1925-03-17

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 26, respecting a patent of Walter W. Williams.-Mr. McMaster.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the table copy of the report of the Canadian delegates to the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, September 1 to October 2, 1924, also copy of the journals of the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, September 1 to October 3, 1924, containing summarized reports of all plenary meetings of the assembly. I think this latter document will give my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) the material he was requesting the other day. I move:
That 800 copies in the English language and 200 copies in the French language, of the report of the Canadian delegates to the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, September 1 to October 2, 1924, laid on the table of the House this day, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74, in relation thereto, be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Memorandum prepared by Mr. E. H. Scam-mell, Deputy Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, and correspondence re Canteen Funds and Disablement Fund.-Hon. Mr. Bhland.
LMr. Hughes.]

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
He said: Subsection 2 of section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act, which deals with objections which a witness may 'have to answer upon the ground that his answers may incriminate him, enacts that answers so given shall not be used or received in evidence against him in any criminal proceedings except a proceeding for perjury in the giving of such evidence. It is proposed to strike out the words "in the giving of such evidence" at the end of the section.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency):: Have the government received a
report from the official of the Interior department who was despatched last week to the north shore of the river St. Lawrence from the city of Quebec to investigate the recent earthquake? This district is a very popular summer resort, and as summer will be in sight very soon and many people will very likely be summering in that district as in years past, it is important that the government should make an official declaration on the report of its official in order to give assurance to the travelling public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to the question of my hon. friend. I am sure he will be happy to give him an early reply to it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- ROUYN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I
observe that a charter is being given by the Quebec Legislature for the purpose of building a railway to the Rouyn mines. Is it correct that an arrangement has been entered into whereby that railway is to be operated by the Canadian National?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to refer
the question of my hon. friend to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) who, I expect, will be in his seat to-morrow and will give an answer at that time.

Interim Supply



PENSIONS AND SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: On February 26, I asked the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) when it was contemplated that legislation in regard to pensions, soldiers' civil re-establishment and other matters, would be introduced. He said that legislation would be introduced very shortly and that probably notice would be given the following week. That is three weeks ago. The other day the Prime Minister stated that the budget would be brought down shortly. Will the pension legislation be introduced before the budget in order to give the Senate an opportunity to consider that legislation 'before the Easter recess?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: I do not think it
was so far back as three weeks ago that the question was asked.


John Arthur Clark: February 26.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At that time I pointed out, I think, that it would be introduced at the end of the following week. In the meantime, advice was received that a delegation representing the ex-service men would like to meet members of the government in connection with the proposed legislation and the date was fixed by themselves as last Friday, the 13th instant. The delegation met some members of the government on that date and since then I have been hard at work preparing a bill founded upon the representations that were made only two or three days ago. I hope to be able to present a resolution in the course of this week, or have it on the order paper at all events, and to deal with it as expeditiously as posible.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Are any material changes being made from the recommendations of the special committee of last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No material changes that I can think of at present. Two or three further amendments, I believe, are in contemplation in this connection and also some amendments which were not mentioned by the parliamentary committee, which bear upon the Federal Appeal Board.



ALTERNATIVE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Is it the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation giving effect to the
principle of the single transferable vote in single member constituencies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That subject is under consideration and I shall have to give my hon. friend an answer later on. The government has not yet definitely decided whether to reintroduce the legislation this session.


Mr. GOOD:: Did not the Prime Minister
promise last year most definitely and explicitly that the bill would be brought down this session at an early date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I made any such promise it will be carried out and the bill will be brought in.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: What is the purpose of
going on with supply to-day? Is this regular supply or will it take only a few minutes? I understood yesterday that we were to go on to-day with the Petersen contract.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the announcement was made that the Acting Minister of Finance desired to have an interim supply bill put through.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Mr. ROBB moved:: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $31,409,846.82, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926, laid before the House of Commons at the .present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend told me a couple of days ago that he would have to obtain supply earlier than usual this year, as there was a strong probability that the Senate would be rising. Under the circumstances I see no reason why the usual thing should not be done. I would point out that what we are doing now is to enable the government to carry on properly. There have been oppositions sitting in this House, with which my hon. friends across the way are familiar, that have taken an absolutely different stand, apparently under the impression that sharpshooting and sniping and anything of that sort were admissible in the game. We have the idea that our function ought to be to enable the government properly to carry
Interim Supply

on, and we know that it is necessary that these bills should 'be passed a little in advance in order that the public service may be continued. I therefore give my full and free consent, so far as I am concerned, to the bill going through on the usual terms. By that I mean that the House in passing interim supply is not committing itself to any item whatever, either as regards its principle, as regards the amount involved, or indeed as regards its very necessity. In other words, the House is left absolutely free to deal with the estimates as it sees fit when they come up for consideration. I am agreeing to-day to the payment in advance of one-sixth of the estimates. I have not checked the figures myself, for it is rather difficult to do that; but I have no doubt that the minister has had them dealt with by the proper officials and is able to tell us that the amount he now asks for represents truly and correctly one-sixth of the main estimates now before the committee.


James Alexander Robb: That is my understanding. The accounts have been checked up by the department and I have no reason to think that they are incorrect in any way. My hon. friend has taken a fair attitude.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
understands that the supply goes through on the terms I have stated.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. ROBB moved that one-sixth of each of the resolutions reported from committee of Supply be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926, the sum of $31,409,846.82 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 13, 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 proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Clark (Burrard).
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of one of the races comprising this great British Empire, may I affirm our kindly feelings and good wishes to all those who are to-day commemorating their patron saint.
Now, Sir, I feel no apology is necessary for participating in the discussion of the subject now before the House. The proposition as placed before us by the government requires our careful consideration. It is one of universal importance because it affects each one of us directly or indirectly. Commerce and transportation are the most important subjects that can be laid before any parliament. Every great nation has achieved greatness through use of ocean routes, and therefore I say I have no apology to offer in discussing a subject of this importance. The report before us suggests a combine among the north Atlantic shipping interests. This is an American word implying a restriction of trade or commerce, a restriction that may extend even to the point of becoming a monopoly. But the report gives us no definite proof that there is any such combine or restriction of competition. If, however, we grant the existence of a combine, we must admit that three great principles lie at the basis of its discussion. The first is, that contracts in restraint of trade- which is rather a local word, implying business between parts of a country or adjoining states-and contracts in restraint of commerce -which is a wider term-are very undesirable. The second principle is, that the economic effects of such a restraint may be either good or evil. The third principle which should be discussed by any such report is, that antitrust legislation very often oversteps its scope and produces harmful effects. These three principles find no part in the report or in the (discussion of the subject so far by members of *the government. Therefore, when the report goes to the committee, we as a House must insist that there shall come back to us some proof that there has been a restraint of trade

Ocean Shipping Rates
or lessened competition; in the second place, a description of the effects, whether good or evil, of such restraint; and third, what will be the ultimate result of the solution proposed by the government.
I come now to the attitude which would be assumed by the man in the street as he discusses with his fellow men the proposal put forward by the government to offset the alleged combine among the north Atlantic shipping interests. The first question he takes up, as far as we have been able to come in touch with him, is the attitude of the agent of the government in the preparation of his report and his solution of the difficulty. Heaven forbid that I should apply to the author of the report the description given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) -a good mouser This phrase brings before us two characters of the feline family common to any home. One is the family tabby with sleek fur, comfortably ensconced in the living room, decorated with pink and blue ribbons and a favorite with every member of the household and every visitor. This animal is not a mouser-is not expected to be one. She is welcomed to the best couch and is the family pet. The other character is the cat who comes only occasionally, satisfies his intestinal craving for the good things of life, then hears the call and jumps out into the backyard. He is the disturber of the backyard peace, his screams annoy the sleeping world, and his portion is a mixture of bricks, bottles, boots and bones, and as he flies from yard to yard he makes trouble not only for himself but all his race. He does not set out to find any particular trouble, 'but he creates it wherever he goes. Finally he comes 'back home, tired and disreputable, scolded by all the family except the old grandma sitting in the comer; she takes him up, defends him for all his bad actions and says, " He is a good mouser." And now this member of the feline family comes home again: he has moused in Japan, he has moused in China, he has moused in Korea, he has moused in England, he has moused in northern Europe; but at last he is back home once more, battered and tom, and the old grandmother again takes him upon her lap and she says, " Well, this is our family cat; we have raised him, we are responsible for all his wilful ways, and we must keep him, for he is a good mouser."
I could leave the subject there, because we are not concerned with the past, or anything else, of the agent in this matter; but we must look at his present conduct. And the man in the street, when he reads his morning's paper, finds that this agent of the government, just 78



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
after reaching home, gives an interview. This is the character of the interview as set forth in the Ottawa papers:	Speaking of his work
and his visit overseas, he says:
I see that Sir George MacLaren Brown, the Canadian Pacific Railway's steamship representative in London, is criticizing me for not having called upon him while I was there. Why should I be bothered with a mere subordinate when the head offices of the company are right here in Canada?
And he goes on:
I want to laugh when I read the suggestion that the facts should have been referred to Sir Norman Mackinder, chairman of the North Atlantic Shipping conference. They might just as well be referred to a certain well-known newspaper, which is simply a mouthpiece of the corporations. If the government were so foolish as to place the issue in his hands, I would be amazed. In any case, why should we do so? It's none of their business.
Then he goes on:
There is one important thing I notice to-day in the cable news. It intimates that Petersen will not get the £600,000 subsidy which he was entitled to simply because he proposes to enter into competition with the combine. If that's the case, it's the first body blow to Imperial preference, and I am right ready to join with those who will end the farce of this so-called preference for good and all time.
Now, that is hardly the attitude that should be taken by a representative of the Dominion government who goes abroad to discuss a matter of such vital importance. The men mentioned in his report are strong men, they have done good work, and there should be no attempt to initiate a warfare between this country and these interests. We need one another; they need us and we need them in this great work, if there is to be development in this country in the matter of commerce and transportation.
In the second place, the man in the street questions this report as 'likely to defeat the object which the government has in mind. If the government's attitude is to prevent the lessening of competition, they have taken a rather doubtful method of accomplishing that. Through all ages the factor that has always prevented a monopoly of ocean routes has been the tramp steamer, and instead of encouraging the tramp steamer this proposal is likely to have the opposite effect, is likely to take away business that the tramp steamer would otherwise get. The tramp steamer has always had an important place in the development of commerce. If you take the figures as given lately you will find that visitations of tramp steamers have been very frequent and have been increasing so far as the ports of this country are concerned. In Montreal in 1921 there were 301 tramps; in 1922, 409; in 1923, 246; and last year 447. In further evidence as to the importance of

[Stage Direction]
Ocean Shipping Rates
[Stage Direction]
the tramp you will find these words in volume I, The Merchant Navy, by Hurd:
The importance of the tramp owner in the shipping economy of the Empire cannot be too much emphasized. "Not only was he responsible for the larger part of our steam tonnage, but we were dependent on him for the import and export especially of what may be termed the rougher class of bulk cargoes, which are not as a rule suitable for liner business. It would be impossible for a country like the United Kingdom, with its enormous flow of trade, to depend wholly on regular lines with scheduled sailings."
I think I voice the opinion of the man in the street when I say that the government's proposal will not assist in the development of the tramp business. In further evidence that the tramp business plays an important part in British trade I would like to refer to figures given in 1914 with respect to steamships engaged in overseas trade. There were 1,200 regular liners at the beginning of the war, in 1914, having an average tonnage of over 5,000, and there were at the same time 2,400 tramps having an average tonnage of
4,000.	It would seem to me as if the encouragement of the tramp, looking at the matter from the Dominion as well as the imperial standpoint, would be the better solution of the problem of lessened competition or restraint in commerce, if there is such.
The third point that the man in the street would take up is the fact that this solution offered by the government barely gives us a service. If you will turn to pages 12 and 15 of the fifth annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine you will find that of our sixty ships twelve were engaged in sailings between Canada and Europe. These twelve ships were able to provide only a fortnightly sailings to Bristol and fortnightly sailings to London and Antwerp. If twelve ships can give only a fortnightly service it is hardly to be expected that the service will be very much increased by ten ships. In connection with the services given by these twelve ships the question arises, what about our attitude toward the Canadian Government Merchant Marine? Will the merchant marine be simply set aside? And, in the second place, what will 'be the attitude of the larger interests which we would antagonize by this proposal? It is a serious question for us to consider, and the committee should be able to give us the attitude of the government along these lines.
The fourth point that the man in the street takes up in regard to this proposal is the question, who is to get the benefit of it? If it is a matter of control of ocean rates, then any advantage in that direction would assuredly affect the Old Country, whatever

indirect benefit we would get therefrom, and the taxpayer of Canada would have to pay. We do not see that the Old Country is at present burning with an enthusiastic desire to get at the solution of this question or to assist in connection with the measure that the government now proposes.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I understand the hon. member to refer to the possibility of the British consumer benefiting by this subsidy. Would he make that a little clearer for us?


Arthur Edward Ross: My point is this:
the man in the street, looking at this proposal, says: Here we are paying over a million dollars a year for ten years, for whose benefit? To control ocean rates, if possible to reduce them, largely for the consumer in the Old Country. True, we will get indirect benefit from it by increased commerce. But to the man in the street it looks as though we were paying for cheaper rates for the consumer in the Old Country. Why the Old Country may not become as enthusiastic as we expect in this matter I shall endeavour to point out a little later. Just now I am endeavouring to show how these proposals appear to the ordinary Canadian citizen, the man in the street, and these questions must be answered later on when this matter comes back to us.
The man in the street is also struck by this fact in regard to this proposal. From one end of this country to the other cries are going up to-day not only to this government but to every government in the Dominion of Canada for retrenchment and economy; and how are we answering those cries? We are answering them by the proposed building of a road to Hudson bay, by a road through the Peace river country, by two roads into the Rouyn country, where perhaps one would do. We see no effort, not even an attempt at economy. On the other hand, this government is met from day to day with cries as to the condition of the workingmen of this country. The condition is brought home to the government, that no matter who is to blame, whether it is the men on strike or the interests who are culpable, a large section of this country is to-day in want. It may be said that that is a provincial matter, but I would like to point out this: The health of the people of any part of this country is not a provincial matter; it is a national matter, and if there are conditions in this country Where women are suffering,^ where children are cold and 'hungry, then it is a matter that will sooner or later affect us as a country. Children without proper food and

Ocean Shipping Rates
nourishment must suffer from the effects of malnutrition, rickets, and the onset of tuberculosis. Women worried about the condition of their family must sooner or later develop neurotic and neurasthenic conditions which will affect the women of this country as a whole. This government, instead of paying heed to the cries of economy and retrenchment, are building hotels in Paris, and sending out $3,000,000 of our money for that purpose; they are buying a club in London, and sending out $2,000,000 more for that; they are building up the ship yards of another country to the extent of $13,000,000 of our Canadian money, when the work could very wdll be done at home. The question of economy and retrenchment must come before the man in the street when he is considering the entrance of the government into a proposition involving an expenditure of $13,000,000.
The other night the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in discussing this subject brought forward the argument that the Old Land had refused to consider this proposition or enter info a conference on the matter. I would like to-day for a short time to take up with this House the position that Great Britain occupied during those years 1909 and 1910 and down to 1914. I want to give reasons why in my opinion Great Britain could not enter into a conference or consider the matter at that time. And I would like to say that these are my own opinions; they may be wrong, but at the same time I look upon this matter as an Imperial problem.
The first objection that Great Britain would have against going into a fight on this matter would be that for ages she herself had granted just such monopolies to different parts of the empire. These monopolies were for very special state reasons. There was the East India Company, for instance; the West India Company, the Hudson Bay Company, and so on. She could not very well criticize interests for doing what she as a state had been doing. Her further reasons for non-interference would take us into a discussion of the position of the British mercantile marine and its importance as a factor in the development of Great Britain's commerce. Great Britain's existence has always been bound up in her merchant marine. For her own defence this merchant marine, we might say, started with special privileges she had given to, what were known as the Cinque ports, and to the merchants of those ports.
It is interesting to note three or four events which show how dependent Great Britain has 78i
been upon the development of her merchant marine. There was first, in the Norman days, the battle of Sandwich in which the fleet consisting only of British seamen on British merchantmen defeated a French armada from Calais which was about to make a descent on England under Eustace the Monk. In 1217, there was the battle of Sluys in which, near Bruges, the British fleet, made up altogether of merchantmen from all parts, destroyed a French and Genoese fleet about to make a second descent upon Britain. In 1415 the first fleet raised by the Henrys was raised altogether from vessels around the ports of Great Britain. The fourth event was the aggregation of vessels which composed the English fleet which defeated the great Armada. Throughout the middle ages, you find the merchant marine not only maintaining but even extending the trade of the empire, and, as well, providing all the means for defence and security of the country. That brings us down to the Napoleonic period, which ended in 1815, and it is important to note the part that was played in that great conflict by the British mercantile fleet. In the Napoleonic wars these merchants of Great Britain lost some eleven thousand vessels by capture, and yet in spite of that at the end of 1815 they had 24,860 vessels upon the ocean. In 1874 they had 36,900, and of these 24,828 belonged to the United Kingdom. These figures indicate the persistence of the merchant people of Great Britain in the face of great losses, and also the assistance they gave in carrying their country through great crises. They indicate the part that was taken by the merchants and by the merchant marine of Great Britain in the affairs of state, and in the development of commerce and in the defence and security of the empire. Following 1815, there came a period of re-organization, with practically no assistance from the state. Its inspiration was due to farsighted and resourceful business men in the great British seaports. In spite of war, in spite of enemies and the interference of press gangs, the merchant marine continued to grow. This covers a hundred years of development, from 1815 to 1913 in which one of the chief items of importance in regard to the development of our merchant marine was the enactment of "navigation laws" which embodied a principle of absolute protection. These laws confined the import trade to British ships or ships of the producing country, restricted the carriage and transportation to the colonies, and reserved the whole of the coasting trade to British vessels navigated by British masters and with crews seventy-five per cent British subjects. In 1823 these laws were repealed.
Ocean Shipping Rates

The year 1850 was a very marked year in the development of our merchant marine. In that year the Marine department of the Board of Trade was formed. This department concerned itself with the question of security at sea, and with the proper type of sailors and seamasters. This century witnessed the transformation from sailing to steam vessels which at first retarded the development of the merchant marine, 'but later the occurrence of the American Civil war removed competitors from the trade and it was found that British tonnage, from 1850 to 1874, had increased from 65 to 68 per cent, while the United States tonnage in foreign trade had fallen from 60 per cent to 38 per cent. But this is the point I am coming to. The Prussian tonnage only varied from 49 to 46 per cent becoming a very important factor in competition with our British mercantile marine.
The 'duty of the Marine department of the British Board of Trade was clearly defined and restricted; it was concerned mainly in providing for the security of life and property at sea. It had no share directly in the upbuilding of the mercantile marine; in fact state interference-I should like the House to note this, because this is the important point -state interference With trade either by land or by sea was regarded with suspicion and distrust: The strength of the merchant marine has always depended, in the main, upon the enterprise and business ability of the shipowning community in meeting the nation's needs without state subventions or state encouragement. The relations between the government and the mercantile marine have also *been very close, so that in August, 1914, the Admiralty controlled a naval reserve of upwards of 18,000 trained officers and men of the mercantile marine and fishing industry, in addition to a total of 170,000 men of the marine of British birth and 100,000 British fishermen. During the sixty years preceding the outbreak of the war the Board of Trade, Lloyd's Register and ship owners shaped the valuable economic and warlike weapon which proved an essential element to victory when at last the great war opened.
In 1890 the United Kingdom had 3,000,000 tons of sailing vessels. In 1900 this had declined to 2,000,000 tons, and in 1913 it had dropped to 850,000 tons but between 1885 and 1913 there was built up some 25,000,000 tons of steam shipping. Two-thirdS of this was constructed in the United Kingdom and over one-half for the British flag. At the same time shipping had increased during this period-1894 to 1913-from 700,000 tons to
2,000,000 tons. Great as this growth was in

