as to be prejudicial to the interests of those with whom it does business. I have not very much doubt that if the north Atlantic conference is a combine it is no exception to what I say. If that be true, if we have a combine of that nature, then, Mr. Speaker, I contend that it becomes the duty of the government to apply such remedies as it may see fit.
I should like to discuss then for a few moments the remedy, and this is where a disagreement seems to take place. I regret that in the criticisms offered from the other side of the House no very practical alternative has been suggested in place of that proposed by the government, with one exception, that proposed by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), with which I shall deal a little later. It has been suggested that we ought to use the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in connection with this work. I had the pleasure of being a member of the committee last year that dealt with the estimates of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and during the course of the investigation I think it was pretty well established by unimpeachable authority-because we had before us people who know more about those ships than any hon. members-that those vessels are not adapted for the work which the ships named in this contract are supposed to undertake. Our ships are not properly built, and there seems to be very little doubt that they never will be able to make good in competition with the ships that now ply between the great ports of the world. I would suggest in connection with the contract made with Sir William Petersen, if it were at all possible, that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) would be doing a service to the country if he could induce Sir William Petersen to take over these merchant marine boats.
Then we have the criticism that the scheme is too small, that it is a mere drop in the bucket, or, as my hon. friend who preceded me (Mr. Ladner) termed it, a popgun. If that be true, I would reply that it would seem rather strange, if this proposition is so negligible and will have so little effect upon

Ocean Shipping Rates
the operations of the north Atlantic conference, that the conference should make so much fuss about it. Besides, I think the suggestion was made by the Prime Minister the other day in reply to the leader of the opposition, that if it is found that the present scheme is too small there is always the possibility of enlarging it if it gives promise of success. Personally I do not care to embark on a large expenditure of money in subsidies, but if the scheme does work out satisfactorily I for one am ready to consider broadening it out.
In the course of the debate on the Address I was a little disappointed at the tenor of the remarks of my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, who, I am sorry, is not in his seat. I have a great regard for him personally, for his clear analytical mind, his trenchant eloquence, and the logical way in which he reasons out his conclusions; and yet in his criticism of this scheme-which at that time I admit was not completely before the House-he seemed to be reduced to the necessity of reciting a couple of lines of poetry breathing discouragement and depression, the doleful couplet from Childe Harold:-
Man marks the earth with ruin-his control
Stops with the shore.
Surely my friend knows that poetry is the product of the imagination and that very often it is the absolute negation of fact.


Mr. FORKE:: Poetry and politics do not
mix.


William Daum Euler: I should say not, and I am surprised that the practical mind of thp leader of the opposition would permit him to resort to poetry of this kind. The poet by the exercise of his fancy and the skilful use of words and rhythm and rhyme, symbol and metaphor, and all the arts of the practised writer, is usually able so' to charm the ears of his listeners and engage them in the contemplation of the beauties he depicts that they entirely lose sight of the fact that what he is saying is contrary to truth and cold fact. This fits the case in connection with the quotation the right hon. gentleman gave. Besides that, it might be fair to consider that the poet Byron died about a hundred years ago. I hope, however, that the right hon. gentleman does not consider himself back in a generation so far away as that.
I was going to say that instead of taking a hopeless view of the difficulty as the leader of the opposition apparently does, and I am sure he does realize that we have a difficulty to contend with and an injustice to correct, I think that as a man of courage, as I know he is. he should make some real effort to
suggest some remedy, if the present proposal does not please him, and then go on with the determination to correct the difficulty. In this connection I like the undaunted spirit of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), and I desire to pay him my very sincere respects. He is the oldest member of this House, and yet the most forward-looking in his progressivism, and I am thinking of that with a small "p". At the risk of being reproached with what I said a few moments ago, I should like to say of him, if he does not resent it: "Age cannot wither nor custom stale his infinite variety." The hon. gentleman is a progressive in spirit; I am not applying that word to him in the party sense. He is a progressive, perhaps strangely enough, in the Conservative party. It might also be possible to find a few liberals and conservatives -again with a small "1" and a small "c"-in the ranks of my Progressive friends across the way. It might even be possible to discover, if a careful search were made, a few conservatives on this side of the House. I am now speaking with reference to the question of public ownership, to which the subject under discussion is akin.
Now I would like to speak for a few moments on the methods which have been suggested for applying a remedy in connection with the steamship combine. Frankly, I like best of all the suggestion of my hon. friend from South York-


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: -when he says that the remedy for our troubles in regard to transportation both on the ocean and on the land is the uniting of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National into one great system. I know that that suggestion comes with somewhat of a shock, the first time it is made, to a great many members on this side of the House, and to some on the other side, although probably not so many. I hardly believe that I can fairly be charged with being a dreamer or a visionary. I hope I view in a practical way the problems that come before this House. I remember very clearly about eighteen or twenty years ago in the city from which I come, the city of Kitchener, there lived a man by the name of Daniel B. Detweiler, and in the village of St. Jacobs, eight miles farther to the north, a man by the name of Elias W. B. Snyder once a representative in the local House at Toronto. Both these men, by the way, were of Mennonite extraction, and they both dreamed the same dream at the same time That dream was that the great cataract of
Ocean Shipping Rates

Niagara Falls might be harnessed and the power from the falls be distributed over western Ontario to turn the wheels of our factories, and to light and heat our homes. I well remember at a meeting of the board of trade in my home town Mr. Detweiler urging that a committee be appointed to look into the question of the development of Niagara power and its distribution throughout western Ontario. There was so much skepticism in the meeting that of all the gathering there Mr. Detweiler himself was appointed a committee of one to try to promote his idea. Yet that dream has come true. These two gentlemen from the riding which I have the honour to represent were the one3 who first conceived of the development of Niagara power, which later was carried out through the genius and executive ability of Sir Adam Beck. Now if that dream came true, why should not the other come true? You have to-day the National railways. Who would have thought, ten or twelve years ago, that 22,000 miles of railway, the greatest railway system in the world, would be in the public ownership of the people of Canada? And I want to say that, despite the efforts of those who do not believe in the public ownership of railways, the National railways are here to stay, and that in my opinion, if ever there is to be a monopoly of railways in this country, it will be a monopoly owned and controlled by the people of Canada.
Now sir, we have these two great railway systems, practically parallel in many respects, duplicated at many points and both well conducted under the leadership of the executive of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the leadership of Sir Henry Thornton. Yet, despite the fact that they are well conducted, we have duplication; we have wasteful competition ; instances have been given during this debate where we have unnecessary overhead and all that; and all at the expense of the people of Canada. Out of that condition results almost directly the deficit about which one hon. gentleman spoke a few moments ago. The time may not have arrived, the time may not be opportune, for the amalgamation of these two roads. I do not know that I am quite so optimistic as my hon. friend from South York who says it could be done in six weeks, but I do say in all seriousness that the logic of events and of common sense and of good business will result in the realizing by the people of Canada that this waste has got to stop, and that there is practically only one remedy for it. The union of the great public railway utilities of this country is reasonable, and, as I said before, 
a solution not only of our railway problem but, incidentally, of the one that we have under discussion to-day. The Canadian Pacific has a magnificent line of steamships, and if they were included in a merged system of railways in this country our problem would be solved and we would command our own fate so far as steamship rates are concerned.


Mr LADNER:: Would the hon. gentleman be in favour of the purchase of the Canadian Pacific by the government of Canada?


William Daum Euler: Yes. Call it purchase if you like, I call it amalgamation. I am coming to that in a moment. I should like to repeat the striking statement that I made on the floor of this House last session, and it seems to me an almost unanswerable argument for the suggestion made originally by the hon. member for South York: I have it on the very highest authority that if the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railways of Canada could be combined, we could effect a saving of from fifty to seventy-five million dollars each year. It seems to me that argument is almost unanswerable. That sum of money would wipe out our annual deficits- would solve the problem that is pressing upon the country from year to year, the problem of deficits, of consequent high taxes, and would solve the problem which we are discussing now. I know many hon. members are definitely against the principle of public ownership and I have no quarrel with them. I know also that some hon. members who are in favour of the National railways rather shrink at the magnitude of the merger I suggest, the acquiring of the Canadian Pacific. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) has asked me whether I would be in favour of purchasing the Canadian Pacific. Well, my answer to that was, yes; but while I do not propose to go into this at any length I see no very insuperable obstacle to doing that. It would be just as easy for the two railways combined into a national system to pay returns, interest -dividends if you like to the shareholders and the stockholders-in fact on all the obligations of the Canadian Pacific, as it is for that company to do so now. The hon. member for South York made the statement that he thought the Canadian Pacific would not be adverse to entering into such a contract. I do not know; I have no knowledge on that score, but I do believe that it might very conceivably be good business for them to do it. I say this: As the people of Canada realize more and more that the National railways are their own property and that their own