British tonnage-and in the attempt to meet the increased shipping Britain had nearly doubled her tonnage between 1903 to 1913; in the same period the increase in Germany was four fold. It was a fortunate occurrence that Great Britain possessed half the merchant shipping of the world at the beginning of the war, otherwise the Motherland would have been seriously hampered in its prosecution of it and the ultimate result .might have been different. At this date-the opening of the war-the British merchant marine was the largest, most modern, and most efficient of all the merchant navies of the world. Its quantity was divided as follows: In the United Kingdom 11,538,000 tons, and in the colonies and dominions 902,000 tons, making a total of 12,440,000 tons, whereas the world's total was only 26,000,000 tons. The nearest competitor at that time was Germany with
3,096,000	tons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these facts show the *critical periods in the history of the British Empire, largely the history of our mercantile marine. It was just at these criti-4 p.m. cal years-between 1890 and 1913 

that Britain was asked to take part in a conference which would affect her standing in relation to this great shipping which had 'been built up largely by the sacrifices, by the persistence, and by the tenacity of the merchants of her ports and the seamen on her shores. If we had a "mouser" of some importance, some one with some knowledge of the history of British shipping and of the relation between Great Britain and her mercantile fleet, one who could go into these questions seriously and bring to this House the report as to whether we can now or at any time in the future take any action which will interfere with the relationship which has always existed' between the merchant navy and the state, we should be in a better position to consider what steps we should take. This relation to which I have referred is a serious question and requires a great deal of consideration by this or any other government. The period of crisis when Great Britain was asked to take part in this' conference is past. To-day there is a spirit of co-operation abroad, there is a spirit of Imperial development moving; and what was refused then might well be considered at this present time, and I have no doubt will be considered.
Now, I come to two practical suggestions in dealing with this subject. The government has expressed the opinion that no suggestions have been offered by hon. gentlemen on this side. Well, I am going to offer one now. We can take no steps, with safety and security to

Ocean Shipping Rates
this country, that will interfere with the great work that Great Britain has carried out in the last hundred years. If we want to take part in the development of a marine that will go on in the future I suggest, 'as some other members of this House have suggested, that our attitude should be a most friendly one towards the Canadian Pacific mercantile marine. That marine has no intention of acting in any way that will prejudice Canada's prosperity. Their interests are bound up completely in Canada; their whole development, their future, will depend upon the future of Canada; and we could very well consider the building up by the Canadian Pacific of a .marine that would be a credit to us in the future. Second, there is the support that we could get from our Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I am not one who will discredit the merchant marine; I believe that with good management a service could be obtained from it. There are no' reasons why boats cannot be properly fitted out, and, I would like to bring to the attention of the government a case in 1899 and 1900 when the government of Canada made use of boats such as existed then to carry troops, cavalry and artillery to South Africa. We went out on one of the Elder-Dempster line, hastily brought into the port of Halifax and prepared in such a way that she carried some 600 horses to South Africa. That voyage lasted about twenty-six days, and no doubt these horses suffered somewhat on the voyage. But on a voyage to the Old Country of twelve days or two weeks, no such injury could be effected to animals, 'cattle or horses. There is no use in saying that our merchant marine could not be used. These Elder-Dempster boats of which I have spoken were only ordinary merchant marine boats, not nearly as good as the boats we have now, and they were fitted up at that time for the purpose of transport to South Africa.
I should like to conclude my remarks by a summary of my position in regard to this matter:
1. The attempt of a state to break a conference of commercial interests engaged in shipping is a most difficult one.
'2. The attempt of a state such as Canada, deeply in debt, which attempt is complicated already by a heavy burden of transportation now on our shoulders, seems almost futile.
3.	The Petersen contract is a reversion to the old monopolies of the middle ages when the state granted trading privileges to certain of its citizens as a monopoly, which monopoly is now given by way of cash bonuses.
4.	Canada's future will be best served by co-operation with her own interests and the use of her own merchant marine rather than by going out of our borders to build up a marine service which will not be ours.
5.	Canada's future will also be well served by a development of a connection which will serve to defend as well as to extend our commerce.
There is no future for Canada in the proposed contract with the government. At the end of ten years, which is a long period in the life of an individual, but a very short period in the life of a nation, we shall have developed a unit which is not our own, upon which we shall have spent some thirteen million dollars odd, and in doing this, we shall not have developed work in our own country where there is a great need of such work.
In the amendment there is the possibility, or the appearance, of imperial action, of imperial co-operation, and it is at least worthy of our best consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for
Kingston (Mr. Ross) will, perhaps, excuse me if I do not attempt to follow him in detail in the remarks which he has just made. He has summarized his views in a few concluding statements, and to these I shall make a brief reply. My hon. friend feels that this attempt is one which," under the circumstances, is likely to be difficult, and therefore, I gather from his remarks, should not be proceeded with. That is a counsel of despair. To meet a situation, that is, we admit, very difficult and complicated, it offers nothing, whereas the very fact that the task is difficult and complicated, makes it, we feel, a task that should not be left untouched, but one for the government of this country to undertake. My hon. friend says that he fears the attempt which we are making will be futile. I am amazed that, speaking, as so many from my hon. friend's side have spoken, in support of the shipping interests, they should feel the great concern they do about this attempt, if it is to turn out as futile as my hon. friend claims. As a matter of fact, if proof were needed that it is necessary to make such an attempt as the government is making at the present time to meet a grave situation, it will be found in the extensive propaganda which has been spread from one end of this land to the other, through the press of the country by the shipping interests. What astonishes one at the moment is their finding such great need-as shown by the efforts they are making -to oppose the so called Preston report. If
Ocean Shipping Rates

this plan that the government proposes is to be futile and of no avail, what are these powerful interests so much concerned about? There come to one's mind the saying: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." In this instance, the shipping interests are helping to direct attention to the necessity and vastness of the situation with which the government is attempting to cope.
My hon. friend made a somewhat quaint comment to the effect that he regarded the government's action as a reversion to some mediaeval form of bestowing a monopoly. When one has listened, as we have been forced to listen for some days past to remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, to the effect that this is a sort of popgun scheme, as I think one hon. member expressed it, a hay-rake attempt, as some other hon. members expressed it, one cannot but marvel at the "mediaeval" monopoly that is being given to this Petersen fleet of ships in face of the great monopoly with which it purports to contend. My hon. friend says that he thinks the country would be better served by developing the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. If that is the case, why, when his leader was in office and that particular overture was made to him by members of his own administration and his high commissioner in London,-why did not he attempt to put the merchant marine in action and have it serve the useful purpose which his worthy followers now says he thinks it might be capable of serving? A little later on I shall have something to say about the merchant marine and its effectiveness in this regard. My hon. friend thinks the time would be better spent in developing a connection that would defend as well as extend our commerce. I hope that before I conclude my remarks, I shall show my hon. friend that that double aim will be achieved by the method which the government is adopting. Finally, he remarked that in the amendment there was a possibility, and then he very wisely modified the word and said, the appearance, at least, of imperial concern, or interest, or control, in the course which had been suggested by the amendment. My hon. friend showed his usual caution when he used the word "appearance," because that is, I think, the extent of the control the amendment promises.
I come now more directly to the resolution which is before the House and the amendment which has been moved with respect thereto. The resolution is the first necessary step to be taken by the government preliminary to the introduction of a bill to give the
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
government control of ocean rates. The resolution relates to the control of ocean rates; that is the principle underlying it, and hon. members in voting upon the resolution are passing on the important question whether or not in their opinion the government should undertake to control ocean rates. Whether the method which the government is taking to control ocean rates may be effective or not is a subject which, I think, admits of debate and which should be discussed fully and carefully. But I would point out in that connection that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), when he moved the resolution, took care to intimate to the House that the agreement which the government has made with Sir William Petersen with respect _ to placing on the Atlantic the ten ships mentioned, will be sent to a special committee of this House, together with the bill in which it is included, for full consideration, and that hon. members will have the opportunity afforded by such a select committee to weigh carefully all sides of that agreement, and to pass upon it, only after they have thoroughly considered it.
May I point out that it would not have been possible for the government to bring this important question to the attention of the House and refer it to a committee in any effective way other than the way that has been adopted, namely, by preparing an agreement.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that he proposes that a bill shall be brought in and referred to the committee? Is that bill to be based on this resolution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: of it; as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) said a moment ago, it was all a matter of " appearance ", nothing in reality was accomplished. For fifteen or twenty years there has been a suggestion that something should be attempted in the way of a joint control of ocean shipping on the part of the different empire units, but as I say nothing has been done. I might say immediately that over and over again the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain have suggested this very thing. If they, with all the power they represent, have been unable to get the Imperial Shipping Board to take action of the constructive kind which has been suggested, does my hon. friend, or do any other hon. members, think that action is going to be taken by that board at the request of this chamber? A little later on I will say something more in regard to this phase; but I might at the moment say, by way of parenthesis, that the adjectives which have been applied to what is referred to in the amendment as a scheme based on Mr. Preston's report might more appropriately have been applied to the course suggested in the first portion of the amendment itself, namely, that it is "ill-advised, costly and futile and unworthy of the serious consideration of the House." I do not think my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark), although he presented the amendment, ever drafted it. We are all familiar with the drafting of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) opposite, and I will pay him the compliment of saying that it was he who drafted the amendment in the language in which it now appears.
But, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the amendment, the objection I take to it

and I am going to use plain, bald Anglo-Saxon-is that it is untrue, and I ask hon. members to vote against it for that reason. It says:
-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.
Let me say to the House, the contract was not based on the report of Mr. Preston. This statement in the amendment is therefore wholly incorrect and is absolutely untrue. One does not need to go further than to look at the dates of the two documents and see that. Take the contract itself. If hon. members will look at that document they will find that it is dated December 11, 1924; if they will look at the Preston report they will find that it is dated December 31, 1924, several days-weeks in fact-after the contract itself had been signed. There is the first evidence that the statement is not true. But take Mr. 
Preston's own statement that appears on pages 11 and 12 thereof. There is a communication, called "frank statement Canadian case" presented in the form of a memorandum to the shipping interests of Great Britain. This statement is dated London, April, 1924. Let me read the statement to the House:
The Canadian government has decided to take action in order that Canadian interests shall not be so seriously affected as heretofore by the operations of the North Atlantic steamship combine.
Of two phases of the situation, the government has taken particular notice:
(1)	The occasional discrimination in freight rates against Canadian ports and in favour of United States ports.
(2)	Freight rates which are believed to be excessive in connection with the carrying of natural tproducts and manufactured articles to overseas markets.
One of the reasons alleged for the discrimination against Canadian .ports is that the insurance rates are higher in the St. Lawrence river than to or from American ports. 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. So that phase of the question need not be commented upon. There are two solutions of the disadvantages under which the ocean transportation of Canadian products labours:
(1)	By an arrangement with an independent steamship company with government assistance, and government control over freight rates.
(2)	The establishment of a government service between British and Canadian ports with modern vessels.
The former is regarded as the more desirable, if satisfactory arrangements can be effected.
One or other of these alternative solutions is regarded by many interests in Canada as. inevitable.
During the session of parliament, 1923, a committee of the House of Commons heard evidence on the question of the North Atlantic steamship combine, and in reporting to the House of Commons, recommended the government to take action with a view of overcoming the disadvantages connected with the transportation of Canadian products overseas.
This recommendation moved by Mr. A. R. Mc-Master, chairman of the committee, was unanimously approved by the House of Commons in the session of 1923.
In accordance with the instructions of parliament, the government has been making inquiry into the various phases of the question.
There is a statement made by Mr. Preston to the effect that as a result of the resolution of the House of Commons, based upon the report of a select committee of the House, the government had decided to take action, and that that action would be taken in one or other of two forms. The first is discounted at the outset, namely, the undertaking of a government-owned merchant marine. The other is that the government would be prepared to make a contract with a company that was ready to give to the government in return control over ocean rates on its lines. There in Mr. Preston's own report is the announcement that the government had decided upon the course which it was about to take before Sir William Petersen had even been heard of.

Ocean Shipping Rates
Sir William Petersen was given the contract because he was one of several persons approached who was prepared to enter into a contract' with the government giving them control over ocean rates on his ships.
And may I say here, Mr. Speaker, that the government has made it known from the outset that it was prepared to make a similar contract with any shipping company in this country that was prepared to give it like terms. The government to-day is prepared to give the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company and other steamship companies doing business out of Canadian ports, the opportunity of entering into a contract along identical lines with the Petersen contract, if they are prepared to do the same as Sir William Petersen is prepared to do, namely, give this government control over the rates on the commodities which they take overseas.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? Was such an offer extended to the Canadian Pacific Company prior to the Petersen contract being drawn up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will have a
word to say about that in a moment when I come to speak more particularly of cattle shipments. May I say to my hon. friend in reply that I personally made such a proposal to the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway only a few evenings ago, and that offer is open at the present time. Now I invite the Canadian shipping companies to come along and give this government control over ocean rates on their lines, and I ask parliament to join with the government in helping us to give them consideration similar to what we are prepared to give Sir William Petersen for this privilege. If they do not come along and accept our offer, what is the obvious explanation? The one explanation is that these lines to-day find it more profitable to operate the way they are operating

I do not say whether they are operating within a combine or not-otherwise they would be willing to give the government of this country control of ocean rates under conditions similar to those of this contract. You have the whole case there. This is not a matter of a subsidy to a steamship company, as subsidies are generally understood and as hon. gentlemen opposite would have the public believe. They seek to confuse the issue; by striving to make it appear that this is an unconditional subsidy to the Petersen Company alone. The sum proposed is one which the government of Canada is offering to a company which is prepared to give to this country the control of ocean
rates on its service. The two things are very different.


James Arthurs: Will the right hon. gentleman allow me a question? Is he prepared to say that he will do the same with any other company? In other words, will he give a subsidy of 816,000 odd per voyage to boats of this size?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have made that very clear. I have limited my remarks to Canadian companies, but I have said that for the present any Canadian company that will give a similar service and similar rights to the government will be given similar treatment. Can I make it any clearer than that? More than that, it would not be fair to ask. This discussion about subsidies, as generally understood, is all beside the mark when one understands the significance of the contract that the government has entered into. A little later I will make a reference to some of the present subsidies being paid in this country-subsidies to steamships performing regular services and exacting the rates which the combine permits them to exact. That is not what we are doing under the contract with Sir William Petersen. Sir William Petersen has offered to put certain ships on the Atlantic, but not with money paid by the taxpayers of this country, as hon. gentlemen opposite are so fond of saying. So sure is he of the ability to make returns- knowing as he does the exactions of this ocean combine-that he says: "I am prepared to put on the Atlantic ten steamers of the most up to date type and to give the government of Canada the right to fix the rates at any figure they like, in consideration of a certain guarantee that they give me at the start,"-which guarantee has been mentioned. Now, I ask hon. members to think that matter over. You cannot get something for nothing; you have got to pay in one way or another for whatever you want. Is it not worth while paying something to discover whether or not these allegations about the operations of an ocean combine are true? We will soon discover that once this contract goes into force; we will soon discover whether or not Sir William Petersen is able to carry his agreement out. If he is able to carry it out; if he is able to save the producers of this country millions of dollars for the consideration he has received, having regard to the rates at which he is prepared to have commodities carried, and can still make a profit, it null not be long before the people of this country, the people of the Old Country, the people of Australia, South Africa and New
Ocean Shipping Rates

Zealand, will begin to inquire into the significance of this contract. My hon. friends opposite want other parts of the empire to join in the attempt to control ocean rates. If they are sincere in that, they will support the present government in instituting an experiment which will very soon bring all these parts of the empire together in one great effort to deal effectively with the situation. Until some government is strong enough and fearless enough to launch such a project and to demonstrate to all parts of the empire the actual conditions in respect of this combine-or conference, whatever it may be called-on the Atlantic whereby rates are controlled,-until that step is taken you will never get the different parts of the empire to work in concert in 'an effort to control rates. When that step is taken, however, you will find them united In seeking effective action. The steamship companies know it, and that is why we are getting so much of their propaganda all over the country in regard to this proposal. And that is why hon. gentlemen opposite talk about everything except this contract. They pound away at Mr. Preston-great heroes they are, when Mr. Preston is not in the House where he would be in a position to answer for himself. They do what they can to besmirch Mr. Preston's character, do what they can to belittle him. Why? Because he has been enough of a patriot, and had the courage to present to the country a report with his own name attached to it, and to say that he will go before a committee of parliament or any body hon. gentlemen like to designate and substantiate what he has said in that report.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: May I ask the
Prime Minister whether any statement made on the floor of this House regarding Mr. Preston has been refuted by either the right hon. gentleman himself or any of his supporters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my hon. friend has been the greatest hero of the lot, because he of all talked most about Mr. Preston; he said nothing concerning the representations of the report Mr. Preston has made. He will have a chance to meet Mr. Preston before this committee-


Donald Sutherland: That is not an
answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, as to
what my hon. friend has said, I would certainly think it was very wide of the mark. However, the point I wish to make clear is this: what hon. gentlemen opposite have been

attacking, is not this contract, they have been attacking Mr. Preston; they have been attacking Sir William Petersen; they have in addition been attacking all kinds of imaginary things, but they have not touched the essential features of the contract itself, nor have they sought to make clear to hon. members of the House the purpose which that contract is really intended to serve.


Mr. LADNER:: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will permit-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This is a proper question
I am putting, and a fair one. The Prime Minister has repeated time and again that members in this part of the House did not comment upon or discuss the agreement. So far as my humble little contribution to the debate was concerned I discussed nothing else-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: -and I wirfi to ask the
Prime Minister if he is not mistaken. Will he not be fair and agree that he was mistaken in that comment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very
sorry if I missed the significance of my hon. friend's contribution. I admit that it was a humble one, and I am only too ready if he so desires, to say that his remarks were confined to comments on the contract. But I think I will be able to show as I proceed that in their bearing they were so far astray as really not to be vital to the debate one way or the other.
May I now, Mr. Speaker, answer the question: Why has the government taken the course it has?-What has been the genesis of the contract that the government has entered into? First of all I would point out that this subject has been one of the most important subjects before this country not during the last two or three years only but during the last ten or fifteen years, at least. The matter of high ocean rates has been the subject of investigation by royal commissions in this country and in the Old Country, by special commissions and special committees. I shall not go over their findings in detail, but I will refer hon. members to the following important documents which will show whether or not there is reason for believing that a combine does exist on the Atlantic for the purpose of controlling rates and' keeping them at an unduly high figure. There was a royal commission on Shipping Rings appointed by the British government in 1906, which made its report in 1909. There was the Dominions

Ocean Shipping Rates
Royal Commission appointed pursuant to a resolution proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the Imperial conference in 1911 and unanimously adopted. That commission was appointed on April 15, 1912, and reported finally on February 21, 1917. In 1913 the hon. member for West Yorkj (Sir 'Henry Dr-ayton), at that time chairman of the railway commission, was appointed by Sir Robert Borden's government to investigate ocean freight rates, and he made a report on October 18, 1913. If there was nothing to investigate, why did Sir Robert Borden appoint my hon. friend, choosing him because as chairman of the railway commission he had special knowledge of the conditions affecting transportation? In June, 1920, an Imperial Shipping committee was appointed by the British government by virtue of a resolution of the Imperial War conference of 1918. This committee is still in existence and has made reports on various phases of shipping within the empire. During the last year it held sittings in this country through the medium of a subsidiary committee. Then there was the special committee of this House of Commons to inquire into agricultural conditions, appointed on February 28, 1923. This committee submitted seven reports to the House, those concerned with ocean freight rates being the fourth report, submitted on April 23, 1923, and the fifth report, submitted on June 18, 1923.
I have in my hand the report prepared by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton). That report was made as far back as 1913, and I find in it this statement:
The Canadian exporter, by reason of the fact that, speaking in a general sense, nearly all the country's exports have a low value in proportion to the space occupied, and a comparatively low value in relation to the cost of transportation, is peculiarly affected by any increases in the cost of transportation, so that it becomes a matter of prime importance to keep such costs to a reasonable rate.
Then at page 8 I find this:
I have no doubt, however, that on articles sold on the Canadian market by the British exporter in close competition with exporters in other countries, the increases in rates of recent years has a detrimental and injurious effect on the traffic, and may account in part for the falling ratio of British exports.
So, away back in 1913 my hon. friend from West York opposite reported to the government of that day an increase of rates on the Atlantic ocean which he believed was having an "injurious effect" upon exports. I will show that the view which my hon. friend then took is the view which has been consistently taken by all who have made careful inquiry from that day down to the present time. The only difference is that hon. gentlemen opposite
have done nothing, whereas this government has attempted to grapple with the problem.
May I make this reference to Mr. Preston's report? When my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) received a communication from Sir George Perley, High Commissioner for Canada in London, in January, 1921, drawing his attention to Sir Robert Borden's efforts to have ocean rates investigated, and telling my right hon. friend that he thought the matter should be investigated, there was in connection with that letter an intimation that if any success were to attend the investigation it was desirable to have someone prepare the Canadian case with a view to assisting in its presentation, in association with Sir George Perley, before the Imperial Shipping committee. What did my right hon. friend do? He appointed someone. He appointed Professor Magi'll, just exactly as we appointed Mr. Preston, to gather information in regard to Canada's case. But here is the difference. My right hon. friend said to me the other day that that report of Mr. Magill must be in the department.