Ocean Shipping Rates
taxes depend upon their patronage of their own railway, the Canadian Pacific may come to realize that the suggestion that has been made in this House to amalgamate the two systems might be in its own interest. I realize that what has been suggested by my hon. friend, and supported by myself, may be a matter of the distant future more or less, *but failing that I have another alternative suggestion which I would prefer to the one that has been suggested by the government. And in passing, let me say, I have no fault to find with the suggestion by the government. It is, after all, the only effort that has ever been made by a government to deal with an evil that has existed for a great many years, and for that I compliment the government. I imagine that it took a good deal of courage to enter upon a conflict with such great interests as are concerned in the north Atlantic steamship combine. But I was going to refer to another alternative suggestion and that is this: If we are to pay out a sum of money aggregating some $1,300,000 each year for a period of ten years,
I would prefer if those vessels could be constructed or purchased and operated by the Dominion government itself. I am well aware of the objections that are made to that. Some of us are constitutionally opposed to public ownership. I have heard the objection raised that it would be almost impossible for the government to operate these ships to advantage, that there would be all sorts of difficulties in connection with the obtaining of terminal facilities and connections overseas. That may be true and my mind is quite open in that regard; but I had another thing in mind in making the suggestion and that was, I believe it would be in the interests of our National railways if we could have a well equipped, properly built, completely efficient line of steamships to act as a complement to that system. In what I said with regard to the great rival 1 of the .National railways I have had no antipathy or prejudice against that company, but at the same time I should like to see the National railways placed on something more of an equality with the Canadian Pacific so that they might compete successfully with it. Moreover, I should judge that a great deal of business would go to the National railways if they had a line of steamships connecting both east and west, although the suggestion now is merely for operations in the north Atlantic. Finally, Mr. Speaker, if neither of these alternatives can be adopted, and I suppose there is no likelihood of their being adopted, at this session of the House, I believe in
making some effort to fight the evil that we know of. I have already said it is my intention to support the government on the suggestion that has been made as the best that seems to be available. I think it is the duty of parliament to cope with the evil that it knows exists. The plan that is proposed is an experiment; let us call it that. It may fail; I do not know. It may be that we shall be able to strengthen it in committee, or to alter it, or to devise, something better, but the people of Canada-


Mr. MARTELL:: Will the hon. member
speak up so that we can hear him better? We always like to hear his views whether we agree with him or not, but in this quarter of the chamber we cannot hear him.


William Daum Euler: I am very sorry and I will try and speak so that I can be heard in any part of the chamber. I know that the charge of not being able to hear cannot be brought against my hon. friend for Hants (Mr. Mar-tell). I should like to say this in all seriousness: I believe that the people of Canada- the ordinary people of Canada, and we are all ordinary-are convinced there is something in this charge of a combine, and they believe also it is working to the injury of Canadian business. That being the case I am very sure they will judge severely any member of this House who will not do at least his conscientious bit to remedy the wrong he knows to exist. I know very well the difficulty of some of my hon. friends, the Progressives across the way. They are opposed to the principle of a subsidy. As a matter of fact so am I, but in public life, as in ordinary life, we cannot always have our own way and sometimes we are obliged to compromise if thereby we can obtain good. So far as I am concerned I am ready to do that. Desperate ills require desperate remedies; and I was almost going to say that if it were necessary I am ready to fight the devil with fire. What I like about the whole scheme is that it is at least a definite departure from the old condition of sitting still and bearing the imposition; it is now a case of definitely getting up and fighting the thing that has been strangling the business of Canada. The scheme is probably not perfect, but I have sufficient confidence in the breadth of view of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the rest of the government to feel assured that if, in this committee to which the whole matter is to be referred, suggestions are made that quite evidently it will be in the interests of parliament to accept, they will be accepted. For
Ocean Shipping Rates

that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to support any reasonable plan that may be suggested that will tend to destroy the power of an organization that is hampering the progress and prosperity 12 '.his country.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL:: (Mackenzie): In paying a tribute to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) for the very able and instructive address he has given us, may I say that I am glad to welcome him into the circle of those who advocate public ownership. It has always seemed to me one of the anomalies of our political life that we have a Conservative party that has been fairly consistently behind the principle of government ownership and a Liberal party just as consistently opposed to it. May I express the hope that in the future these differences will not exist, and that the Liberal party of Canada will be real liberal in principle as well as in name. The history of the operations of the north Atlantic steamship combine reveals perhaps more than anything else the impotence of governments to control, in the interests of the people, those powerful trusts that have gradually developed and have been strengthening themselves during the last fifty years or more. It is not flattering to our Canadian governmental institutions to know that it was a Canadian company, a company that enjoyed special privileges from the Canadian government, and was directly responsible for organizing, some fifteen years ago, this trust that we know has done so much to strangle Canadian trade and industry. I have here the report of Mr. Preston, and also a report issued by the steamship companies refuting a great many of his statements and arguments. I find such a difference between them, such a divergence of views, and statements so diametrically opposed to each other, that one hesitates to discuss the report at all; and if anything were necessary to prove to us the necessity of referring this to a committee where all sides of the questions could be heard and statements procured, it is the difference in these two reports. The alleged discrimination against Canadian ports in favour of American ports in the placing of insurance, and the difficulty this has placed in the way of tramp steamers coming into the ports of Montreal and Quebec, can in my opinion be overcome in one way and in one way only; and that is the way our Canadian National Railway management have overcome it. Instead of paying out large sums of money as they formerly did to private insurance companies, the Canadian National Railway management are now paying these

insurance moneys into a particular fund. The losses are taken out of that fund, and the result has been a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Canadian National Railwaj's. On page II of Mr. Preston's report we find a copy of a memorandum which Mr. Preston claims he handed to the steamship companies. In dealing with the discrimination in the placing of insurance he says:
The government has this question under serious consideration and is hopeful of permanently establishing a parity of insurance rates on the St. Lawrence with those to and from American ports.
It seems to me it is a most humiliating thing for the government of Canada to go on bended knee to private marine insurance companies and beg them to remove this discrimination. Surely the manly thing, the selfreliant thing and the statesmanlike thing for this government to do is exactly what our own Canadian National Railway management did, namely to ignore these companies, build up an insurance corporation of our own, pick some able and competent business men, put them in charge of it, and let it be run on strict business principles. I would suggest to the government that these companies charge the regular old-line company rates; but that at the end of the year, when the losses are paid, any moneys left over would be rebated pro rata to the shippers. I believe that by adopting a policy of this kind we can not only remove the discrimination but can create another discrimination; that is we can create a discrimination in favour of Canadian ports as against American ports.
Now I have not been able to secure any figures regarding profits or earnings of marine insurance companies. I do not know that any are available, but we have figures showing the earnings of fire insurance and life insurance companies in Canada, and some of these figures are very illuminating. I must admit, of course, that in life insurance the liabilities are spread over a long period of years, and one cannot properly determine the profits by the figures for a feiw years. Nevertheless these figures are so astonishing that they will at least give us some idea of what profits are actually earned. I quote from the Canada Year Book, and I find that after paying out claims, the surplus in the hands of Canadian 'life insurance companies was as follows:
1918		 $35,000,000
1919		 46,000,000
1920		 65,000,000
1921		 75,000,000
1922		 80,000,000

Ocean Shipping Rates
I believe it is not an extreme statement when I say that if we had the surpluses earned by the fire and life insurance companies of Canada since confederation with the accumulated interest they would pay off the national debt. When we come to fire insurance it is more easy to determine the actual profits, because at the end of [DOT] the year, when the policies run out and the losses are paid, anything that is left over is direct profit, outside of expenses of course. I find that in the year 1919 the amount of fire insurance placed in Canada was $4,923,000,000; the amount of premiums received $40,000,000; and the losses $16,679,000; leaving a net surplus in the hands of the companies of $23,352,000. This appears to be just an average year, because in the next year, 1920, I find the amount of fire insurance placed in Canada was $5,969,000,000; the premiums received amounted to over $50,000,000; and the losses paid $21,000,000; leaving a surplus in the hands of the company of nearly $29,000,000. Therefore it seems to me the government should take this matter into very serious consideration, and I certainly see no justification for the government placing itself in the humiliating position of coaxing these private companies to remove this discrimination against our Canadian ports.
* When we come to consider the question of rates, the greatest discrimination, or the greatest difference between pre-war rates and after-war rates seems to be in the cattle rates. We find that whereas before the war cattle were handled from Montreal to Liverpool at from $6 to $7.30 per head, at present we are paying at from $20 to $25 per head. I must say I am not very hopeful we will ever be able to build up any very large live cattle trade with Great Britain under the present circumstances. I believe that if we are ever to develop a large live cattle trade with England it will be done through the Hudson Bay route. I know that many hon. members do not agree with that statement, but those of us who have been devoting months of time and study to the consideration of the reports and information in connection with Hudson bay are firmly convinced of the truth of that statement. I find that the government propose to pay out about $14,000,000 under this agreement which is before the House to-night. For this money which is to be paid out in subsidies we will receive no direct benefit after it has been paid. If this agreement was entered into primarily to protect the interests of the cattle growers in western Canada as it has been claimed-and I think perhaps there is some ground for that proposition-before the government go ahead and carry out that primary object, the proper thing to do would be to spend this $14,000,000 in completing the Hudson Bay railway and developing the port of Nelson. I am quite certain that within a few short years hundreds of thousands of head of live cattle would be shipped from the northern portion of the prairie provinces to Great Britain via that route.	_
Another thing that would affect the live cattle trade to a considerable extent is the further development of the port of Quebec.
I have brought this matter up in this House on previous occasions and I intend to bring it up again. We find that in western Canada we can deliver our cattle on steamer at Quebec at a saving of from $4 to $5 a head. The facilities for handling cattle there are superior to those at Montreal, and the route is a little shorter over the Transcontinental railway; and I would entreat the government, if they want to assist us in developing our cattle trade, to do something further to develop the port of Quebec. The great difficulty in the way of shipping our cattle through Quebec is this, that owing to, not a discriminatory, but a prohibitive rate on grain over the Transcontinental to the city of Quebec, we are not able to make up mixed cargoes from that port. That is one of the factors in the cattle situation to-day. And while this matter is under discussion, I hope the government will see its way clear at some future time to remove that prohibitive rate and to allow some of our grain to go forward to Quebec so that mixed cargoes may be made up there. The question of government control of rates enters into this resolution. The history of government control of rates in the past has not been such as to encourage us in the 'hope that we are going to receive any material relief from the fact that the government will control rates on these steamships, because the government has absolute control of our railway rates and the government must be responsible for the retention of this prohibitive rate to which I refer.
A consideration of the report before us today, issued by Mr. Preston, reveals that it is noteworthy, not so much for what it says, as for what it fails to say. I have just been comparing it with a former report dealing with steamship rates. I refer to the report of the royal commission appointed two years ago to inquire into grain rates on the Great Lakes. In the report of that royal commission, I find that they went very fully into the earnings of the vessels, the dividends that were paid by the companies and the
Ocean Shipping Rates