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says he did not?


Arthur Meighen: I did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he looks at Hansard, he will see he did.


Arthur Meighen: We will just clash right there. I said Mr. Magill's reply should be in the department. I did not say he ever made a report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is at his old tricks again-his "reply" he says, and everybody assumed1 the reply was the expected report. What was it Mr. Magill was asked to do? He was asked to prepare Canada's case. And when we began to look for the reply, there was no reply. When we telegraphed to Mr. Magill, he told us he never made any report; he did not go into the subject at all. My right hon. friend might have told the House, instead of saying that Mr. Magill's reply was in the department, that he never made any report. That would have been better than saying the reply was in the department, when the reply was to that effect. As a matter of fact, there was no reply. But with respect to Mr. Magill my right hon. friend did exactly what we did in appointing Mr. Preston. He appointed a gentleman for the express purpose of gathering information that would be of service to the government when they attempted to deal with the
Ocean Shipping Rates

situation. The 'difference between his administration and ours is that there he left the matter, he did not pursue it a step further, for reasons best known to himself; but this government took care to bring into the House of Commons, apart altogether from Mr. Preston's report, a concrete proposal, and we intend to see that both are submitted to the special committee which will be appointed to look into this matter.
But to go on with the report that was made in 1913 by my hon. friend from West York. He says:
The demand for investigation made by the Canadian government and acceded to as above noted by the Imperial authorities, is therefore justified by the exigencies of the traffic moving in either direction.
And he concludes:
This affirmation-
He is referring here to something that was stated earlier:
This affirmation by a member of the Conference of a condition under which the business of any given importer could, at any time, perhaps by the carrier's whim, Jack of information, or desire for an excessive return, be at least temporarily extinguished, would appear of itself to call for the fullest investigation.
In other words, the hon. member for West York found in 1913 a condition whereby producers and other exporters in this country might have their business extinguished at the whim or caprice of the organization controlling affairs on the Atlantic at that time, and he said very properly that such a condition demanded investigation. Is not that in itself sufficient ground for a step such as the government has taken at this time.
But the real basis for the government's action in this matter was the report made by a select committee of this House, the report of the committee on Agricultural Conditions of which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was chairman, and which report was brought to this House and adopted unanimously, adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite; and this report found as a fact that there was a north Atlantic combine.


Mr. STANSELL:: Did that Agricultural
Conditions committee in its report suggest that further work along this line should be undertaken by Mr. Preston?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is my hon. friend trying again to get back to Mr. Preston. The country is not interested in Mr. Preston beyond knowing the extent to which the representations which he has made are true, and they will get that information when the special committee of the House

meets and takes these matters under consideration.


John Lawrence Stansell: Did not that (report
suggest the appointment of a special committee to pursue their investigations further?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think it did, but at the same time I think it made a specific recommendation of its own. It evidently felt the matter was very important, and that too many committees could not be engaged on it. I have here the fourth report of the Agricultural Conditions committee, which was submitted on April 23, 1923:
Your committee are of the opinion that upon the regular steamship lines trading from Canadian ports the price of transportation service is determined neither by the law of supply and demand, nor on the basis of cost plus a reasonable profit, but that a combine exists among the various shipping companies, which combine is known as the North Atlantic and United Kingdom Conference Eastward-bound.
Now, that is not Mr. Preston; that is a committee of this House composed of hon. members of this House who held an inquiry under oath and who found that a combine existed. It was on the strength of that report that the government proceeded; and it is by virtue of that report, amongst other documents to which I shall refer later that the government has taken the action which it has seen fit to take in this matter. Elsewhere in the same report I find this:
To this North Atlantic conference belong nearly all, if not all, of the regular steamship lines running from Montreal, including the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Subsidiary to this Conference there exists a smaller association of steamship men connected with steamship lines trading out of Montreal. This association is called sometimes The Canadian Liner Committee. The lines or transportation companies constituting the association are as follows:
Cunard, Anchor Donaldson and Thomson Lines; Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Ltd., White Star Dominion Line; Intercontinental Transports, Ltd. (with which certain vessels of the Canadian Steamship Lines, Ltd., are associated); Furness Withy Company, McLean, Kennedy and Company; and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited.
The report goes on to show how this Liner committee operates. Perhaps I had better read the paragraph:
The general rates were set at the North Atlantic and United Kingdom Conference in New York:
At this point, Mr. Speaker, may I stop to say just a word. My hon. friends opposite when it comes to labour problems, are very strong in urging that these international unions which have their headquarters in the United States should not be permitted to operate in Canada. Over and over again they have made the statement that it was an outrageous thing that Canadian labour should be associated in any way with American labour and that we should be subject to the dictation of American

Ocean Shipping Rates
unions in connection with our industrial affairs. Well, here in regard to the whole shipping business of this country entering into competition with the United States a select committee of this House has found that the rates are fixed in New York.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Is not the most central
point the natural place for a committee controlling the shipping operating in all parts of the Atlantic?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has admitted the whole case. He says there is a committee operating over the whole of the Atlantic and that New York is the natural place for it to meet. Does the House wish anything more? My hon. friend (Mr. Bristol) -who knows pretty intimately, I think he will admit, the workings of the steamship companies, has told the House that there is a conference that operates on the Atlantic, and it is a world-wide conference.


Edmund James Bristol: Is it not a natural place for it to be? Would you have it in Montreal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, all I am anxious to point out to the House is that we have been contending, and hon. gentlemen opposite have been disputing our contention, that there is a conference that controls ocean rates-that the whole of the cattle and other trade from this country is subject to the action of that conference-and it is in order to take away from that world-wide combine with headquarters at New York the determining of the rates that shall be paid for ocean transport that we propose to take a step which will at least ensure that so far as that part of the trade between this country and the Old Country is concerned it shall be subject not to the control of New York but to the control of the government of Canada. There is the whole purpose of the government's proposal. The alternative is perfectly plain. After what my hon. friend has just said, no hon. member of this House can plead any ignorance whatever of the situation. It has been admitted here this afternoon that there is a world-wide conference controlling rates on the ocean, and that those rates are controlled from the city of New York. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bristol) has admitted that Canada is subject to rates fixed in New York in that way. Now, the House can rest content with that state of affairs, or it can seek to have the control of ocean rates vested in the government of Canada so that in regard to the export trade of this country the determination of rates- whether it refers to matters great or matters small-shall not be left to the United States but shall be left to the representatives of the
Canadian people themselves or persons authorized by them to act in their name.


Edmund James Bristol: Is it the right hon. gentleman's idea that the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, who are members of this conference are American bodies? In view of the fact that the government merchant marine has been a member of the conference right up to the present time why have you not obtained a report from its management during the last three or four years so that you might see what kind of a robber that marine has been, that is if you say the members of the conference are robbers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think that my hon. friend's latest remark in any way affects the force of the statements I have made.


Edmund James Bristol: You are forced to trust to the use of our own merchant marine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will touch upon the merchant marine a little later. In reference to this point all I want to make clear now-so that hon. members will appreciate the fact as they consider the wisdom of the step the government has taken-is that a committee of this House has 5 p.m. already found and reported to the House the facts. It has arrived at the following finding, and I am quoting from the report of the special committee itself:
The general rates were set at the North Atlantic and United Kingdom Conference in New York, but for the purpose of united action in regard to these and other -matters, a weekly meeting was held, at which representatives of all the steamship lines attended. At this meeting, rates were agreed upon, and no member of the line had the right to depart from the rates so established without conferring with and warning its competitors of his intention so to do. An earnestly worded expostulation would be directed by one member to another if this line of conduct was not followed.
This state of affairs brought about the following extraordinary result. The government of the United States forced the shipping board of that country which manages the United States govemmentally-owned steamers, to make a very low rate for the transportation of Sour to Europe-a rate stated by the shipping companies to be below a commercial rate.


Donald Sutherland: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This rate applied only to flour ground in the United States. To meet this rate, the North Atlantic Conference lines established, at a given moment, a rate of fifteen cents per hundred pounds on flour ground in the United States, while they -maintained a rate of nineteen cents per one hundred pounds on Canadian flour-a very substantial differential against our Canadian millers.
Ocean Shipping Rates


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does my hon. friend not now say hear, hear?


Donald Sutherland: The United States government forced their own boats to give this special rate to United States shippers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To this agreement as a member of the North Atlantic Conference, the Canadian Merchant Marine was a party.
Now what is the statement made there? That the United States government itself found it necessary to take action against this combine in regard to its own vessels, and the action which was taken affected the price of flour so far as the United States shipper was concerned. What affect did it have so far as Canada is concerned? It left Canadian millers at a disadvantage in regard to shipments to the Old Country. How great that disadvantage was I shall have occasion to show before proceeding very much farther. Take a further statement:
Evidence was produced showing that since the commencement of the war, ocean rates on cattle had increased by 300 per cent, while the price of beef in the British market had only increased 66 per cent during the same period.
Is that not a fact of which this House should take cognizance?


Arthur Meighen: Is that out of the committee's report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is part
of the report of the committee of which my right hon. friend, along with other members of this House approved.
Now there was a fifth report, and it is on these reports that the government's action has been based^not on any report by Mr. Preston, but on reports made by a select committee of this House. On Monday June 18, 1923. the select committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions presented their fifth report. Here is the first paragraph of it:
The special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions beg leave to present the following as their fifth report:
Ocean freight rates
In their fourth interim report, your committee dealt with the question of ocean freight rates, the control of the rates charged by liners trading out of eastern Canadian ports by the North Atlantic and U.K. Conference, eastward bound, and the operations of the Canadian liner committee, sometimes called the weekly liner committee.
In view of the paramount importance of this subject and of statements made in the press and elsewhere concerning the findings of your committee, we feel that the matter merits further attention.
This is the paragraph that follows:
That the transportation business, as far as concerns ocean liners is very largely in the hands of rings or

conferences is a matter which admits of no possible successful contradiction.
There is the finding of this special committee that made a further investigation into the question of high ocean rates, and it states in language as emphatic as it is possible to put into a report that the transportation business as far as the ocean liners are concerned centres very largely in the hands of rings or conferences. That is a matter which admits of no possible successful contradiction. I might read other parts of the report but it would only be in corroboration of the quotations which I have just given.


Donald Sutherland: Will the Prime
Minister read the recommendations contained in the seventh and final report of the committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my hon. friend-


Donald Sutherland: The report which
the Prime Minister is quoting, to my knowledge, was never submitted to the committee at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.friend may read anything he wishes to the House, but he will perhaps permit me to conclude what I was reading. On page 17 of the report there are quotations from the report of the inquiry of the Dominions Royal Commission which, of course, took place many years ago. These statements all1 go to substantiate the fact that the condition with respect to the control of ocean rates by these shipping rings found here to-day is a condition which existed many years ago. Then the report says:
In spite of the lengthy investigations held into this subject-
And this is interesting in connection with the matter now before the House; this is at page 19,-
-no definite government action either on the part of the British authorities or on the part of the Canadian authorities has yet been taken.
A suggestion is made-I think it is a very wise one and this might be as appropriate a time as any to point it out-in connection with the amendment that has been moved that this control should be by all parts of the empire working together, that if a control of' all these ocean rings is to be completely effective, something even larger than the bringing together of the different parts of the British Empire is necessary. As a matter of fact, it- will take something in the nature of international control, joint action on the part of all countries in the world interested in shipping, to effect complete control. That day may be far distant; but if

Ocean Shipping Rates
there is to be effective control, that will probably be the only means whereby it will be ultimately attained. Mr. Lubin, President of the Agricultural Institute at Rome, I think, made the suggestion in connection with the grain and cattle trade, that there should be some method of effecting international control. I venture to suggest that this is a subject which the League of Nations might well take up, and see if it is not possible, through the instrumentality of the League to bring together the different countries of the world in an effort to effect some kind of international control of ocean rates. But these are things that will take many years to accomplish. In the meantime, one step that will help to bring the matter prominently to the fore, as it is being brought prominently to the fore in the world to-day as a result of the action which this government is taking, is to proceed in a concrete manner with some step which will demonstrate whether the allegations that have been made with respect to high ocean rates are or are not correct.
Then the committee found as follows:
Your committee, in view of the foregoing and of the evidence adduced before them and referred to in a previous interim report, are of the opinion that action is desirable to control shipping rings or conferences.
That is precisely what the government is now attempting. It is attempting to carry out the finding of a committee of this House to the effect that action is necessary to control these ocean rates. The step which this government is now taking in this connection is not the first one. The government has grappled with this problem from the start, and it has attempted different means of bringing about the control which the committee placed upon it as an obligation to be met. One of the steps of which no mention thus far has been made was a step taken by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), who himself went to Montreal, asked the shipping companies to meet him there, and asked these shipping companies if they would not co-operate with the government of Canada in an effort to bring down ocean rates with respect to shipments of cattle to the Old Country, that being one of the foremost of the commodities of our country for which since the removal of the embargo we had a new and important market. He asked if they would not cooperate with the government in seeking to gain for the fanning community of this country the market which properly belongs to Canada in Great Britain. But my hon. friend got little in the way of encouragement from the shipping companies. I have in my hand,
from amongst the papers that have been laid on the table of the House, copies of letters which passed between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the shipping companies with respect to the interviews which he had at that time. This was in March, 1924. Let me read this letter:
White Star Dominion Line
Office of the Manager,
Montreal, February 21, 1924. The Honourable Mr. T. A. Low,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
Referring to your conversation with the writer in regard to the ocean freight rate on cattle and the desire of your department to assist the farmers.
The question was fully discussed yesterday afternoon at a meeting of all the Canadian lines who operate vessels built to carry cattle; but the unanimous decision (was that with the present rate the cattle business is not sufficiently remunerative to attract additional tonnage, and any reduction would mean increased losses and curtailment of sailings.
The last paragraph reads:
We are most anxious to do everything possible to assist the cattle trade in Canada, and consider that the government would be well advised to encourage farmers to raise cattle more extensively; but we very much regret that we cannot see our way to make any further reduction in the ocean rate, which in 1921 was $45, and is now $20 per head.
Your3 very truly,
P. A. Curry,
Manager.
They did not state that at one time the rate was $7 per head. But the Minister of Trade and! Commerce did not let matters drop there. On February 29, 1924, he sent the following communication to Mr. Curry: Dear Mr. Curry :
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 21st instant and regret that you have not been able to see your way clear to meet the government in this matter which we had under discussion during my recent trip to Montreal.
I am anxious to have another meeting with you and other prominent shippers before we decide on any other line of action from the government point of view.
I want hon. members to see the significance of that statement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce proceeded on two occasions to Montreal to discuss with the shipping companies some means of getting better rates across the ocean for Canadian cattle into the British market, believing that the Canadian cattle industry is one of the most important of the industries in Canada and one which this government had a special reason for seeking to develop, in view of the fact, that we, at least, were successful in having the embargo against Canadian cattle removed. My hon. friend went on these two occasions, but on neither of them was he able to get any successful accom-
Ocean Shipping Rates

modation on the part of the shipping interests. Mr. Low said:
I am anxious to have another meeting with you and other prominent shippers before we decide on any other line of action from the government point of view. I would be glad to go to Montreal but as this is a very busy time for us with the session on, I would like to know if you could possibly come to Ottawa to see me some day next week. I would be very glad if you would advise me of the same and also whether some of the other shippers could join you. We are anxious to have another discussion of the situation before deciding on our definite line of action.
Yours very truly,
Thos. A. Low.
The correspondence goes on to indicate that Mr. Curry said he thought it would be well to have a representative, to quote his words, "from every Canadian line interested in the cattle movement," meet with Mr. Low. Mr. Low approved that and intimated that he thought, seeing they were all coming together, it would be better for him to go to Montreal and meet- them there. He went to Montreal, and I have a letter here dated March 15 from Mr. Curry to Mr. Low which reads:
I have to thank you for your letter of the 12th instant, and greatly appreciate your offer to come to Montreal to meet the representatives of the cattle lines, and we will be very pleased to see you at any time on Wednesday, March 19, that is convenient to you.
The following gentlemen will probably attend the meeting: Mr. W. A. Coates, The Robt. Reford Co., Ltd. (Cunard-Donaldson Lines), Mr. J. W. Nicoll, Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Mr. J. P. Doherty, Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Mr. P. A. Curry, White Star-Dominion Line. . . .
I	am told that Mr. Gear also attended this meeting.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This was a year ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, March of last year. It was because the government found it impossible to get the co-operation of our own Canadian Ship owners in its effort to reduce rates on the Atlantic for cattle, that we took the further step we have taken of seeing if we cou'ld not find some company elsewhere that would foe prepared to cooperate to that end. We were ready to do for these other companies what we are now proposing to do for the Petersen Company, but these gentlemen were unwilling to meet us in that connection.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister say that a similar offer was made to them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say
offhand at the moment what particular offer was made, but I know the minister went prepared to make a very generous offer. He could inform the Housefoetter than I could as

to the nature of it. But the reply that was received gave us reason to believe that the shipping interests were not prepared to consider any offer.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister referred to the Preston report. I hope I do not offend him in referring to it. The suggestion was to pay a share of the cost of the shipments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
nature of the offer made to the shipping interests was that the government would be prepared to consider a certain payment, in the way of consideration to the companies, if they would fix a price of which the government would approve. If they did that consideration was to be given. And that is the nature of the arrangement we have made with the Petersen company.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. We have agreed with the Petersen Company that if they will carry cattle, let us say, at a rate which we shall fix they will get the subsidy, and if they do not they shall not receive it. Let the House understand the proposition. What this government has offered to the Petersen Company, and what under this contract the company have agreed to accept, is that the Canadian government shall fix a rate at which cattle are to be carried from all parts of Canada to Great Britain. The company agree to carry cattle, we shall say, at a rate this government will establish.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did someone
say no?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Yes; I say no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon.
gentleman give us his reason.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The contract does not
oblige the Petersen Company to carry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what my hon. friend can be talking about; the whole business depends upon the carrying. Sir William Petersen does not get a five cent piece unless he carries.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The contract does not
say so. If the Prime Minister will read it he will find, I submit, that the contract gives Sir William Petersen the control of ocean rates. If I cannot prove that I am willing to accept whatever the right hon. gentleman says.

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend is driven to that point to attack the contract he has got to the last resort.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In the last resort, I say, Sir William Petersen controls the rates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me in the name of the government definitely state the position. I desire to make it perfectly clear so that there oan be no misunderstanding. If th' contract does not mean that the government of Canada shall fix the rates, then the government of Canada will have nothing to do with it. My hon. friend's interruption is all beside the mark. What the government purposes to do, once the ships are built, is to tell Sir William Petersen the rate at which he is expected to carry cattle from Canadian ports to the ports of Great Britain. If he carries at that rate he will be paid to the extent provided for in the agreement; but if he does not perform that service he will not be entitled to a five cent piece nor will he get so much as a five cent piece. Gan anything be plainer than that?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: But the agreement does
not say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it will help my hon. friend at all for me to say so, I may tell him that it does not matter one whit whether the agreement as drafted does or does not say so; what does matter is that the position of the government is precisely as I have stated it and will be so shown before the committee, otherwise to give it effect, the agreement will have to be amended. But I contend that ,the agreement does provide what I have said; that is the purpose of the contract. Let me read paragraph (d!) of section 1:
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.
Where does Sir William Petersen get the control of the rates there?