values of their vessels. They gave us a great deal of evidence as to what earnings these vessels were making and they gave us further evidence to prove that the values of the vessels were inflated to show reduced earnings, whereas in reality the companies were making much more than their reports would indicate. In the report we are now considering we have not one single iota of evidence to show whether these Atlantic steamships are making enormous profits or whether, as some of the companies claim, they are really going behind. That proves the necessity of referring all this to a special committee of this House with power to bring witnesses here in order that we may obtain all possible information before we go any further.
When we come to consider rates on grain from Montreal to Liverpool, we find that there is no very great rise in those rates in comparison with pre-war figures. I have taken four different years before the war and four years after the war. I find that the cost per bushel of transhipping our grain from Montreal to Liverpool was as follows:
1912.
1913.
1914.
cents
4.15
7.52
7.82
7.04
Now we come to the after-war period:
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
cents
17.25
7.82
7.93
9.06
It is rather remarkable that our grain was transported in 1922 at the exact cost at which it was transported in 1913, notwithstanding the fact that coal, wages and overhead costs of ships had increased tremendously during that period. This may be due to the fact that one-half or more than one-half of our grain is handled by tramp steamships over which the combine has had no control.
Mr. Preston, in his report, states that in dealing with this we are faced with adopting one of two alternatives, that is, government ownership or subsidizing private lines. I have no hesitation in saying that, if we must choose between these two, in heaven's name give us government ownership rather than the continuance of a policy of granting subsidies to private concerns. We have government control of rates. We have government control of railway rates, but that has not prevented some of the most iniquitous discrimination from creeping into our rate schedules. W e have indirect government control of rates on the Great Lakes, of the steamship companies, but that has not prs-

vented those companies from fleecing us out of eight or ten million dollars a year in excess rates. I find that the government propose to pay out a subsidy of $1,375,000 a year or, in the ten years under this agreement, we would have paid out $13,750,900. I find that an annual subsidy of $1,375,000 would pay interest on a capital investment of $27,500,000. I would suggest to the government that rather than continue to pay out this subsidy with nothing to show for it at the end, we should increase the capitalization of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, if more ships are necessary, to the extent of $27,500,000. In that way I believe we would accomplish more than we shall by the plan laid before the House by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Last session we discussed at considerable length the question of trade with the West Indies. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) very ably and eloquently placed some illuminating facts before the House in connection with trade with the West Indies, and made some concrete suggestions for the further development of that trade. On that occasion the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) suggested that probably the best course to follow would be for the government to construct two ships, Specially built and equipped for carrying perishable products through tropical regions. That statement of the minister was applauded from every section of this House, I do not believe there was a dissentient voice; and that should be a clear indication to the government that parliament would prefer that policy to a continuation of a subsidy. But when I suggest a further increase of government ownership, I make that suggestion on the understanding that the government will see to it that its merchant marine in future remains out of this combine. About two years ago we had evidence produced before the special committee on Agriculture showing that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine had its feet under the conference table; that it was participating in these regular meetings for rate fixing and that, in fact, in some instances it was the principal sinner. The government must bear some responsibility for that. After nearly two years we recently had an announcement that the government merchant marine had withdrawn from this conference. Yet this same government comes forward to-day and in righteous indignation proceeds to deal with the North Atlantic Steamship Combine. In view of the fact that these prohibitory rates are maintained to prevent us from using the

Ocean Shipping Rates
Transcontinental railway for the transportation of our grain, forcing us at the head of the lakes to deliver that grain to the lake steamships whether we like it or not, and in view of the history of the Canadian merchant marine's connection with the combine, we may be pardoned for doubting to some extent the sincerity of the government. I would earnestly entreat the government to go further into the matter and give us some definite assurance that the Canadian merchant marine will in future keep strictly clear of the combine. I have here an editorial from the Manitoba Free Press in which there is discussed at considerable length the case of a shipment of cattle from Montreal to Dundee by a Colonel Mullins, a cattle shipper.


Mr. VIEN:: What is the date?


Milton Neil Campbell: The paper is torn and
the only date that appears is April 28; I am not sure whether it is 1923 or 1924, but probably it is 1924. After summing up the evidence adduced, the Free Press observes:
These documents make some things pretty clear.
First, that the Canadian cattle shippers have nothing to hope for from the Canadian government merchant marine. No privately-owned line could ha^e made a better job of trimming a cattle shipper and teaching him not to be so foolish as to try to ship Canadian cattle to British markets than the Canadian government merchant marine's performance with Col. Mullins.
Mr. Motherwell's telegram to Col. Mullins, with its formal official defence of a $27.33 rate from Montreal to Dundee gives an accurate idea of how much the Dominion Department of Agriculture can be relied upon to fight for the interests of the Canadian cattle raiser in this matter of freight rates.
With the Canadian marine in league with the shipping ring and the Dominion Department of Agriculture asleep at the switch, can anything be done?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), discussing this subject a few evenings ago, said that the time had come for us to line up either for or against the combine. The implication of that statement was that any of us who questioned the present proposal and demanded further light on it -were lining up with the combine. I must repudiate that suggestion; we in this section of the House are as anxious as are hon. gentlemen opposite to have the combine dealt with. We want a little more information, however, and in general I believe that most hon. gentlemen in this section of the House would prefer to see some more money spent on the Canadian merchant marine. We should like to see the merchant marine develop so that any money spent upon it would yield us something in return. I would urge the government to turn the whole question over to a special committee, before whom those especially interested
can appear and give testimony, so that we may have the fullest and freest discussion. We should be able to secure every possible information that would assist us in coming to an intelligent understanding on the subject. To refuse to do this, to force the agreement through the House without affording us an ample opportunity to acquire this information, is to suiTOund the whole thing with mystery and suspicion. I hope therefore that before this matter comes to a vote the government will clear up the situation by making some pronouncement of policy along this line.


Mr. W. B. SNOWBALL (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology
for prolonging the debate on this subject, as I look upon the action of the government in grappling with ocean freight rates as being as important and far-reaching as an3^ legislation that will come before this parliament. Every citizen in Canada, manufacturer, farmer or labourer, will be beneficially affected by the decrease in transportation charges, whether on land or sea. In dealing with the report I wish to eliminate Mr. Preston entirely, as he is only the instrument used, or the spade that dug up the facts.
The report deals with the problem as to whether there is a combine, conference or sitting-in of certain large shipping interests to consider and make or maintain freight and passenger rates; and I am satisfied that in this particular the case has been established. But if not, I have my own personal experience to draw from. I have before me both the report and the reply of the steamship lines, copies of which have been placed in the hands of some of us. While the reply is not signed, there appears in it some of the names of large shipping companies that operate on the north Atlantic. I do not see anywhere in the document the name of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I find that the steamship companies in this reply take exception to what Mr. Preston states on page 3. I would quote the following from their reply:
As mentioned previously in this report there is no " combine " (which in the present day acceptation of the term implies a monopoly), but merely an association of the regular lines, constituting a very small portion of the carriers on the Atlantic, who have agreed among themselves to quote on various commodities equivalent rates subject to change on notice.
I wonder if that does not mean a combine. I think it establishes very fully, at least it does to my mind, the fact that Mr, Preston was right when he said that there was a conference almost equivalent to a combine.
In April, 1922, the British Admiralty sent a gentleman from England to dispose of the accumulation of war lumber stocks held in
Ocean Shipping Rates