Mr. McTAGGART:: Will not the Petersen
Company be expected to pay a satisfactory dividend on its invested capital? If so, would that factor have a tendency to interfere with the effective control as indicated in the contract?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is absolutely beside the mark. So far as this government is concerned, we do not care whether the Petersen Company pays a dividend or not; what we are concerned about is to see that the company shall carry out its 79
contract. The agreement is that, for the consideration we are to give Sir William Petersen, he is prepared to let us fix the rate at which commodities are to be carried. Let me point out that this contract has been drawn up by as able a counsel as can be found in the Dominion of Canada; I think that Mr. Lafleur's name commands a position in the legal profession in this country second to none.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Was he acting for Canada or for Petersen?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was acting for the Dominion of Canada. He was retained by the government and instructed to prepare a contract which should place no liability on the government of this country, in the event of the service which it calls for not being adequately performed.


Mr. BOYS:: Was he told to relieve Sir
William Petersen too of liability?	*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think that the government would have suggested such a thing to him? Would the hon. gentleman himself have made such a suggestion?


William Alves Boys: I cannot gather from the right hon. gentleman's remarks what he has in mind; but I say most emphatically, and I am satisfied that he will agree with me, that Sir William Petersen will not remain responsible under this contract. And the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) did say, in reply to a question I put to him, that he considered that feature vital. I venture to say that no one who has any knowledge of law, or who appreciates the effect of clause 1, will say that Sir William Petersen will remain responsible under any covenant he gives in the first instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my hon. friend's view, but he will find that he is mistaken.


William Alves Boys: I would ask another question. Do I understand the right hon. gentleman to say that he contends otherwise? To make it plain, does he contend that, under clause 1, when the proposed company is formed Sir William Petersen may not be relieved of his covenant, or of all covenants, for that matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have a chance to examine Sir William Petersen when he is before the committee.


William Alves Boys: But I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Alves Boys: Let us be reasonable. The Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen have suggested that this is one of the most important matters that this parliament has dealt with. Surely, then, it is reasonable that a member of this House should ask the leader of the government whether or not he does contend that Sir William Petersen will be responsible under the contract. Does the Prime Minister say that when the company is formed and Sir William Petersen's contract is superseded by one with a new concern, Sir William Petersen will not be totally relieved of every covenant in the agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My understanding is that he will be responsible.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: And Mr. Lafleur so advised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; Mr. Lafleur so advised. But apart from that altogether, let us assume that what my hon. friend says is correct. If Sir William Petersen were to get out of the contract and some other company should take it over, not a single dollar of the money of the Canadian people will go to anyone until the service is performed in accordance with the contract. That is the vital point. If Sir William Petersen makes an arrangement with some company to take over the contract, as I presume he may do, if he is a wise man, seeing that he may not live out the period of ten years, the fact remains that the contract calls for a certain class of ships and for a regular service to be rendered from Canadian ports, continuous and at certain rates to be fixed by the government. No payment will therefore be made until that service is performed. What difference does it make whether some other company takes over the contract or whether Sir William Petersen personally carries it out?
Mr. BOYS. Does the Prime Minister want an answer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not spoken yet and he will get his opportunity.


William Alves Boys: If the right hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Alves Boys: If the Prime Minister says that he does not want to be asked questions I certainly will not ask him any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to have questions asked.


William Alves Boys: That is all I am doing.


Mr. VIEN:: Don't make speeches.


William Alves Boys: I simply want to know whether the government places any reliance on the financial standing of Sir William Petersen. If it does, surely in the event of his being relieved of the contract it would be a matter of consequence whether the succeeding company were financially sound or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as the
government is concerned, may I say that in this whole matter we have taken into consideration the circumstance that not a dollar of public money will be paid out of the treasury until service is performed in accordance with the terms of the contract which has been entered into with Sir William Petersen. The question whether Sir William himself or some company that may take over this contract from him will perform its terms is a secondary matter altogether. What I think this House and the Canadian public is interested in knowing is whether there will be liability so far as the government of Canada is concerned where the service has not been performed. Now, I wish to state emphatically in the name of the government that if this contract means in any particular that payments are to be made other than as service is performed, the government will not entertain the contract for an hour. The obligation is clear, it is there in black and white: What we are paying for is the right to control rates. Let us get down to a concrete case. We started, as I have been intimating, dealing with tile question of rates on cattle. One of the last letters sent to Mr. Low, Minister of Trade and Commerce, was from Montreal on May 9, 1924. It says:
Dear Mr. Low,-Referring to our conversation in this office on Wednesday last, the question of cattle rates has been given further careful consideration, but I regret to have to advise you that none of the lines owning vessels which carry cattle are prepared to make any reduction in the present ocean rate which, as you are aware, is $20 par head.
Yours truly,
P. A. Curry,
Manager,
White Star Dominion Line.
Mr. Low replied on May 13, 1924, as follows:
Dear Mr. Curry : Acknowledging receipt of your letter of May 9, may I say that I greatly regret that your company and others have not been able to see their way clear to co-operate with the government in lowering the carrying rates on cattle.
That was all in May of last year. After that Mr. Low himself went to England and made inquiries to see if he could find a steamship company in the Old Land which was prepared to carry cattle at a lower rate for a consideration. My hon. friends want

Ocean Shipping Rates
to see how this contract was developed. There is the development of it. The government had made up its mind that it would, if possible, effect an arrangement whereby the cattle of this country could be transported to the British market at a lower carrying charge than was exacted by the steamship lines. We sought in every direction, and the outcome of that search-it was difficult-was the offer made by the Petersen company to undertake the work. May I say to hon. members that I discussed with Sir William Petersen very closely how he expected for the consideration which we were paying to be able to make this arrangement go. His reply to me at each stage was, "Mr. King, if I did not know the charges which are being made by this ocean combine at the present time I would hesitate to make an arrangement of the kind; but if you can tell me anything about ocean rates that I don't know, I will be glad to be told." In other words, Sir William Petersen believes that he can demonstrate not only to this country but to Great Britain and the world that he can let this government -I put it concretely-cut rates on cattle from $20 to $15 or even to $10 per head for the consideration that he is getting, and .deliver those cattle in the markets of Great Britain. Now, is it worth while attempting that in the interests of the Canadian people?
What is the position? For thirty years or more our cattle have been shut out of the British market. Away back in the early nineties, through an alleged violation of some cattle diseases act, our cattle were excluded from that market. No one took very seriously the reason alleged viz., that Canadian cattle suffered from pleuro-pneumonia, or whatever the disease was. The measure was looked upon as disguised protection for the cattle interests of the Old Land. Government after government in this country from that date onward sought to have the embargo removed. The late government sought to have it removed. I do not wish to claim particular credit for this government, beyond drawing attention to the fact, that through the activity of Hon. Mr. Larkin, the High Commissioner, I believe more than anyone else, this government was able to bring about a change in the situation, and the British government did do away with the embargo on Canadian cattle. What did we find? Although we had secured the right to ship Canadian cattle to the British market, we found that rates being charged for ocean carriage were such that we did not begin to get the number of cattle across that we had every reason to expect 'would be exported. Having that market at our doors, this govem-79i
ment has felt that it was worth to the cattle raisers of all provinces of this country payment of a very considerable sum to secure the British market for their cattle. In efforts in that direction my hon. friend (Mr. Low) was seeking to make an arrangement with the shipping companies of Montreal by which it would be worth their while to carry cattle at a lower rate. Finding it impossible to make that arrangement, he went to England and while there secured a conference with the Petersen concern and made the proposal which as developed is as now formulated in the contract before parliament for consideration.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have at least made clear the genesis of this matter, I hope I have shown the House that the Preston report was in no way the basis of the agreement made with the Petersen line; but was rather the assembling of material intended to be of service when the matter came up for discussion; and that the actual contract itself was based on findings of a committee of this House and on the needs of the situation as they have been pressed on the government from every direction.
May I now say a word about the representations that have been made to this and preceding governments on the question of ocean rates? While I have spoken more particularly of cattle, ocean rates affect the chances of export of every single commodity produced or manufactured in Canada. There is not an interest of any size in this country, I venture to say, whether it foe the cattle raising interest, the grain producing interest, the milling interest, the lumbering interest, the dairying interest, the fruit and vegetable growing interest, the manufacturing interests or producers or consumers generally, importers and exporters of packages and the like, that has not been making protests year after year to the government of Canada about the way in which business has been held up through the high rates charged on the Atlantic. If the House will give me the time, I purpose to put on the records to-night some of these representations, and the point to which I wish t(o direct the attention of the House before I place them on Hansard is that in virtually every one of the communications, language is used to the effect that unless these ocean rates can be reduced our export business is going to be thwarted and the industries themselves strangled as a consequence. My right hon. friend talks about unemployment, about industries closing down, about men walking the streets,-let him read these documents of which the departments are full, and
Ocean Shipping Rates

many of which have been laid on the table, and he will find that interest after interest of the classes I have mentioned have been representing to the government that their whole export business, through the differentials given on the Atlantic is threatened with extinction. In other words, every one of them has made representations to the effect that the rates from New York to British ports are so much lower than those from Canadian , ports, that there is no hope of their being able to export through Canadian ports. They have directed the attention of the preceding government and of the present government over and over again to these excessive rates which are threatening the existence of the country's export business.
I would ask hon. members to look at the correspondence that was tabled the other day between the government of Canada and the British government in regard to the subject of ocean rates, especially in relation to the Imperial Shipping committee-correspondence that was brought down at the request of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). The first letter is signed by Sir George H. Perley, who at the time was High Commissioner in London. It reads in part as follows:
London, S.W., 4th January, 1921.
Dear Mr. Meighen,-You will remember that during the past ten years the question of ocean freight rates has been discussed many times, as they often seemed higher than was reasonable, and some of us thought that a way might be found for controlling them by a body similar to our railway commission. I am sure that you have been approached many times on the subject and I had occasion to look into it a good deal when carrying on the Trade and Commerce department in Ottawa in Sir George Foster's absence. Not long after we came into power, while Acting Prime Minister,
I arranged with Sir Henry Drayton to come over here and try and find out the feeling here on the subject. He came back not feeling very hopeful about the possibility of getting anything done in the direction of freight rate control but he will be able to tell you about this himsdlf.
That was not the first trip of the hon. member for West York across to the other side in connection with this matter. He had gone over in 1913 and had tried to effect some measure of control; then apparently he was sent over in 1918, and, as Sir George Perley says, came back not feeling very hopeful.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is making a mistake there. I went over only once on that question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friendfs pardon; I had assumed that Sir George Perley was Acting Prime Minister at the latter period.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know as to that, but I was over only once.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I retract what I said in that regard. At any rate, my hon. friend was over in 1913. Then Sir George Perley goes on:
Nothing was done about this question during the war but on April 29th, 1919, I received the following cable from Sir Thomas White who was then Acting Prime Minister:
"Canada much concerned about ocean freight rates- Inquire and cable whether British government would co-operate with Canada in giving effect to report of Koval Commission on Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions empire as presented to Imperial parliament in March, 1917-this report finds that it is not desirable that operations of steamship companies carrying passengers and freight between Canada and England should remain longer without government supervision-most important to obtain official position of British authorities respecting matter."
This I at once communicated to the Colonial Secretary here and I spoke to Sir Robert Borden about it when I was in Paris a few days after receiving it. In the reply from the Colonial Office they drew attention to a despatch which had been sent to the Governor General on December 9th, 1918, and which contained suggestions for the constitution of an imperial investigation board for the purpose of reviewing questions relating to maritime transport and to the development of the sea communications of the empire.
Sir Robert Borden had evidently been giving the matter his careful consideration and in May, 1919, he prepared a memorandum "respecting necessary control of ocean freight rates and the disposition of available shipping," of which you will find a copy attached. This memorandum, which suggested in effect that the control of ocean rates and disposition of shipping should be placed in the hands of a commission, composed ot representatives from the various parts of the Empire, was transmitted to Mr. Lloyd George and to the Prime Ministers of the other Dominions.
I need not read the whole of that communication. It is sufficient to say that first of all Sir Robert Borden, as Prime Minister, then Sir George Perley as Acting Prime Minister, then Sir Thomas White as Acting Prime Minister and afterwards the right hon. leader of the opposition, (Mr. Meighen) as Prime Minister-all four of them attempted to deal with this question, believing that the matter of .high ocean rates was all important. The communication of Sir George Perley, concludes:
As such a large amount of tonnage is owned in these islands-
He was writing from London.
-they are perhaps naturally not very anxious about control of freight rates, and therefore, if you decide to bring the question before the committee, I do not think it possible to give too much time or attention to the preparaion of our case.
Yet what is the amendment that is moved by hon. gentlemen opposite? It is to do the very thing that Sir George Perley says he thinks will not meet with much response on the other side. In his communication to my right hon. friend himself Sir George Perley says:
MARCH 17, iSF-C
Ocean Shipping Rates
As such a large amount of tonnage is owned in these islands they are perhaps naturally not very anxious about the control of freight rates.
Yet my hon. friend drafts an amendment suggesting that we should solve this question by referring it to a commission on the other side. If hon. members will look at the memorandum which was drafted by Sir Robert Borden they will find that the first paragraph is as follows:
As transportation between different portions of the British Empire must be carried on almost wholly by means of shipping the control of ocean freight rates and a just disposition of available shipping in the interests of the whole empire are vitally necessary.
These are emphatic words-"control of ocean freight rates . . . vitally necesisary." That is what we believe; that is what we are seeking to bring about, and we are taking what we believe to be the only steps that can be taken to get results. Sir Robert says in paragraph 6:
In its broadest aspects the question thus presented must necessarily demand attentive, and perhaps prolonged, consideration for its permanent solution; but a temporary solution is urgently important, as beyond question the present situation has become critical and if uncontrolled it will probably lead to unfortunate and perhaps disastrous results.
There Sir Robert Borden gives his views to the British government, those views being communicated by Sir George Perley to the right hon. leader of the opposition. Sir Robert states that control is a vital necessity; that it may take a long time to bring about effective control but that some immediate step is necessary, otherwise the results may be disastrous. That is the exact position the government takes in this matter. We do not contemplate that the arrangement we have entered into with Sir William Petersen will effectively control the ocean rates for all time, but we do believe it is a necessary first step to bring about the kind of control which ultimately will be effective. We think it is at least a beginning, and a beginning in the right direction.
I shall not "with respect to these communications take up the time of the House further than to read a letter which my right hon. friend himself wrote to Sir George Perley in acknowledgment of Sir George's communication. This letter is dated at Ottawa, February 16, 1921, and is as follows:
Dear Sir George Perley,-After consideration of your letter of January 4th we have decided that the question of the control of ocean freight rates should be placed before the Imperial Shipping Committee at an ^arJy date. We also agreed with your suggestion that the case from the Canadian view point should be carefully prepared, and Dr. Magill, of the Grain Exchange, Winnipeg, has been asked to undertake the task. A3
soon as his report and recommendations are received they will be considered and transmitted to you for your guidance.
Yours faithfully,
Arthur Meighen.
The Hon Sir George H. Perley,
High Commissioner for Canada,
19 Victoria Street,
London, S.W.l,
England.
Then in writing Dr. Magill the right hon. gentleman says:
You wiill observe that the Canadian government have attached great importance to the desirability of securing, if feasible, some control of ocean freight rates.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And he asked Dr. Magill to make a report. My right hon. friend says "hear, hear." But what did he do? This letter was written in February, 1921, and month after month went by without any further attention being paid to the matter by my right hon. friend. He did not press Dr. Magill for his report; he never asked for any report. Moreover, my right hon. friend himself went to England that summer; he attended the meeting of the Imperial conference and he was right next door to where the Imperial Shipping committee was sitting. Does my right hon. friend tell this House that he made any effort to carry out what he was there suggesting might be done in the way of keeping down ocean rates? As a matter of fact my right hon. friend knows that after writing the letter to Dr. Magill he never gave the matter another thought; he let the shipping interests have free sway. So far as the needs of the public were concerned, the matter rested at the point indicated by the quotation which I have just read.
Now, may I point out that my right hon. friend received more representations (than those I have mentioned-and I have quoted from his own colleagues, a pretty strong phalanx, if one stops to think of it: Sir Robert Borden, Sir Thomas White, Sir George Perley and Sir Henry Drayton, four of the best known names in our country, each of them Prime Minister or Acting Prime Minister in his day, each urging that some steps be taken to see that, this matter was remedied. Then we have my right hon. friend's own name added to the list, and we find all of them declaring that this question of ocean rates was something that demanded the attention of the government, but all of them leaving the matter at that point. Now they suggest that we should settle this by referring the whole question to some conference that is to be held in Great Britain.
Ocean Shipping Rates



WEST VIRGINIA PULP AND PAPER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 19 consideration in committee of Bill No. 13, respecting a patent of West Virginia Pu'lp and Paper Company-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Rigjits saved.
Mr.   MAOLEAN@York: On three or four nights I have sat here when private bills have been called and none of the sponsors has been present to explain them. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



EDGEWORTH GREENE PATENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 10 consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, respecting a patent of Edgeworth Greene-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr.   MAOLEAN@York: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, respecting a patent of the Marconi
[Stage Direction]
Marconi Wireless Company
Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.
Some hoin. MEMBERS:	Explain.
Mr. MARLER:: 
Mr. J. A. WALLACE (Norfolk):: I am
strongly opposed to the passing of this bill, the objectionable features of which should be apparent to every hon. member. As outlined in the preamble it looks harmless and simple enough on the face of it. It calls for

Marconi Wireless Company
the extension of Canadian patent No. 98083 granted on March 20, 1906, for certain new and useful improvements in instruments for converting alternating electric currents into continuous currents. The period of extension asked for is seven years. This patent involves, as my hon. friend (Mr. Marler) has said, the basic patent known as the Fleming valve or rectifier, on which all modem radio rests. This valve or rectifier was invented by Dr. Fleming of the University of London and was patented in England in 1904. The patent term in England was 14 years and expired in the year 1918. It was not renewed. This device was patented in the United States in 1906, the term there being seventeen years, and it was not renewed although application was made for an extension of time. The patent was taken out in Canada in 1906 and the term expired in March last. As my hon. friend has said, application was made in the dying days of last session to have the time extended.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Will the hon. gentleman
bear in mind the remarks I have made? The objections raised by the Senate are eliminated from the present bill.


John Alexander Wallace: It is true the objections
of the Senate have been eliminated from it, but those are not the objectionable features of the bill. At least, they are not really so objectionable in my opinion, whatever my hon. friend may think. My objection to the bill I is, in brief, that it will lay on the general public of Canada, particularly on radio enthusiasts, a very heavy financial burden. And I shall briefly indicate why. This patent is the device which I hold in my hand and which will be familiar to every radio user. It is the vacuum tube or Fleming valve or rectifier, and it consists essentially of two electrodes, a hot and a cold, within a vacuum. It was discovered by Edison before Dr. Fleming's time that a high voltage, high frequency alternating current will go only in one direction between a hot and a cold electrode, but this principle was made use of by Dr. Fleming and applied to wireless telegraphy. This device, with the addition of a third electrode, the grid, introduced by Dr. De Forest of New York, revolutionized wireless telegraphy and made possible modem wireless telephony or radio as we know it. If this bill passes, every j radio user in Canada will be affected because 1 if the extension of time is granted it will be of no advantage to the manufacturing company unless they put up the price of the tubes. This tube which I hold in my hand sold for $9 while the patent stood. A year
ago in February, just before the expiry of the patent, the price of the tube dropped to $6 and in February of this year it went down to $4. Someone suggests that it has, gone below that.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Since the patent ran
out?


John Alexander Wallace: Yes, the year after it expired. Now, I venture the prediction that the price will be advanced at least $2 if not more if the patent is extended.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Will the hon. gentleman
look at section 2 of the bill? Does it not permit others to manufacture the same article in Canada provided manufacture is already started?