to the Preston report shows, as well as their action in having people around here trying to find out what the attitude of parliament will be. But if we are loyal to Canada and to the people we represent, some action must be taken by this parliament because it is imperative that the lines now operating on the Atlantic reduce their rates, both passenger and freight, so that prosperity may come again to this country, and prosperity can only return in full measure when transportation rates on both water and land are reduced materially from what they are at the present time.
I think some good to Canada will come from submitting this contract to parliament, and I believe that it should go to a special committee for mature consideration. I am free to admit that I hope some of its defects will disappear, and that a policy will emerge more potent than this contract for the relief of the intolerable burden of ocean freight rates as they exist at the present time.
In conclusion, I think the previous speaker must have been unaware of the intention to send this question to a special committee for further consideration. If he had known of that I think he would have joined most heartily with the members on this side of the House who are in favour of an advanced policy for Canada that will reduce freight rate8, and by so doing reduce the cost of living, and bring again to Canada the prosperity that we had during the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and which has already commenced to come during the regime of the present Liberal government.


Arthur John Lewis: Ocean Shipping Rates

burg (Mr. Duff) said that if he was the owner of one of these great ocean liners he would do everything in his power to smash this combine. But suppose the alleged combine should deoide that no vessels should proceed to the port of Montreal for a period of one or two weeks during the busy season? What would be the result of such a course as that? It would disrupt the whole trade of Canada and would divert a great deal of our commerce to United States ports. To many of us that would seem to be a very unwise thing to do, but is it not within the bounds of possibility that the steamship companies in question might resolve upon such a plan.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend think the Canadian Pacific would do that?


Arthur John Lewis: I do not know whether the Canadian Pacific would do such a thing or not. In any event we are not fighting the Canadian Pacific; we are fighting, as you yourself stated the other day, the whole north Atlantic combine, consisting of eight, ten or twelve steamship lines. Now, if such a combine exists-and the government claims there is such an organization,-it would be open to them to take such a course, and even if it were only tried for two weeks it would tie up business in this country, and cause the greatest possible inconvenience to the people of western Canada, especially should such a boycott be established during the busy season.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where would the tramp steamers be all this time? Would they not be coming into port?


Arthur John Lewis: They might be coming into port, but the statement has been made in this House that not fifty per cent of the wheat shipments, for instance, were taken by.tramp steamers last year.


Robert Forke: No, it was stated that they carried sixty-two per cent of the shipment of wheat from the port of Montreal.


Samuel William Jacobs: If the liners did not come womd not the tramp steamers be available?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend want the tramps to take the place of the liners?


Samuel William Jacobs: In the event of the other vessels being tied up.
* Mr. LEWTS: I want to say a few words in regard to the Preston report. I am afraid I have not been able to find anything new in it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that tramp steamers go from place to place looking for

cargo, that there is no regularity in the service which they give, whilst there is regularity in the ocean transport service by the regular lines? The ordinary tramp steamer calls at one port for orders, and then goes to another port for a cargo; she has no regular port at all but is always looking for a cargo. The shippers could not depend upon tramp steamers and the quicker we recognize that fact the better. There must be some regular system of transportation from one port to the other. The question in this matter is whether there is or is not a combine. The hon. gentleman must not rely upon tramp steamers.


Arthur John Lewis: I was not suggesting we should rely on tramp steamers. My contention was that if this alleged combine should withdraw' the ocean liners from the port of Montreal, we will say for a period of ten days or two weeks, it would inconvenience a good many industries and individuals in Canada-in fact it would tie up business generally and disorganize our commerce. I am not saying that it would be done, but it is a method which might be resorted to.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that ninety-nine per cent of the members of parliament do not know the difference between a tramp steamer and an ordinary liner?


Arthur John Lewis: I will allow the hon. member to speak for himself.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I will answer my hon. friend by saying that I come from a race of seafaring people and I know all the steamship lines in the world. I am not criticizing the speech of my hon. friend but I ask him not to ignore this fact: You will not produce the millennium by any sort of legislation, remember that. The tramp steamers are looking for traffic everywhere, but if you once dislocate the system which has long been established, what are you going to put in its place?