John Alexander Wallace: I have no information
that that has been done to any extent although I cannot speak with any certainty. I do not think that this device has been manufactured by anyone who will not be affected by the extension of the patent. Section 3 provides that the act shall not affect or restrict in any way the manufacture in Canada of an invention, covered by the said patent, for export out of Canada. The principle apparently seems to be to lay all the burden on the Canadian radio user. In the special copyright committee this afternoon Mr. Cartier who has charge of the broadcasting station of La Presse in Montreal was examined. He stated that there are 400,000 radio receiving stations in Canada, and he expressed the opinion that 100,000 at least of these are users of the tube set receiving apparatus, the others being users of the crystal set, who would not be affected. My estimate is that if there are 100,000 users of tube sets to-day there will be a million users of them in 1931 by the time the patent expires.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that
these sets have all the way from two to five tubes?


John Alexander Wallace: Yes, these tube sets may have as many as eight tubes, according to the results which the owner wishes to obtain. The life of these tubes is short, particularly in the hands of amateurs; they are being burned out and broken every day. I estimate conservatively that every radio user will require on an average at least two and a half tubes a year, probably more.


Mr. MACLEAN:: (York):	How much do
they cost?


John Alexander Wallace: The type which I have
here costs $4. The price varies according to the variety. '

Marconi Wireless Company


William Findlay Maclean: How much does an electric bulb cost?


John Alexander Wallace: I do not know; the price of electric bulbs varies as well. But if the average owner of a radio set uses two and a half tubes a year, and my estimate of the number of owners of radio sets is anywhere near correct, the public of Canada during the next six years in which the patent would be extended under this bill, as one year has already expired, would use 7,500,000 tubes. If the price is advanced $2 per tube, this would involve an outlay on the part of the radio public of Canada of $15,000,000. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that would lay a heavier burden on the radio public of this country than the proposed Petersen bill would lay on the public generally. There is another point to be considered. If this patent is extended, there are innumerable patents covering improvements of this device, some of them mechanical, some of them electrical, and there is no reason why the holders of those patents should not come to this parliament and ask for extension also. For these reasons I submit that there is no justification for the extension of this particular patent. We have the reputation of being long-suffering, but I venture to say, Sir, that the House will not inflict this burden upon the long-suffering people of Canada.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the House and the country as a whole are to be congratulated on our having among us one with the technical knowledge of this subject which has been displayed by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Wallace). Being a skilled electrical engineer, he was able to detect this seemingly innocent little bill as it was on its progress through the House. All civilized countries have patent and copyright acts; it is fitting that that should be so. The object is to protect an inventor or an author in his right to enjoy the product of his brain; and, speaking generally, for my part I would say that these rights should be primarily considered irrespective of the manufacturers' or the publishers' rights. Our patent act gives a man the right to his invention for a period of eighteen years. In the judgment of many that time is too long; certainly it is long enough. If the term is to be changed at all, I think we would favour reducing rather than lengthening it. Many reasons might be advanced why this patent should not be continued. The hon. member who has introduced the bill (Mr. Marler) has indicated certain reasons why in his judgment it should be continued. I suppose the same reasons

could be advanced by almost every patentee for similar indulgence. But this particular patent has run its course of eighteen years. It is now nearly eight years since the close of the war, and its holders have had an opportunity to enjoy the profits arising from the manufacture of the article covered by the patent. I can well imagine that no bill that might be proposed to the House this session would arouse such strong protests from the public of Canada generally as would this particular bill, and I venture to say that hon. members will hear very soon from a tremendous number of radio fans all through the country if the prayer of the bill is granted and the patent extended.
Motion (Mr. Marler) negatived.



OCEAN SHIPPING RATES


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the proposed resolution 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 ocean rates, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Clark.
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) :: Mr. Speaker, before the debate is resumed, I have a word to say of the nature of a question of privilege. While the Prime Minister this afternoon was quoting somewhat largely from the fifth interim report of the special committee on Agricultural Conditions, of which I was the chairman in the session of 1923, the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said that that report had never been brought before the committee prior to its being submitted to the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That was a somewhat severe reflection-


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the hon. gentleman is not stating a question of privilege at all; he is debating what was discussed on the question which is now before the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should like the hon. gentleman to state if he understood that the remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford impugned his character?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would regret to think, Mr. Speaker, that any of my fellow members would impugn my character; but if the state-

Ocean Shipping Rates
ment was correct, it certainly impugned my knowledge of the procedure of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. From what I can gather this is not a question of privilege. It is rather in the nature of an explanation which might be made on the orders of the day. It is a question of fact as between the affirmation made by one member and that made by the other. A question of privilege is so serious that i't might send an hon. member to the tower. But I do not think in the present instance that the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford is such that he might likely be censured. The point of order is well taken


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) is not to be permitted to make the explanation which he was about -to make, possibly I will be within my right if I give to the House


Hewitt Bostock: If the right hon. gentleman will allow me, I might add that if the hon. member -for Brome had not already spoken once in the debate he could have been allowed to make the explanation as his speech.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will state
what I think is in my hon. friend's mind, and if I am in error he will perhaps correct me. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) raised the question this afternoon with respect to a report from which I was quoting. He said either that the report had not been approved by the committee, -that all parties had not been represented on the committee,-or that the report had not been concurred in. I do not recall exactly what his remark was, but, in effect, it was one or the other.


Donald Sutherland: May I point out
to my right hon. friend that I asked him if he would kindly quote the recommendation contained in the seventh and last report of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
spoke about the report not having been concurred in. I am informed, at any rate, that so far as the committee is concerned all parties were represented on the committee when the report was before it. I have before me at the moment the Journals of the House for Tuesday, June 26, 1923, the first item of which reads as follows:
On motion of Mr. McMaster, the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh reports of the special committee appointed
to inquire into agricultural conditions, were concurred in.


Donald Sutherland: May I ask if these
reports were read before they were concurred in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are always read, I understand.


Donald Sutherland: They were not read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my hon. friend should have made it a point to read them before concurring in them as apparently all on his side did.
Mr.	MEIGHEN:	The Prime	Minister
should add that I rose on behalf of the party I represented and protested against concurrence in the reports under the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These particular reports?


Arthur Meighen: Those reports.
Mr.	MACKENZIE KING:	My right
hon. friend nevertheless concurred in them.
Mr.	MEIGHEN:	The House	concurred
against	my protest.


Donald Sutherland: Without their being read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point of importance is the fact that the House concurred in the reports and the reports contained the statements which I made to the House this afternoon.
At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was directing the attention of the House to a series of communications to be found on the government files and which have been laid on the table of the House, communications which make it perfectly clear, I submit, that one interest after another in Canada was suggesting to the government of the day, of which my right hon. friend was the leader, that the high rates which were being charged on ocean freights were having the effect of destroying the export trade of the particular industries with which they were concerned, were in fact helping to bring about the closing of many of those industries and to increase unemployment in Canada. It was pointed out that the general effect was adverse to Canadian industries while helping to build up the industries of the United States, the railroads of the United States and transport from United States ports. In other words, the procedure of this ocean combine has been to establish rates, undoubtedly through the associations which these big interests enjoy among each other, from American ports to
Ocean Shipping Rates

European and British ports considerably lower than the rates fixed from Canadian ports to British ports. The result has been that our Canadian industries, owing to the higher rate of transport across the Atlantic to European and British ports, find themselves unable to compete with similar industries in the United States and, what is even worse, find that the higher rates from Canadian ports to British ports are causing much of the raw material of Canada to go to the United States to be manufactured there, thus building up United States industries at the expense of Canadian industries and stimulating the shipments of goods to European countries through United States ports instead of through our own ports. One instance that I spoke of as attracting a good deal of attention was that of the milling industry. Representations were made over and over again to the government of my right hon. friend opposite by this industry in Canada that owing to the fixing by the combine of lower rates upon flour from the United States to British and continental ports than from Canadian ports to the same point overseas, a large volume of grain was going from Canada into the United States to be ground in American mills, while our own mills, unable to export any flour, were closing their doors. What was true in the case of the flour and milling industry, according to the representations I have been reading to the House, has been true also with respect to the cattle trade and, according to representations which I shall read, has been true also with respect to many other industries. I was speaking of the clothes peg industry before the House rose; I mentioned it because it is one of numerous industries affected. What I have said is true also of the dairying industry, of the fruit growing industry, of the canning industry, and of others of great variety and scope. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak about raising the tariff wall, about putting a ring around Canada to prevent the competition of American goods, yet they are prepared to permit these ocean rates to be so regulated by a combine that our raw material is being drained from Canada to build up industries in the United States which compete with ours in export trade, a regulation of rates moreover which makes it impossible for our industries to ship goods from Canadian ports to Great Britain and European ports in competition with shipments going from American ports.
Now may I continue reading some of these representations?


Edmund James Bristol: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me a question? Do the tramps on the Atlantic take flour? I understood that

flour was one of the commodities in competition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to tramps I shall have a word to say later. As I understand it, tramp steamers are ever on the lookout for business, picking it up whereever they can can. But when you study the rates they have been receiving, you find that they are just a little bit below the rates which the combine fixes. In other words, the rates the tramp steamers get ,are based upon the rate which the combine originally fixes. If the combine's rate is high, the tramp steamer will be getting a very high rate, even though it is a little lower than that of the combine. On the other hand if the rates are kept down by the conference the tramp steamer will fix a slightly lower rate. Sc that so far as I can make out, the rates which the tramp steamers get are in the first instance based upon the rates fixed by the combine for the liners.
Now, may I read further regarding these ocean freight rates on flour? I have before me a letter which will illustrate what I have just said. It is from the Dominion Millers' Association to the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition, and is as follows:
1801 Royal Bank Building,
Toronto, January 15, 1921.
Re: Ocean Freight Rates on Flour Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-You will remember when Mr. Gear and his colleagues appeared before you and the other members of the cabinet on the above question that he stated in reply to Sir Henry Drayton's query as to the freight rates being fixed in New York for the Canadian lines that they always took care to protect the interests of the Canadian shippers.
In the latter part of December the rate on wheat dropped from 40c. to 25c. per 100 lbs. and under the order of the U.S. Shipping Board, the rates on vessels subject to that board dropped on flour to 30c. per 100 lbs. making the differential 5c. per 100 lbs. as before.
Application was made to the Canadian shipping companies to reduce their rates likewise to 30c. per 100 lbs. on flour but we are informed that at a meeting of the steamship agents it was decided not to make any reduction with the result that the Canadian millers are now to pay 45c. per 100 lbs. by the Canadian steamship agents while U.S. millers or for that matter Canadians, can ship flour at 30c. per 100 lbs. via New York, Baltimore, etc.
I wanted to be positive of this before taking the matter up with you and to-day saw a letter from New York quoting 30 cents rate on flour to U.K. ports for January shipment while 45 cents has been the lowest rate offered from Canada although we understand we can get it for 25 cents to continental ports.
It seems a remarkable situation that Canadian government steamers should refuse to carry flour from Canadian ports at the same rate as U.S. government steamers will carry flour for both U.S. and Canadian millers from U.S. ports thus discriminating against Canadian ports and Canadian railways and compelling

Ocean Shipping Rates
Canadian millers to ship via U.S. railroads through U.S. ports.
This is especially extraordinary at the present time when unemployment is so great in Canada and also in view of the fact that it w-as reported in the press, one of the government steamers has been chartered to load in New York for some foreign port.
We sincerely trust that you will take this matter up immediately and take whatever steps are necessary to secure the 30 cent rate on flour from Canadian ports as well as U.S. ports. It looks very peculiar and bears strong evidence of there being a combine in ocean freight rates the U.K. when freight can be secured at 25 cents to the continent from the same agents as ask 45 cents to the U.K. ports.
Whilst speaking of flour, I might quote two other letters, one from the Fischer Flour Mills, of Pembroke, Ontario, dated April 4, 1921, addressed to the Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, and reading as follows:
Re: Flour Shipments to Danzig
Gentlemen,-We have recently been submitting offers for carload shipments of flour to the Danzig (Free State) authorities and would have secured handsome contract if it had not been for the transportation charges which appear to be considerably higher from Canada to Danzig than New York to Danzig, and it is only on account of the saving in freight the New York interests secured the order.
We have been promised an order on the basis of equal freight. Is it not possible for us to secure part of this business and can you not please find out for us what would be the cheapest way to ship flour from Pembroke to the port of Danzig. Of course, so far we had to figure on St. John, N.B., freight which will be considerably reduced as soon as we could ship from Montreal.
We will be very much indebted to you for assisting us in this proposition. Business is slack and it would seem a pity if orders for flour which are so badly needed here should be all going to the American competition.
Trusting to receive full information at an early date, we remain,
Faithfully yours,
Fischer Flour Mills.
Then on April 8, 1921, the same firm writing to the Commercial Intelligence branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and referring to this file, says:
Dear Sirs,-We are very much indebted to you for 3'our kind letter of the 6th inst. in connection with ocean freight rates on flour to Danzig, Europe.
We have informed you that it costs $4.00 to $5.00 to ship one ton of flour from New York to Danzig, and we are to-day advised by the C.P.R. that their rate from Montreal to Danzig is 48 cents a hundred or $9.60 a ton.
In other words, under the arrangement which this combine worked out, flour was going from New York to Danzig at from $4 to $5 per ton, whereas the rate from Montreal was $9.60 per ton. This firm adds:
This is a remarkable difference and as you will readily see, will surely kill the trade for Canadian maufacturers desirous of exporting to the above port.
Your co-operation is indeed highly appreciated and we are looking forward to encouraging news.
Faithfully yours,
Fischer Flour Mills.
I wish again to direct the attention of the House to the phraseology used by these various shippers. One after the other refers to the circumstance, not that his industry is being prejudiced, not that his industry is being impaired, but that it is being killed or destroyed. "This is a remarkable difference," this firm Says, "and as you will readily see, will surely kill the trade for Canadian manufacturers." So much for representations with respect to the shipments of flour.
Now let me give a quotation or two with regard to canned goods. There is another large industry in this country, which affects market gardeners as well. This is a communication dated Hamilton, January 24, 1921, from the Dominion Canners, Limited, addressed to the Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottaw-a:
Dear Sir,-We have reliable information that freight ra es on canned goods from San Francisco to U.K. ports have been fixed at $1.10 per 100 lbs. or the same rate as from Atlantic ports, provided the goods are not strapped.
You will readily appreciate that it is impossible for us to compete with California packers on this freight basis. The rates of freight now being asked by the various steamship companies, owing to their pool arrangements, is altogether too high and while the outlook for business under the most favourable conditions is not encouraging, the high freight rates are completely killing it.
There again is the same expression as was used in a previous letter, "the high freight rates are completely killing it," namely, the export business in canned goods in this country. The letter continues:
It should be in the Canadian interests to see that the freight ra'es established from Canadian ports to Great Britain are in line with the California rates. You understand, of course, that in California they are able to pack very much cheaper than We are in eastern Canada, owing to the tremendous business which they do there and owing to the large quantities of fruits and vegetables grown especially for canning factories on a very large scale. If there is any possibility of reducing rates, we belive it is in the best interests of all concerned.
If our information is correct, many boats are tied up for lack of freight and the holding of freights at prohibitive prices is only resulting in the goods not moving at all.
Yours very truly,
Dominion Canners Limited.
The next is a communication with respect to rolled oats, another industry of importance in this country. I shall read only one or two paragraphs. This letter is addressed to the Right Hon. Sir George E. Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, and is from the Dominion Millers' Association:
Hon. Sir.-I am asked to call your attention to the high ocean freight on rolled oats.
Then this paragraph appears:
The oatmeal mills have found it impossible to sell any oatmeal for export in the face of these pro-
Ocean Shipping Rates

hibitive ocean freight rates with the result that the Canadian oatmeal mills are shut down while the Old Country mills are busy and the steamship companies are not getting the oatmeal to carry and ships including those of the Canadian Marine, are lying idle for days at a time in port waiting for sufficient cargo to accumulate to justify their sailing.
The last paragraph reads:
You will of course realize that the fact that oatmeal mills are shut down has an adverse effect on the price of oats as it takes ten bushels of oats to make one barrel of oatmeal so if the steamship companies would reduce their freight to a workable basis, it would not only be a benefit to the steamship companies themselves, and the milling industry but also to the farming community.
1 have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
C. B. Watts,
Secretary.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: What is the date
of that letter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letter is
dated March 16, 1921. I am reading representations which my right hon. friend and his government had before them with respect to these high ocean rates, and the point I wish to draw to the attention of the House in that connection is that this problem is by no means a new one. It is not a matter with which the Preston report is concerned one way or the other. I am trying to show that the government departments are full of these representations from all the leading industries of our country, and it is on the representations which have been made to the government, independent altogether of any report made by Mr. Preston, that the government action in this present connection is based. I wish also to make this e'lear, that this condition is just as bad-I should n.ot say as bad, it is worse to-day, because the rates that are complained of here have been increased since that time on all the commodities to which I have made reference, and there is no guarantee whatever that next month unless the government steps in and takes action such as we are taking to-day, the rates may not be raised again. There is no control whatever. This combine regulates the rates any way they please, and every industry of anjr importance in this country is pointing out to the government that its export trade is being thwarted, if not destroyed entirely, by the high ocean rates; and in addition to that 'businesses are being closed down and men are being thrown out of employment. If my right hon. friend wants to know why men are out of employment and why businesses are closing down, he will find it in these representations which have been made to the government as to the impossibility of shipping goods abroad at the high rates 
which are being charged by the working of this combine.
Now let me take another communication in regard to the rates on cattle. This is a communication addressed to Hon. Dr. S. F. Tolmie, Minister of Agriculture, dated August 1, 1921, from the Stock Growers' Protective Association of Western Canada, Calgary, Alta., and signed by W. F. Stevens, secretary. Hon. gentlemen opposite wall know whether that association has a right to speak on behalf of those for whom it professes to speak in this communication:
Dear Sir-I am taking the liberty of directing your attention to the severe drop in market prices for cattle. According to a report just received from the commission firms in Calgary, $5.25 per hundredweight is at the present time the top price for butcher steers. Something is necessary to be done or the live stock business of production in western Canada will be reduced to a lower level than has been the case for many years. I have been requested by the directors to communicate with you in this respect and direct your attention to the present situation.
I have been asked to acknowledge our appreciation of the reduction that has been made in the price of steamship space, and also to say that another similar reduction will have to be made if our stock growers are to receive for their cattle a price which even approximates the cost of production.
I feel free in bringing this matter to your attention because I know you fully understand western Canadian conditions and the importance of the live stock industry to the three prairie provinces.
I trust that you will be able to secure in the near future another reduction in the price of ocean space.
Thanking you in anticipation, I am,
Yours very truly,
W. JF. Stevens,
Secretary.
These are communications wThich have been laid on the table of the House. I wish to quote from two or three more, simply to dispel from the minds of hon. members and the public once and for all, that the representations in Mr. Preston's report are the only ones that the government has had before it in this matter. These further representations to which I wish to refer were made long before Mr. Preston was asked to have anything to do with the subject, and are wholly independent of anything to which his report relates.
Another of the industries with regard to which communications have been received relating to ocean rates is the corn broom industry. Meakins & Sons, Limited, Hamilton, sent a communication, dated December 9, 1919, in which they said that a dozen corn brooms shipped by the Head line to Dublin from Montreal cost them eleven shillings ocean freight, while a dozen of the same brooms shipped by the Head line from Baltimore to Dublin or Belfast costs them from five shillings and four pence for the

Ocean Shipping Rates
small grades to seven shillings and eight pence for the very largest corn broom. They would average about six shillings and six pence per dozen. The communication goes on to say.
The difference between six shillings and six pence per dozen and an average of eleven shillings is such a great difference that there is absolutely no chance for us to compete, although these goods are in great demand both in Ireland and Scotland, and we know that we can manufacture them as cheap here as they can be manufactured in the United States.
The writer goes on to remark:
It seems too bad to see this trade lost to us, more especially when the same line of steamers carries the goods from West St. John to Ireland as carries the goods from Baltimore to Ireland. Cannot something be done in the matter?
We remain,
Yours truly,
Meakins & Sons Limited,
W. J. Meakins.
Thus it is seen that the very same ship3 carrying commodities from Canadian and American ports charge a very much higher rate from Canadian ports to Ireland than from American ports.
Here is another communication from the Sutherland Innes Company Limited with respect to the cooperage industry, dated Chatham, Ontario, January 24, 1919. It is addressed to Mr. O'Hara, Department of Trade and Commerce, and deals with the shipment of cooperage stock to Great Britain. The general manager says in part, I will not quote the whole letter:
It looks to me like a deliberate attempt-perhaps made through ignorance but very likely through greed
to destroy the trade in cooperage from Canada to Great Britain.
I think this is a matter for your department to take up, as it certainly is not reasonable, at the present time, with all the ships that are going from St. John and Halifax, to extort a rate of $3 per hundrrd pounds on cooperage stock, when previous to the war, steamers were rigorously soliciting the same business, at from 17 cents to 35 cents per hundred pounds according to the season.
There is an increase in ocean rates if you like, an increase from 17 to 35 cents per hundred pounds to $3 per hundred pounds. These are the high ocean rates of which manufacturing concerns in this country, as well as agriculture and other industries are complaining. The manager of this concern encloses a statement from a representative setting out these facts more in detail.