Arthur John Lewis: I do not suppose for one
moment that this legislation is going to produce the millennium. If I thought so I would not vote for it, because I am not ready for the next world for a little while yet. With regard to the Preston report I may say that I do not see any new material in it. The first ten or twelve pages deal with the report we have already received in the House with regard to the agricultural commission and other reports. So far as the freight rates are concerned, which he brings forward in proof of many of his statements, they deal to a large extent with other coun-

Ocean Shipping Rates
tries rather than our own, and I do not think that his comparisons are altogether fair, as was shown the other day an regard to the difference in immigrants coming to 'this country in 1903 and 1924. There is no comparison of the ships -that bring people over. I remember coming myself in 1903. I must admit that at that time the service was good, much different from the time my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. McBride) came over. When I came over I think it cost me something like $60 to get to Winnipeg; I am not sure what the ocean fare was. I went over again in 1912, and I think the fare was $67. I believe that in the same class to-day the fare is double that amount of money. But there is this to be taken into consideration; coming to Montreal, at least to-day, the harbour charge is double what it was two or three years ago. Hon. members can readily understand that the prices have increased all around. They could not make charges similar to those in effect in that time. At the same time I agree with a great many that they are far too high. But my difficulty is whether this scheme is going to be effective, or whether it is simply another drag upon the ratepayers at the present time. I should like to point out that this is rather an unusual procedure to bring in a resolution and also a bill before the committee has reported.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will the hon. gentleman
suggest any alternative?


Arthur John Lewis: I will suggest two. The
first is that I think the government would be wise if they would call together the people who are interested in any part of the British Empire who wish to get lower freight rates in the first place. For instance take Australia. That country had ships of her own some time ago. I understand she sold them very recently. With a lone hand she could not make it go, but with Australia, New Zealand and Canada in conjunction with Great Britain, surely if the people of Great Britain, in that free trade country, feel that there is a combine, you would have the whole British Empire behind you and you would not be fighting a lone hand; and for that reason I would commend what Sir Wilfrid Laurier did at that conference in the attempt to get the people of the British Isles and the British Empire together to fight this alleged combine. That would seem to me the best way it could be done. Failing to get the support of Great Britain or any other part of the empire, I would suggest what I suggested some time ago, namely to create a steamship line under the management, if you will,
of Sir Henry Thornton, who seems to be a splendid official. Let us take the same amount of money we are spending and create our own lines, similar to the Canadian Pacific Steamship lines. Then we would be independent of all the other steamship lines.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the hon. member advocate that -we should go into government ownership of steamships? I think we have enough government ownership at the present time with the Canadian National Railways.


Arthur John Lewis: I will admit that the Canadian National Railways, and the whole system of government ownership has bled the Canadian people white; but at the same time I have great confidence in it, and if we would put party bias aside and get down to business management, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine might be in a better position than it is at the present time.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member would like to put the steamship line under Sir Henry Thornton, the same gentleman who is in charge of the Canadian National Railways. If under his management the Canadian National system is bleeding the people white, would the hon. member want him also to bleed the people white under the system of a steamship line?


Arthur John Lewis: No. I am not saying anything against the management of the Canadian National because we are gradually getting out of the hole; but I want to say the deficit on the Canadian National cannot continue. If we take into consideration the stock we are buying every year and the equipment, with the deficit, it would amount to nearly a hundred million dollars. I say that this system of going behind cannot continue very long in Canada.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Bankruptcy would result.


Arthur John Lewis: It means bankruptcy if we are going to keep on in this way. With a population of nine million people we cannot pay ten or eleven dollars a head to liquidate the deficit on the Canadian National, and the time will come when we shall be forced into the scheme suggested by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), where we shall have to combine in order to save ourselves.
In closing I say that I intend to vote that this resolution shall go to a committee. I do not know altogether, nor am I satisfied in my own mind, that this is the best scheme. I think there are other schemes which might be suggested, but this is the only scheme that is before us, and we must deal with it upon its merits. When a man speaks ir *w'a House

C.NJt.-Branch Lines
about a certain matter the people claim, "Oh you are against it" or they say, "You are siding with the steamship lines; you are on the side of the combine". Nothing can be further from my mind. I do not believe in combines. I think they should be fought where we can fight them with any measure of success; but I do not think it is wise to attempt to handle them until we are sure of our ground and have some conception of success in the future. For that reason, I hope, after this matter has been before the committee and all the evidence available is gathered and comes to our hands, that we shall see to it that we cast an intelligent vote either for or against it as the case may be. At the present time I intend to vote that this matter shall go before the committee, and I will await my final decision till the bill comes back from committee.
On motion of Mr. Forke the debate was adjourned.
On. motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Friday, March 13, 1925