Arthur Meighen: What is the date of the letter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The communication is dated "Chatham, Ont., January 24 1919".


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you some late
ones?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I have some late ones and I will bring them along in a moment. Then there is a communication with respect to pig iron from Fraser, Brace & Company, Limited, S3 Craig Street West, Montreal, dated April 17, 1919 to the Department of Trade and Commerce, which states:
We manufacture pig iron in electric furnaces at Shawinigan Falls and at present have a representative in England who writes that he can secure orders for from 500 to 1,000 tons per month over the balance of the year. However, we find it impossible to get a freight rate. The White Star line and Robert Reford Company, practically refuse to quote. Can you give us any assistance in this matter? We are asked to quote on this business c.i.f. London, Antwerp, Northern French ports, Genoa and Italy.
Your assistance will be appreciated. The Canadian Pacific O.S. have just quoted rate $25 a gross ton London subject to tonnage and change without notice.
Here is another important Canadian industry, the lumber industry. A firm in the Old Country acting as agents for Canadian concerns, Spence, Lock & Company communicated as follows with the High Commissioner at London, and the letter was sent out for the department here to deal with.
I will only read a sufficient number of paragraphs from the letter to illustrate its tenor:
27 Clements Lane
Lombard Street,
London, E.C. 4,
7th, September, 1921.
His Excellency
The High Commissioner for Canada.
The object of this letter is to bring before your notice the urg. nt necessity of lower lumber freights from Canada to this country.
Our interest in the matter is that of selling agents for many large* Canadian houses. From the resultant confusion-
He is speaking of the war-
-we are only just emerging; during the past few weeks something like a recognized free on board value is gradually shaping, and there has even been a slight firming up of prices. A good deal of business has been done and more confidence is felt.
If, however, we turn to the sources of what has been sold we find that Finland has provided most of it, that Sweden has sold a fair quantity, and that Canada has literally sold nothing.
From eastern Canada we look normally for large supplies of spruce, but this year buyers have taken European white in preference as they find it not only in the main better, but actually much cheaper.
Canadian freights are bout 100/- as against about 50/- from Sweden and Finland. That is the first reason. The second is that the Finnish exchange is so low they can afford to sell at prices which appear ruinous to the Swede, and quite impossible to the Canadian.
The only hope we see for an awakening of spruce business is in a determination by sellers to accept the facts of the situation by a bold cut simultaneously with a sensible reduction in the freight rate. If freights could be set at 60/- that would give sellers
Ocean Shipping Rates

about $34 and $22 per thousand feet f.o.b. We think that at such rates a sound and steady business could be gradually worked up again, and we do not doubt that sellers could be eventually induced to accept business on such terms.
We ask your pardon for addressing you at this length but the matter seems to us of considerable importance, and we would venture to beg your assistance in bringing your influence to bear to ameliorate the position as regards the freight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Prime Minister kindly give the date of that letter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letter is dated 7 September 1921. I have another communication from Huntsville, Ontario, dated August 22, 1921. This letter is from the Anglo Canadian Leather Company, Limited. It was evidently sent by this company 9 p.m. to the then member for the constituency who apparently forwarded it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce because it appears on the files of the department:
Dr. Peter McGibbon, M.C., M.P.,
Bracebridge, Ontario.
Dear Dr. McGibbon,-We write to you to enlist your good offices to assist us in an effort which we are making to obtain a reduction in the ocean freight rate on sole leather from Montreal to England.
The present rate of $2 per hundred pounds is eight times the pre-war rate. As late as 1919 we shipped large quantities of sole leather at $1.25 per hundred pounds-or five times the pre-war rate.
We understand on very reliable authority that the general average of cargoes are being shipped at less than three times pre-war rate. Dry hides are being shipped at $1 per hundred pounds, from South America, against a pre-war rate of 80 cents per hundred pounds.
From this you will see that the rate on sole leather is unjust and entirely out of line with general rates. We have been endeavouring to induce the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited, Montreal, to authorize a rate of 75 cents or three times the prewar rate, but without success.
We understand that the shipping business is exceedingly quiet and we constantly see references in the press to the effect that government ships are idle and that they are endeavouring to open up a new channel of trade to keep them busy, etc., it seems to us that if they would endeavour to keep alive some of the old trade that existed before the war it would be the proper way to go about an increase of business. The rate of $2 per hundred pounds practically shuts us off from export business in sole leather-
Another export business shut off.
[DOT]-as this business is done on a very close margin of profit.
Then he goes on to say:
In fact for many years before the war we suppose that we did not make more than a cent a pound on our export business. You will understand from this how impossible it is to compete with the English tanners when a $2 freight rate has to be figured in the price.
You have evidence both in Huntsville and Brace-bridge of the condition of our industry at the present

time. Our Bracebridge plant is almost entirely shut down and while we are doing a little more at Huntsville just now, we have been idle all summer. Normally 50 per cent of our output goes abroad and there is no chance whatever to operate our plants to capacity or anywhere near it, until we are able to export freely. You will see from this the necessity of having a freight rate upon which business can be done.
We have no doubt you will realize also from what we have said the vital importance of this whole matter. It means something to every working man and merchant in the towns of Huntsville and Brace-bridge.
Thanking you for your help in the past and for anything you may be able to do for us in the present case, we are,
Yours respectfully,
Anglo Canadian Leather Company, Ltd., Chas. G. Shaw.
I think I have quoted from enough communications to bear out the truth of the statement that I have made, that in a great variety of the industries of this country, industries upon which communities largely depend for their livelihood and which are therefore really all-important in the country's economic life, the export trade has been, if not completely, at any rate very largely destroyed, with the result that industry after industry has had to close down and unemployment has increased in the different communities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All of these that the Prime Minister has quoted recently are, I understand, of 1921 date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, some of them are prior to that and they come down to 1921. The quotations I have made have been in order to show that hon. gentlemen opposite had plenty of representations made to them on this score. They know very well the source of unemployment and the cause of the closing down of industries, if such be the case, but they are failing to recognize, or at least to admit the right cause. They are endeavouring to have it appear that the tariff is in some way responsible for the closing down of these different industries, while they are being told, according to the representations made by the heads of the industries themselves that it is the high ocean rates that make it impossible for export trade to be carried on.


Mr. LEWIS:: Will the Prime Minister tell us how it happens that under this terrible handicap of high freight rates, our export trade is *1,045,351,056, and the favourable balance of trade since last year has increased *280,000,000?

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is in spite of the situation that I have been describing. It would be very much greater if this handicap were removed. If the bon. member will study the figures, he will find that that gain has been confined largely to very considerable exports in two or three particular lines, but that others have suffered.
May I come to some of the representations that were made to the present government? The present government like the previous government had direct representations made to it, for example, with respect to the differential on flour from American ports as against Canadian ports. A communication which I received from the secretary, Mr. Watts, on January 11, 1922, begins as follows:
Re high ocean freight rates. As the United States' millers only pay nineteen cents per 100 pounds in United States' funds while the Canadian millers have to pay twenty-four cents per 100 pounds In Canadian funds on flour to Great .Britain, I am taking the liberty of sending you a copy of the representations made to the late Prime Minister and his colleagues on this question last August as I expect the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be bringing this question to your attention shortly if he has not already done so.
In another communication, dated January 21, 1922, Mr. Watts states as follows:
This is a matter of vital importance, not only to the milling industry, .but also to the transportation and agricultural interests in Canada, as at the present time Canadian wheat can be ground in American mills and shipped to Great Britain at nineteen cents per one hundred pounds while Canadian flour, even shipped in Canadian government boots, has to pay twenty -four cents per one hundred pounds. This means also a serious loss to Canadian labour, not only those employed in the mills, but in the transportation of the products as well. For these reasons, we sincerely trust you will be able to ibe present at the meeting and give us your aid in having flour milled in Canada, carried at the same rates of freight to the United Kingdom as flour milled in the United States.
I could mention other communications from the same association, but I can say in a word that they repeat in large part what is there stated. The government undertook at once to make representations on this matter, without very considerable success at the beginning. On July 10, 1923, this communication was received, and it shows how serious the matter had become at that time:
The rate on Canadian boats from Montreal is 19 cents per 100 pounds, so the fact that there is a combine among the boats trading from Canada and that the Canada Steamship Lines has protested to New York against Canadian flour being carried from the United States ports at the same rate as United States flour, and insisting that it 'be carried at the same rate as the boats sailing from the Canadian ports were charging, as brought out before the investigation Jby the special agricultural committee, had no effect.
The Ontario mills still continue to go to the wall, and if this discrimination continues long enough there

will be few mills left in Ontario excepting those located at lake ports where they can get the benefit of the all water rates, or competitive rates based on the all water.
Yours truly,	.
C. B. Watts.
That was a serious statement-"The Ontario mills still continue to go to the wall." On August 16, 1923, the following communication was sent also by Mr. Watts to Mr. Robb, at that time Minister of Trade and Commerce, re high ocean freight rates:
In further reference to our letter of yesterday re the above, we beg to advise you that we are to-day offered a rate of 12h cents per 100 pounds on A-l steamers on flour from New York to Hamburg, last half of August or first half of September.
The rate from Montreal to Hamburg is 19 cents or 61 cents per 100 pounds or 13 cents per barrel higher than the rate via New York.
Then omitting a paragraph and coming to the concluding paragraph:
The mills in Ontario have gone out of business during the past year or two at an appalling rate and if this discrimination continues, it will only be a short time before the milling industry in Ontario is wiped out excepting a few mills -that are financially strong enough to work at a loss for possibly a year or two longer when the few that survive will probably be able to charge such prices as will well repay them for the lean years they have passed through, but it will not bring into existence again the large number of mills which that unfair discriminatory freight rates have ruined and driven out of existence.
Those representations are very similar to the representations which were made to the government of my right hon. friend opposite. I am happy to say that the present government have been able to do something in this matter; that they have been able, through the representations they have made, to get the same rate on flour from Canadian ports as from United States' ports, and that the situation has been remedied, at least for the present. The government took up the matter repeatedly with the shipping companies through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the present Acting Minister of Finance, (Mr. Robb), and the present minister, it was also taken up at the Imperial conference by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and the ex-Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin). It was brought before the Imperial Shipping committee and stressed very strongly; it was kept before them by the present High Commissioner in England. They were asked to continue their investigations here and they did so, with the result that they have secured an understanding from the combine that the rates on flour from Canadian ports will not exceed the rates from American ports. So that the situation has been remedied to that extent. But as matters stand there is no guarantee other than the word of there com-

Ocean Shipping Rates

panies that these rates will be maintained. I would point out that while that result has been achieved in regard to one commodity, flour, these preferentials favouring American ports to the exclusion of Canadian ports remain in large measure what they have been with respect to other commodities. Unless some step is taken such as that which the government proposes in the legislation about to be brought down, it is difficult to see how the situation can be remedied at all.
I have here a communication with regard to cattle. It is of recent date and shows that these representations still have force and that they relate to present conditions.


Arthur Meighen: Can the Prime Minister tell us when it was that the American government instructed the American merchant marine to give a preferential rate on flour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot give that information at once but I shall have a further word to say in a moment regarding flour rates and I may then come across what my right hon. friend wants.


Arthur Meighen: Was it in 1922?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: appointed by the Ontario government. I have read one communication from the Alberta government. This is from the Ontario government-a Tory government that my hon. friends opposite, I think, will vouch for.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report was laid on the table of the Ontario House just a few days ago, and this summary, I understand, was released to the press on February 24, this year. I have tried to get a copy of the report itself, but I am advised that it will not be printed for another day or two. Now for the quotation:
Ocean rates hold down export trade to Britain. It is true that 1924 shows the largest shipping of any year since the embargo was removed, running 80,000 head. But it obvious that Ontario alone is capable of producing beef cattle in volume far exceeding the present export trade. A special bulletin of the Dominion Department of Agriculture in 1923 welcomec' removal of the embargo as a new order of things warranting official experiments in the shipment of steers to England. The experiments were intended to demonstrate to cattle raisers that live cattle realize considerably higher returns than chilled beef shipments. This committee has followed shipments from western Ontario to England conducted by men experienced in the cattle trade and the results showed that as many were unprofitable as profitable. One of the first witnesses before this committee said: "I am the only farmer in a ten-mile area who has cattle for export in his barn. I have 95 acres and from 50 to 55 cattle. There are a hundred others at least who could feed and accommodate as many in the section. They have the barns. But they do not enter the trade because there is no profit in it. Ontario should be able to ship as many live cattle to England as does Ireland. It would mean prosperity to the province. The market is in England for as many as we can send, no matter what they say about the dead meat trade. The business does not prosper because it is without the attraction of profit.''
The potential power of Ontario to engage in the movement of live cattle to Britain cannot be fully developed because of existing influences. Mr. Shamberg of New York is the chief buyer for export. Mr. Shamberg's agents are in the Union Stock Yards, Toronto; in the office of the International Mercantile Marine at No. 1 Broadway, New York, and at the British ports. The committee satisfied itself that the usefulness of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is limited by the North Atlantic freight conference. It came to the conclusion that with his widespread power and influence Mr. Shamberg controls the profits of Ontario cattle raisers. He has inside information at all times by reason of which he can cancel optioned spaces or send his own cattle according to the trend of the market. The less optimistic in Ontario have been driven out and the industry is not what it should be.
Correspondence with the Dominion government in August last is quoted and the report goes on to say, "Inasmuch as definite action by the Dominion government was thus implied, the committee thought it inadvisable to carry investigation further. The committee recommends that the Ontario government strongly urge upon the Dominion government full consideration of the interests and requirements of Ontario shippers in whatever federal policy may be decided upon to secure reduction of ocean rates."


Arthur Meighen: Is that a report of an
agricultural committee laid on the table of the Ontario House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may tell
my right hon. friend how I came across this.


Arthur Meighen: I do not mind that; I
want to know what it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to give him this information because it is illuminating. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) directed my attention to an article in the London Times from its Toronto- correspondent to the effect that there had been laid on the table of the Ontario legislature the report of a special committee on Agriculture, complaining of the high ocean cattle rates. I immediately communicated with Toronto and endeavoured to get a copy of the report. I was told that the report would not be printed for another day or two, but I was sent the official release given by the government to the press containing a summary of the report of the agricultural inquiry committee appointed by the Ontario legislature in 1924. That is the summary I have quoted from.


Arthur Meighen: A committee of the Ontario legislature?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Arthur Meighen: That is Mr. Scott's single report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. He was asked by the commissioners to report specially on that trade, and he did so.


Arthur Meighen: A minority report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand it is accepted by the other commissioners. He was asked to make a special report on that phase of it.


Arthur Meighen: Why did they not sign


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, Mr. Scott makes that very plain. In the opening of his report, which is addressed to Mr. Turgeon, the chairman. He says:
At the last meeting of the members of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission at Winnipeg on the 29th April, 1924, you and other gentlemen composing the commission-Dean Rutherford and Professor McGibbon -did me the honour to request that I should draw up a memorandum of my views as to transportation, in order that the same be attached to the original report of the commission.
Ocean Shipping Rates

And he goes on to explain that he has gone into the figures; he states simply what is a matter of record and of fact.
Mr. Speaker, the point I wish now to refer to more particularly is the matter of the actual rates that are being charged. I have in my hand a statement which has been compiled by the Bureau of Statistics-a comparative statement of the average ocean rates on grain from Montreal to Liverpool and from New York to Liverpool over a [DOT] period of years. The statement is very detailed but I have had an abstract made from it and I think the abstract will give the facts with accuracy. These are the figures for the average ocean rates, in cents per bushel:
Year	Montreal to	New Yoik to
	Liverpool	Liverpool
1912	7.52	7.341914	7.04	5.511921	17.25	17.101922	7.82	7.701923	7.93	6.071924	9.06	7.09
I have skipped the war years, because during that period there were times when no rates were quoted. Hon members will notice the jump from 7.04 to in 1914, Montreal to Liverpool, to 17.25 in 1921, and from 5.51, New York to Liverpool, to 17.10 in the same period. A study of these figures will show that the rates from New York to Liverpool seem to become proportionately increasingly lower than the rates from Montreal to Liverpool, and that in consequence the differential is becoming greater in favour of steamships sailing between New York and Liverpool than those sailing from Canadian ports to Liverpool. That means, of course, that the grain of this country will tend to be diverted more and more to American railways and American ports at a time when we are trying to build up our National railways and to build up Canadian trade by Canadian ports, and1 to help develop Canadian shipping.
Mr. MEIGHEN What is the authority for the figures?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a detailed statement here from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Internal Trade branch, which gives the whole matter in detail month by month, and it is from this I have taken the figures.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister table the statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, with pleasure. I table it now.
Now I come to what seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the crux of the whole situation. It

will be argued that ocean rates have risen in consequence of the increased cost of ocean transportation, and of conditions as they have been since the war. No one will deny that it was to be expected that ocean rates would rise somewhat, but I would point out that everything that can be said with respect to the increase of rates on the ocean can be said with equal, or greater force with respect to the increase of rates by rail, and the essential feature which this House should consider is whether the increases in ocean rates are fair as compared with the increases in rates by rail. In the one case, in railway rates, you have a controlled situation. You have a railway commission that has control of railway rates; it controls the rates, having regard to the return on capital invested, having regard to the wages that are being paid to labour, and having regard to the interests of the travelling and shipping public. But so far as ocean rates are concerned, there is no control save that which is exercised by this conference itself; there is no control on the part of the public, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if it is discovered that ocean rates by comparison are out of all proportion wTith the increases that have taken place on the railways, this government has established to the full a case demanding the immediate attention of this House by way of legislation to effectively reduce ocean rates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the Prime Minister permit me a question? Assuming that this measure passes and the government fixes ocean rates, will the government fix them upon the same basis as just mentioned by the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, so far as the present contract is concerned, the government is free to fix whatever rates it pleases, and it intends to exercise its judgment as to the rates it will fix, and the rates will be fixed with a view to testing out the situation on the Atlantic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister, I
think, has not apprehended my question. The Prime Minister has stated that there is virtually control over railway rates in the railway board, which fixes the railway rates having regard to the return on the capital invested, wages paid, and the cost of operation. I ask the question now whether the Prime Minister, wrhen he comes to fix the rates on ocean traffic, will have regard to the same factors, the return on capital invested, the wages paid, and the cost of operation.

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer that by saying that the government in fixing ocean rates will endeavour to have regard to the rates charged on the railways, where regard is being had to the factors to which my hon. friend has alluded.
May I point out at once that so far as this discussion is concerned, it is really immaterial whether a combine exists or does not exist. May I say to the House, as I mentioned to my hon. friend the other night, that I believe in these days of world competition large organization of industry is essential, and something in the nature of combined effort; but just because I believe it is necessary, just because 1 believe it-is certain to come, I believe the more strongly in the necessity of some control over these all powerful organizations; and that is the situation which is presenting itself on the Atlantic ocean at the present time. These companies are left to themselves to make arrangements as to steamship rates. In making those arrangements, if one judges by the rates that are quoted, it would appear that the public interest is not considered to anything like the extent of the interest of the other parties involved in the transaction. In a word, to carry on industry, capital is necessary, labour is necessary, management is necessary, and the public, as a consuming and producing entity, is also a necessary factor. All four are entitled to due consideration. I think the facts will show that so far as ocean rates are concerned, the public, if it has been considered at all, has been considered in a very remote way.
I have in my hand two receipts that speak for themselves. They were sent to me by an agent of steamship and railway lines in an Ontario constituency. They are two receipts that were in his possession which disclose the rates charged on the ocean and by rail on immigrants coming from Great Britain to Canada. The receipt of April 1, 1914, shows the third class ocean fare for one person as $32.50, and the Canadian railway fare from the port of landing to a locality in the constituency mentioned as $8.70. The other receipt is dated April 19, 1924, ten years later. It shows the third class steamship rate as $75, or an increase of 130 per cent over the rate in 1914, and the railway rate for the same distance is $15.70, or an increase of 81 per cent. In other words, the ocean rate, judging by these two receipts, had increased by 130 per cent, while the railway rate, for the same distance, had increased by only 81 per cent. Now will anyone say for a moment that the railways have net been subjected to just as important consideration in the matter
of their rates as ocean transports? As a matter of fact, ocean rates for labour have not gone up as much as rates for labour on the railways. The railways have to look after the maintenance of roadbed, a costly business; there is no roadbed maintenance in the case of steamship companies. Great stress has been laid on the fact that immigrants are treated muoh more comfortably on the steamships to-day; but the same may be said of their treatment by the railways. Take, for instance, the expenditure on railway stations, and the accommodation provided for immigrants at the ports of landing on colonist sleepers and the like. The railway accommodation is very much better to-day than it was ten years ago. In all of these particulars I think it can be urged wfith fairness that the railways have been subjected to just as much in the way of increased cost as the steamship companies; and yet when you come to look at the charges you find that the increase in ocean rates is infinitely higher than the increase in railway rates.
I have in my hand the reply that has been prepared by the steamship lines to the report of Mr. Preston. I am not going to take Mr. Preston's figures, but I will take from this publication the figures of the steamship companies themselves as to the increased rates they are charging, and let us see how they compare with the increase in railway rates. In the first place, I would direct the attention of the House to the fact that on March 1, 1924, there appears to have been as respects ocean rates an increase all along the line, an increase on every article mentioned. It is quoted here, in the pamphlet prepared by the steamship companies. The increases in the rates on the different commodities mentioned, taking only the figures as given by the steamship lines themselves are as follows-and these figures show only the increase in February, 1924, as compared with 1914, they do not include further increases that were made on
March 1st of last year:
Commodity	Increase
per cent
Agricultural implements	 73
Automobile tires	 127
Flour	 58
Leather	 122
Measurement goods-Coarse	 215
Measurement goods-Fine	 100
Weight goods	 179
Now, I have gone to some trouble to make comparisons with these commodities and a few others, taking the actual rates given by the railway commission on commodities shipped by railway through the localities where these commodities are actually moving and
Ocean Shipping Rates

comparing them with the rates as set out by the steamship companies themselves for the commodities which they carry. The statement I am now going to give shows the export rail freight on a number of commodities
per hundred pounds and carload lots from the places named to Montreal in the years 1914 to 1924. I will not read all the figures but I should like the permission of the House to place the entire statement on Hansard:
Statement showing Export Rail Freight Rates on a Number of Commodities, Per 100 Pounds, in Carload Lots, From Places Named to Montreal: 1914-1924
In-	In-	In	In-Commodities	1914	1924 crease	crease	Commodities	1914	1924 crease crease	per cent	per -centCmvd Meats from Winnipeg,	Automobiles from Windsor,	Man	.63	.91	.28	44.4	Ont	.62	1.19	.57	91.9Cured Meats from Edmonton,	Rubber Tires from Toronto,	1.15	1.40	.25	21.7	.30	.60	.30	100.0Canned Vegetables from Sim-	Rubber Tires from Kitchener,	.20	.39	.19	95.0	.33	.64	.31	93.9Canned Vegetables from	Trenton, Ont	.15	.34	.19	126.7	Rail Revenue all commodities	Cheese from Wood stock,	per ton-mile	.742	.987	.245	33.0Ont	[DOT] 34J	.654	.31	89.9	Butter from London, Ont.	.34*	.67	.32*	94.2	Flour from Bay Ports	.11	.174	[DOT] 64	59.1	JNow comparing tne ocean	rates	in	variousFlour from Fort William,	commodities what are the figures?-	Ont	.20	.354	.154	77.5	Statement showing ocean freight rates on	a number of	commodities from Eastern Canada	ports	to	United
Kingdom ports July 1914-July 1924
Commodities	July 1914	July 1924	Increase	% IncreaseProvisions, per 100 lbs	
23.63c.	.50c.	26.37c.	111.6%Canned Vegetables, per 100 lbs	
17.09c.	.50c.	32.91c.	192.6%Cheese, per 100 lbs	
31.32c..	.60c.	28.68c.	91.6%to .70c.	& 38.68c.	to 123.5%Butter per 100 lbs	
.	
37.2c.	1.00	62.98c.	170.1%Flour, per 100 lbs	
12c.	.19	.07	58.3& ,22c.	& .10c.	& 83.3%.Automobiles, per cu. ft	
10.40c.	.25c.	14.60c.	140.4%Rubber Tires, per cu. ft	
11.025c.	.25c.	13.975c.	126.8%
It will be seen that in all cases the percentage increase in ocean rates is considerably, in some cases, vastly, in excess of the increase of railway rates. With respect to the wages increase paid by the railways as compared with that paid by tihe ocean carriers the following table has been prepared 'by the Canadian National Railways:



WAGE INCREASES PAID BY RAILWAYS COMPARED WITH OCEAN CARRIERS

[Stage Direction]
Wages	Ocean	Rail	Ocean	Rail	Increase	% Increase	1914	1914	1924	1923	Ocean	Rail	Ocean	RailPer man hour	
Crew per month (8,100 ton deadweight Standard steamer under United Kingdom articles)	$1,188.60	26.2c.	$2,274 00	57.3c.	$1,085.40	31.1c.	91.3	118.7
In other words the ocean rate of wages was represented by 91.3 per cent of an increase as against 118.7 per cent increase by the railways. The prices of carrying commodities, on the other hand, have increased very much more on the ocean than they have on the railways. Taking the figures for the list of commodities mentioned on page 24 of the steamship companies' report and comparing them with railway rates I find the figures to be as follows:
Comparative Statement of
Ocean and Railway Freight Rates (Years 1914 and 1924) Railway Freight Rates (per 100 pounds) (Carload lots)
Agricultural implements:	1914	1924	Increase(Toronto-St. John).. .. Automobiles:	.. .. 174c.	33*c.	91%(Oshawa-St. John).. .. Automobile tires:	.. . 574c.	74c.	29%(Oshawa-St. John).. .. Flour:	.. .. 361c.	66c.	81%(Winnipeg-St. John).. , Leather:	.. .. 314c.	50*c.	60%(Toronto-St. Jolhn).. ..	. 26c.	46c.	77%
[Stage Direction]
Ocean Shipping Rates
Ocean Freight Rates
Agricultural implements:	1914	1924	Increase(per 100 lbs.)	. 30.92c.	89.3c.	188%Automobiles:	(per cu. ft.)	. 13.38c.	25c.	87%Automobile tires:	(per cu. ft.)	. 11.02c.	25c.	123%Flour:	(per 100 lbs.)	. 12c.	20c.	67%Leather:	(per 100 lbs.)	. 45c.	85c.	89%33.75c.	85c.	151%When we come to	passenger	rates	the increases become even more apparent. Here
again I take for ocean rates the figures quoted by the steamship companies themselves and which are to be found at page 38 of their report. The railway rates are from official records.
Comparative Statement of
Ocean and Railway Passenger Rates (Years 1913 and 1924) Railway Passenger Rates (Montreal to Winnipeg)
1913	
1924	
(An increase over 1913 rates of 27 per cent.)
1913 1924,
(An increase over 1913 rates of 129 per cent.)
First Class passenger Immigrant for	Fare
$37 85	$18	0048 00	25	00
(An increase over 1913 rates o.f 39 per cent.)
First Class Third Class Fare	Fare
(Minimum) (Minimum)
$ 85 00	$31	25195 00	82	50
(An increase over 1913 rates off 168 per cent.)
Ocean Passenger Rates
An hon. MEMBER:: What about the accommodation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The improvement in accommodation during that time, if not greater, has been quite as great on the railways as it has been on the steamships. I wish to direct the attention of the House particularly to these figures because they illustrate in a concrete and simple way the difference between the controlled rates on land and the uncontrolled rates on the ocean. In the case of first class passengers in ten years there has been an increase in the rates charged, of 27 per cent on land, and of 129 per cent on sea. In the case of immigrants the increase amounts to 39 per cent on land and 168 per cent on the ocean. In view of figures of such a character, which cannot be disputed, I submit that the ocean rates, uncontrolled as they are, show a vast disparity as compared with the railway rates, and the obvious necessity of controlling the ocean rates becomes apparent the minute these figures are considered. I had intended to say
something further about the immigration rates but I will spare the House any further details on that score at the moment. Let me hasten to a conclusion in -what
10 p.m. I wish further to bring out. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that apart altogether from any representations that have been made in any report by Mr. Preston, a comparison of the railway rates to-day with ocean rates will show a vast increase in the percentage of increase on the ocean as compared with the increase that has taken place on the land, and hence the necessity for some speedy method of effective control of ocean rates is obvious.
As regards the question of a method of ocean control, only two or three alternatives present themselves. One is that the government itself should seek to build its own merchant marine and enter into competition with this vast and powerful combine. Another is that the government should endeavour to bring about some form of control by a commission. The third is that the government should take some such step as that which we are taking at the present time of making an arrangement with a private company of giving them in return for receiving the right to control the rates a fair consideration. Apart from those three, nothing remains other than to let matters stand as they are.
Just a word with respect to each one of these three in turn. As to the government undertaking to build additional ships to compete with the combine itself, that matter was gone into very fully the other evening by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), who pointed out that if a step of that kind was to be taken, the time to have taken it was when the government was building a merchant marine, when it had ships ready to launch and was in a position to make these ships suitable for this particular trade. Members have asked:	Why cannot the present
merchant marine be used for the purpose? The answer is that ships of the merchant marine capable of handling the north Atlantic trade are few in number and are already employed on other routes in accordance with treaties that have been arrived at between different countries and Canada or are employed in large part on the Pacific ocean, in response to public need between Pacific ports and Australia and New Zealand, and are the only .profitable part of the merchant marine ships at the present time. I do not think this House would feel that the government would be justified in taking out of the merchant marine at this time, when the deficits of the merchant marine are what they are, the few
Ocean Shipping Plates

ships that are really proving an investment and putting them on the Atlantic route to fight the combine. I think it can be shown that in order effectively to combat a combine, such as exists on the Atlantic ocean, it is essential, whatever steamship line undertakes, the work, that it should have facilities in Europe and the Old Countiy as well as in this country.
*An hon. MEMBER :	Why is it that the
Canadian Government Merchant Marine have been losing so much money when they were charging the exorbitant rates that are being charged by the combine? Is there any definite reason for that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot tell my hon. friend the reason for that excepting that there was a differential, discriminating against Canadian ports and possibly the rates may have been so high that they were not getting any business. That is one reason and I think it is a very sound reason.


Mr. HOEY:: Will the Prime Minister explain why they were in the combine at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would answer that by saying to my hon. friend that the merchant marine is first of all under the control of the Canadian National Railways, not under the control of the government and the Canadian National Railways evidently felt that it was to their interest to have these ships in the combine. I presume that all such companies have their associations in matters of business and that the Canadian National Railways probably felt that if they were to get business at all through this merchant marine associated with them, it was necessary that they should fall into line with the other ships on the Atlantic or be boycotted by the conference. That is my understanding of the situation. Had they been boycotted, probably the position of the merchant marine would have been worse than it is at the present time.


Mr. SPENCER:: Why was the Canadian Government Merchant Marine taken out of the combine?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was taken out finally, out of deference to views expressed in this House.


Arthur Meighen: ' When was it taken out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very recently.


Arthur Meighen: Only a matter of days ago.

*(Mr. Forke. See p. 1307.)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was only a few days ago. I cannot answer the question definitely.


Mr. IRVINE:: How does the government propose to prevent the combine from boycotting these ten ships?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has put his finger on the right spot. As regards these ten ships, it is up to Sir William Petersen to demonstrate how he can do that. He contends that he is fortunately in a position, through his knowledge of shipping conditions and through his associations and the interests he has, to enter into this fight if he gets the backing which he is getting at the present time. He has-and this brings out the very point which I was trying to bring out a moment ago-docks of his own in the Old Country, docks which he controls. He has relations with business interests there and other shipping interests which he himself controls to enable him to carry on, as he believes, this fight successfully. He can do it in a manner in which the government merchant marine could not begin to do it. This government owns nothing in the way of docking facilities in Great Britain or Europe. It has not the associations which Sir William Petersen's company has. He is prepared to enter into this fight. It remains to be seen whether he will be successful or not.


Arthur Meighen: What other interests
has the Prime Minister in mind that Sir AVilliam Petersen is associated with, that are going to give him so much courage?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has large
business associations and he would not be going into this venture if he had not. He has been a very successful shipper, as my right hon. friend knews.


Arthur Meighen: So has the government
of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in the
same way as Sir William Petersen has. At any rate, the point that is important for the House to consider is that, while Sir William Petersen may not be successful in demonstrating the lower rates at which commodities can be earned across the Atlantic profitably, he is prepared to take his risk on that. This government is taking no risk in the matter. Sir William receives no payment whatever unless he is successful. The position is very different when you suggest that the government should ask the merchant marine to go into this competition. The merchant marine is costing this country some eight million dollars in deficits. Would this House

Ocean Shipping Rates
countenance this government putting the merchant marine into this fight, and would it be possible for the government to make an arrangement with the merchant marine such as has been made with this private company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will Sir William Petersen's ships be under British or Canadian registry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know.
They may be under both, so far as I am concerned. I cannot answer the question, but I have no doubt they will be under the right registry, whatever it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the Prime Minister not aware that ships operating under British registry can operate much more cheaply than ships operating under Canadian registry? That is one of the handicaps of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. They are operating under the more expensive Canadian registry which makes it difficult for them to compete with ships operating under British registry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That shows
where Sir William Petersen will have an advantage in his endeavour to fight the combine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: An hour or two ago the
Prime Minister said that he had made the same offer to Canadian shipping companies. Did he limit that to Canadian shipping companies whose ships are under Canadian registry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, there were no limitations at all in the offer that was made. I do not wish to take up further time in discussing the merchant marine. As I say, that phase was gone into very fully by the Minister of Railways and Canals the other evening.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Has the
combine taken any step or steps in any way to cripple the merchant marine since it was taken out of the combine?


Mr MACKENZIE KING:: I have not heard of that, and I would be surprised if they had. Let me add this fact that one of the clauses in the contract with Sir William Petersen is that these ships which he is putting on the Atlantic are to work in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways and with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The probabilities are that, through co-operation in that regard, it may be possible to utilize even the merchant marine ships to greater advantage than it has been possible to do thus far.
Another alternative to the use of the government merchant marine is the one suggested in the amendment, namely control by a commission.
I need not emphasize the fact that commission control, so far as this country alone is concerned, is not a factor that can be considered; any control to be at all effective would have to be by means of international co-operation. The hon. gentleman suggests in his amendment that the different parts of the empire should unite to form a commission to control rates. Let us hope that this step will be taken; but thus far nothing has appeared to lead us to believe that the self governing Dominions and Great Britain are likely to come together in an effective way without a good deal of public opinion being aroused in the first instance; without some demonstration to bring matters nearer home than heretofore has been the case. Moreover, it is certain that a very considerable period would elapse before such a step could be taken. As was pointed out by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) the matter was brought to the attention of the British government in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's day; it was brought to the attention of the British authorities by a communication prepared by the then chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, the late Mr. Justice Mabee. But there was nothing effective accomplished in consequence, as the correspondence shows. I referred this afternoon to the visit to Great Britain of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as chairman at that time of the railway commission, with the same end in view. And other correspondence has gone to show that over and over again efforts have been made to have the Imperial Shipping committee take some action; up to the present time those efforts have failed. Is it likely therefore that any step will be taken without in the first instance some action such as is now proposed to give a lead in the matter?


Arthur Meighen: When and by whom were steps taken to have the Imperial Shipping committee take any action?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend will read the correspondence addressed to himself by Sir George Perley he will see that Sir George Perley spoke of Sir Robert Borden having been more or less responsible for bringing the committee into being for this purpose; that was one step; and he will find that Sir George Perley suggested that someone had better be sent over with
Ocean Shipping Rates

Canada's case worked out so that the matter might- be presented. That would have been another step, only my hon. friend did not follow it up.


Arthur Meighen: This government has not made an effort in that direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; this government had a sub-committee of the Imperial Shipping committee working on flour rates, and at the present time on our representation the committee is working on insurance. But the progress is so slow that I confess we have not much hope of getting results speedily; and as for any general control, as the Minister of Railways explained the other night, the communication which was sent back from His Majesty's government suggested that- it was too remote a consideration to be regarded as practicable.


Arthur Meighen: When was this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The communication which was addressed to the British government in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's day. That should be sufficient to show that the matter has been before Great Britain for some time at least- Now, as I say, the alternatives are as between the government undertaking its own work of building ships, or relying upon this vague and remote control of an empire conference, whieh has been suggested in the amendment of my hon. friend; or, finally, taking some such step as the one now proposed, of giving a subsidy to a line which is prepared to put a certain number of ships in operation and give to the government the right of fixing rates.
Let me point out historically the steps taken in this country with respect to the control of transportation rates. I will show how this came about with respect to railway rates and hon. members will see whether or not there is any parallel between what- is now proposed and what was already done in that regard. As hon. gentlemen know, the Board of Railway Commissioners was established in 1903. Before 1903 there was no body controlling railway rates; the rates were left to the control of private companies as well as to such control as parliament exercised. We have heard a good deal lately in this House and in the country of an agreement passed in 1897, known as the Crowsnest pass agreement, which contained a (provision that if that subsidy was to be paid to the railway company the company, in return, was not to charge above certain rates with respect to certain commodities in western Canada. And we have seen hon. gentlemen of the Progres-
sive party upholding that agreement in the strangest possible terms. Now wherein is the difference between that principle and the present step which this government proposes in regard to the Petersen agreement? What *was done at that time was to give a subsidy to a railway, with a condition attached fixing the rates that should be charged on certain commodities over a certain territory. That was before there was any body established by parliament to control rates; and that was the step taken in 1897 some seven years before the railway commission itself came into being. It was a step, let me say, which served effectively in helping to bring about rate control; and this government at the present time in this proposal to parliament is simply following Liberal precedents. It was a Liberal government that established the Crowsnest pass agreement limited rate control and it was a Liberal government as well that established the railway commission to control rates. The present administration is following today precisely similar steps in regard to ocean rates, which to-day are under no control. We are taking as the first step the right to fix maximum rates on the ocean for certain commodities, giving a certain subsidy in return for that right. If the day comes, as my hon. friend in his amendment hopes, when there will be a commission controlling ocean rates, then it will be time to consider whether or not the step now taken has been adequate for the purpose it is intended to serve and has served its day and generation. But I submit to hon. gentlemen opposite that the course which the government is taking in this regard'is on all fours, with -respect to the controlling of ocean rates, with the step taken by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier with a view to controlling certain railway -rates prior to the time the railway commission was created.
I would ask hon. gentlemen again to reflect that so far as this particular payment to be made to the Petersen company is concerned, it differs from the ordinary subsidy, so called, in being not merely a payment to a steamship line for certain services to be performed, but in being a payment for the right of the government to control the rates that shall apply to that service. At the present time we are paying a considerable subsidy to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, whose ships ply between Canada and the West Indies. That company receives annually the sum of $340,000, or $85,000 per ship; and that subsidy is paid simply for the service; it is not paid in return for the right of controlling rates, as is the case with the present contract.

Ocean Shipping Rates
Take the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand. That company now receives a subsidy of 1100,000 from this government, formerly it received $130,000. But in addition to that it receives a subsidy from New Zealand and one from Fiji, amounting to $219,000, or a subsidy per ship of $109,500, almost as great, when you reduce it to a rate per ship, as the subsidy we propose to pay the Petersen line, which is $130,000 per ship as figured out. And yet in the case of the Union company, plying between New Zealand and Canada, the subsidy is given simply for the running of the ships. In the present case the amount is paid only on condition that the ships shall carry the commodities at rates to be fixed under government control.


Arthur Meighen: Are not the mails carried under those other subsidies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, my hon. friend is right.


Arthur Meighen: And do they not usually amount to more than the cargo rate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. But I
would remind my hon. friend that he himself has not been far removed from suggesting precisely this method of dealing with transportation ratfes. He was complaining the other day that he had not an opportunity to bring before the House a resolution of his own which appears on the order paper. Let me read for him the last clause of that resolution :
That to enable [DOT] the products of the western and Maritime provinces to reach more readily the markets so developed the special transportation burdens borne by those provinces should be shared by the whole Dominion either by contribution to long haul freight costs or by assistance in some other form.
In other words, my right hon. friend suggests that this government should subsidize the railways for the long haul. What he has not brought out is the fact that while you may be helping the railways in that way, you are not necessarily helping the producing or consuming interests of this country. It has been pretty clearly demonstrated in this debate, that if every reduction of railway rates is to be offset by an increase in ocean rates, par-ticulary where the same company owns steamers as well as railways, the exporters of this country are not going to gain very much advantage. There is the crux of the whole situation. Reduce the rates on the ocean and you will find very soon that the export trade of this country will develop by leaps and bounds in a manner heretofore unknown. It is the high ocean rates which, to the disadvantage of exports, have been eating up
little by little all the advantages gained by control of railway rates.
I would ask hon. members to look at the terms of this contract. As drawn the country can lose nothing from any failure by the contractor. The worst that can happen is that we will be just where we are at present-still at the mercy of conditions as they are. On the other hand, if this contract is carried out from year to year, we will soon discover what is possible in the way of reduction of ocean rates. And once there begins to ply across the ocean a line of steamers on which the rates from Canada to the British Isles are at a particular figure, we will very soon see whether or not other shipping companies will not fall into line. I would add this further thought. There is no guarantee whatever, as matters stand, that further increases will not come rapidly upon the Atlantic. Here at least is one check in that regard. What does the contract state? First of all, that these ships shall ply between Canadian ports. That does not confine the service to Atlantic ports, it is equally applicable to Pacific ports.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the Prime Minister
say that the Petersen ships cannot caM at foreign ports too?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They go from Canadian to European or British ports.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Can they call at American
ports and take cargo?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have to
proceed with all despatch to destination, to British or other ports. As to the next feature, they are to operate independently of this combine. Then there is the clause to which I wish to draw special attention:
(d) 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.
As I intimated the other night, such rates as are fixed on commodities will be confined to Canadian commodities. The words, "Canadian in origin" wfill precede whatever rates the government may fix. But these rates cover all classes of commodities. In addition, these vessels are to be fitted up with proper provision for perishable and partly perishable produce by means of cold storage facilities.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Might I ask the Prime Minister how many voyages per year these vessels will be required to make?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are required to make all they can I think.
Ocean Shipping Rates


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, absolutely not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend wall stand up and tell us why not.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They are not. They
are called upon to prosecute any voyage they undertake with all possible despatch. But before the voyage is undertaken there is no covenant whatever. And in clause (d) which the Prime Minister refers to there is no obligation whatever upon Petersen or his company to carry out the contract, and I hope to show it before this debate is through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend so as to put his mind at
rest-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My mind is at rest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I undertake to say right now that if this agreement does not obligate Sir William Petersen to carry out all that I have said to-day that it does obligate him to carry out, I for one will not be prepared to support that agreement when it comes back from the committee-[DOT]


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I welcome your statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and if there is any doubt about the matter it can be settled when the contract goes before the committee. The House is not being asked to endorse something which it does not understand to the full. It will have a full explanation from the lips of Sir William Petersen himself if need be, and if that is not satisfactory it will be for the committee to take whatever step they may think best.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. He has acceded to that, I understand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Let me take this contract-


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman is not
putting a question.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am putting a question to the Prime Minister.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I must remind
hon. gentlemen that it is not in order to interrupt an hon. member while he is addressing the House unless with his concent. Bourinot goes further; he says:
Whilst a member is addressing the House no one has the right to interrupt him by putting a question to him or by making or demanding an explanation.
Of course, when an hon. member good-naturedly accedes to the interruption, it goes without saying that the interrupter can put his question. But no speeches are allowed under the guise of an interruption; the interruption must be in the form of a brief question. As a rule, however, hon. gentlemen should not interrupt a member who is addressing the House.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Speaker, I thought
I had the acquiescence of the Prime Minister.


Thomas Vien: To put a question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I am very glad to have my hon. friend ask anjr question he wishes, if he has one in his mind, but I do not wish to encourage him. May I direct the attention of the House to another feature of the contract? I refer to the mode of payment. This is to be monthly to the contractor-
-in equal monthly instalments payable monthly at the end of each and every month in each and every year during the continuance of this agreement, the first monthly instalment to become due and payable one month after the commencement of the service hereinbefore referred to.
In other words, payment is to be made after the service has been performed. Then there is an undertaking that the shipping services- -to be established by the contractor herein will co-operate and work loyally with the Canadian National Railways system and the fleet of ships operated by that system and under its control, and known as the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
There is further the fact that at any time the minister has the privilege at his option of entering into contracts for like purposes with any other contractor or contractors; and, as has been mentioned, the contractor agrees to prosecute all voyages with all possible speed and dtespatch.


William Alves Boys: Would the Prime Minister enlighten the House as to how the amount of money, $1,350,000, was arrived at? Why was it that amount instead of $2,000,000 or $1,000,000 or $500,000? I presume naturally in the course of the negotiations there must have been some basis on which that was worked out, and no doubt it would be interesting to the House to know how the figure was arrived at.

Ocean Shipping Rates


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend, I am afraid, will have to wait for this information. He knows that these matters are very carefully looked into in the first instance and not decided lightly.


Mr BOAS:: That is why I thought the Prime Minister would be able to tell us.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have spoken at very considerable length, and I think my hon. friend will forgive me if I do not go into that detail at the moment. Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to a conclusion these lengthy remarks. They have been lengthy f"r the reason that I have been endeavouring to make it perfectly clear to the House and to the country that this matter which the government is undertaking is very much in the public interest and I am anxious that it should be adequately understood and appreciated in all its bearings.
I would like to point out that the government's policy with respect to the reduction of ocean rates is only part of the larger policy which the government has in view of building up the industries of this country along lines that indicate the greatest possibility of successful development. We are desirous of developing the production of our basic industries. We have sought to relieve the capital that is essential to the development of those industries from some of the taxation to which it has been subjected. We have been endeavouring to develop a vigorous immigration policy. But having regard to the figures I have quoted to-night with respect to immigrant rates, and to a comparison between what it costs to bring a family from the Old Country to settle in this country to-day and what it cost ten years ago, the difficulty with which the government has been confronted will be readily appreciated. The only way to overcome that difficulty is to grapple with the ocean rates on immigrants; if we are to be successful in getting immigrants into Canada we must take some step to control ocean rates. Then, we have affirmed the policy of endeavouring to develop Canadian trade through Canadian ports. We are spending large sums of money on the improvement and equipment of our ports. We are sincere in our desire to develop interimperial trade, to further the trade between Canada and the Mother Country, believing that to be in our mutual interests and believing it to be a link of empire which should be strengthened in every possible way. In addition to that we have sought to develop
our entire export trade in a manner that will help to build up our basic industries, our manufacturing industries, and the trade of the country generally.
The successful carrying out of all these policies, depends, I submit, upon such a reduction of ocean rates as will make the increase in the rates on the ocean during recent years, at least comparable to the increase that has taken place on the railways. So long as a conference framed among these shipping companies so regulates the rates that it pays shippers to ship via American ports; so fixes the rates as to make it impossible for many of our producers to ship via Canadian ports to the Old Country-so long as that condition prevails we may look in vain to all the other remedies that may be suggested for an improvement of our industrial condition.
We have to-day an opening in the British market for our cattle such as we have not had for twenty or thirty years, but we are prevented from getting the full advantage of that market simply because of the high ocean rates that are being charged; and what in that regard is true of cattle is true also of other commodities. Owing to the tariff wall which exists between the United States and this country we are prevented from selling cattle profitably across the line. There is a duty of as much as a cent to a cent and a half a pound, I understand, on lean cattle going into the American market. It does not pay to ship these cattle across the Atlantic at the rates fixed, although they are the class of cattle which are largely demanded by the British importers and would have a large market in Great Britain. We are restricted to the St. Lawrence route, to our Atlantic ports and our Pacific ports for the development of the trade of the country, but those ports will never be developed as they should, those industries will never prosper, unless by means of an adjustment of rates prevailing on the Atlantic we have an opportunity to compete successfully with other countries. Did time permit I could point out the effect of the present condition upon the chilled meat industry, which was lost to this country through American competition at one stage and which is lost to us to-day through competition from the Argentine and Uruguay, whence frozen meats can be shipped to Britain at the lower rates prevailing from those countries-rates fixed by this north Atlantic combine. If we are in earnest in the desire to build up Canadian industry, in seeking to develop our agriculture, lumber, mining, fishing resources, as well as our manufacturing industries, which are dependent
Supply-Labour

upon the development of the basic industries but equally dependent upon the markets they have abroad, I submit that we must take such steps as are possible at this time to reduce ocean rates.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say this is a small step; that it is inadequate; that it is not large enough to be effective. I would remind hon. members of the biblical narrative of David and Goliath. It was not the size of David or the size of the pebble that brought about the result that was effected at that time. It was the accuracy of the throw. It so happened that the aim that was taken was the right one; the giant was hit in a vital spot. If I am not mistaken, the pebble that has been thrown into the Atlantic by this much abused report of Mr. Preston and by the discussion which we are having in this parliament at the present time; the pebble that has been thrown into the Atlantic by the step which this government has taken, has stirred the waters of all the seas to the shores of every country to which the operations of this combine extend. We see to-night, after
4-V./>
i.A.n'Bopnn in + Jr*r*ic! wl-*ir>V*	Kppn mnrlp
Lille 1 Dpi cotuta lUUliO IT 1111/11	**"' V	

to governments for many years past, the first really constructive and effective step to afford relief to the exporters of Canada and to further that development of our industries and trade which at this stage and at this particular time we all regard as so necessary and desirable.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped until half an hour ago that there would be some termination within reasonable time of the marathon effort of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and that I might follow him to-night, as I was, indeed, most anxious to do. But we are now past 10.35 and it would be unreasonable that I should expect to go very far. I think the convenience of the House would best be met if I moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Civil Government-Labour-salaries, $159,930; contingencies, $25,000.
James Arthurs: What is the explanation
of the reduction in this vote?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: The hou. gentleman will notice

that the number of employees has been reduced by five.


James Arthurs: Is that the total reduction in the inside service so far as this department is concerned?


James Murdock: A reduction of five employees, yes.


James Arthurs: How many have been
superannuated?


James Murdock: One.


James Arthurs: That would be six in
all?


James Murdock: No, only one employee was superannuated during the past year. The positions of the others were abolished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Conciliation and Labour Act, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of Labour Gazette, and allowance to corresipondents, $35,000.
James Arthurs: What is the cause of the decrease in this item?


James Murdock: The amount requested
is $36,000, which is $11,000 less than the amount voted for the fiscal year 1924-1925. This appropriation is intended to meet the cost of printing, binding and distributing the Labour Gazette. From this appropriation also are paid the salaries of some sixty or seventy persons employed as correspondents, with salaries ranging from $125 to $300 per annum. Small payments are occasionally made from this vote also for special work done by way of rental surveys, statistics, or of conciliation and labour disputes, and travelling expenses for the same purposes. The opportunity to reduce this vote by $11,000 is largely due to a reduction in the cost of printing the Labour Gazette during the past year. The cost of printing the Labour Gazette has been reduced between $11,000 and $12,000 by the use of smaller type and a fewer number of pages. The publication has been more condensed, and there has been a saving during the year of some 350 pages.


James Arthurs: Will the minister give
the number of correspondents in each salary class?


James Murdock: I can give the hon.
gentleman the entire list of correspondents if he would like me to read the names, or I could place it on Hansard.


James Arthurs: I want them by classes.
I also want to know if there have been any changes in personnel this year, and if so, how many.

Supply-Labour


James Murdock: The changes during
1924-1925 up to January 31st of this year are as follows:
Brockvilte: H. B. Burnham died in April, 1924, and was replaced by Mr. J. E. Wotherspoon, appointed in May, 1924.
Truro, N.S:	F. W. Henderson, position abolished
May 31, 1924. No appointment has been made.
New appointments for the year are as follows:
North Bay:	H. P. Charlton, appointed July, 1924.
Springhill, N.S.: A. C. Mills, appointed August, 1924.
I might point out that the position at Truro was abolished. It was thought that Springhill, being a coal mining town, and not very far distant from Truro, that would be the best place to maintain a correspondent, and so Mr. A. C. Mills was appointed at Springhill in August, 1924.
Sudbury:	Mr. W. H. Gougeon, appointed in June,
reported for duty June, July and August, 1924, and resigned. Replaced by W. F. Keegan, appointed January, 1925.
These are all the changes among the correspondents for the year. I will put on Hansard for the benefit of my hon. friend a list of all the correspondents throughout Canada. The list follows:



LABOUR GAZETTE CORRESPONDENTS, FEBRUARY 1925

[Stage Direction]
Annual
Location	Name	Salary
Amherst, N.S., McCleave, H	 $150
Bathurst, N.B., Levasseur, M.	H	 125
Beamsville, Ont., Sinclair, J. A	 200
Belleville,	Ont.,	Harrison,	Phillip	
150Brandon,	Man.,	Fulcher,	Edmund	
150Brantford, Out., Dunn, Edward	
200Brockville, Ont., Wotherspoon. A	
150Calgary, Alta., Stauffer,	J.	B	
200Charlottetown, P.E.I., Monoghan, J. H	
125Chatham,	Ont.,	Wands, Geo	
150Cobalt, Ont., Dixon, G.	W	
200Dominion, C. B., N. S.,	Moffatt, John	
175Drumheller, Alta., Colquhoun, A.	A	
175Edmonton, Alta., McCreath, R	
200Eureka, N.S., Ward, R. H	
200Fernie, B.C., Perry, Fred G	
200Fort William, Ont., Grant,	A. E	
120Fredericton, N.B., Clark,	C.	W	
125Galt, Ont., Fraser, David	
150Guelph, Ont., Drever, Wm	
150Halifax, N.S., Garnett, Jos. A	
225Hamilton,	Ont.,	Aitchison,	C. 1	
225Hull, Que., Morin, A	
150Kitchener, Ont., Welheiser, S	
150Kingston, Ont., Stroud, W.	A	
200Lethbridge, Alta., Hawkins, Wm	
150London, Ont., Woonton. A	
200Medicine Hat, Alta., Bellamy, B. W	
150Moncton, N.B., Graves, J.	C	
150Montreal, Que., Bertrand, T	No payMoose Jaw, Sask., Baker,	A	
150Nanaimo. B.C., McGirr, Wm	
12oNiagara Falls, Ont., Hyatt, Miss Laura	
175North Bay, Ont., Charlton, H. P	
150Orillia., Ont., Hale, Harold	
125Oshawa, Ont., Bone, W. J	
150
Annual
Location	Name	Salary
Owen Sound, Ont., Shaw, James	 125
Peterborough, Ont., Sharp,	J. A	 150
Prince Albert, Sask., Laurie, R. P	 200
Prince Rupert, B.C., Campbell, J. M	 250
Quebec, Que., Job in, P. J	 200
Regina, Sask., McNeill, W.	B	 200
St. Hyacinthe, Que., Belisle, J. B	 150
St. John, N.B., Coates, W. H	 225
St. Johns, Que., Bourdeau, Moise	 175
St. Thomas, Ont., Killingsworth, J. A	v. 225
Sarnia, Ont., Lott, W. H	 150
Saskatoon, Sask., McGrath,	M. J	
200Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.,	Hollingsworth, E	
150Sherbrooke, Que., Fales, John	
125Sorel, Que., Vanasse, A. P	
125Stratford, Ont., Carlin,	Joseph	
150Sudbury, Ont., Keegan,	W. F	
200Thetford Mines, Que., Adams, C	
150Three Rivers, Que., Ryan,	Jos.	J	
125Timmins, Ont., Garner,	H. C	
200Toronto, Ont., Compton, E. N	
No payTrail, B.C., Williamson, A. C	
300Truro, N.S., Mills, A.	C	
150
Vancouver and New Westminster, B.C., Harrison,
F. E	No pay
Victoria, B.C., Chrow,	John	
225Walkervillc. Ont., Cole,	W. H	
175Winnipeg, Man., Howard, L. F	No payWoodstock, Ont., Markey,	John	
150
Mr. JACOBS:: Will the minister tell me who ever reads the Labour Gazette? Are there any subscribers and is anything received by the department from the subscribers?


James Murdock: I have not a list of the subscribers here, but I am sure the amount received in subscriptions is not very large, because the Labour Gazette sells for only 20 cents a year. That price has been in effect for years. Of course, it does not begin to pay the cost of printing even a single issue.


Samuel William Jacobs: What purpose does the
Labour Gazette serve?


James Murdock: I think that very many hon. gentlemen in this House and elsewhere throughout the country refer to the Labour Gazette and regard the information therein contained referring to wages, conditions of employment, prices, and so forth as fairly accurate. I think the Labour Gazette has won a name for itself in that respect. We find that some of the banks like to have it as is indicated by the fact that they subscribe for copies of the Labour Gazette to be sent to all their branches throughout Canada. I am not sure just how many banks do that, but I know that certain of them do.


Mr. LUCAS:: How many copies of the Labour Gazette are issued?


James Murdock: In January, 1924, there
were 10,906 copies in English and 1,831 copies in French, or a total of 12,737 copies. It runs

Sup pi y-La hour

along about that way all through the year, as we find in December there were 11,080 English copies and 1,825 French copies, or a total of 12,905.


William Irvine: Are these all distributed?


James Murdock: Practically all. There
would be a number of copies on supply, I could not say exactly how many but probably the usual number of copies that would be kept of any other government publication for possible future call.


William Alves Boys: What company is printing the Gazette now?


James Dew Chaplin: How can you possibly
get rid of 10,000 copies?


James Murdock: One question at a time please. Answering my hon. friend from South Simoce (Mr. Boys) I may say the Labour Gazette is printed in the Government Printing Bureau.


Samuel William Jacobs: Since when?


James Murdock: I think since the January issue, 1924.


Samuel William Jacobs: Before that time where was it printed?


James Murdock: At a printing office
in this city.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why was that done?


James Murdock: Different individuals
might give different reasons. The reason generally advanced for printing it outside the Printing Bureau was in order to secure the union label on the Labour Gazette. In any case the fact is that for very many years after the Labour Gazette was first issued it was printed outside the Printing Bureau until January a year ago.


William Thomas Lucas: For how many years has the Gazette been printed?


James Murdock: I do not know that I can answer that, question offhand, but I should say about twenty years or more.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it now printed with the
union label?


James Murdock: No.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why?


James Murdock: Because the Government Printing Bureau does not use the union label on its printing.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does that interfere with its circulation?
TMr. Murdock.]


James Murdock: No. I think that aunng the year 1924 we only heard one suggestion of remonstrance against the non-use of the union label.


Mr. CHARTERS:: Is any effort made to secure additional circulation?


James Murdock: Not to any extent, the reason being that with a charge of twenty cents a year it would not pay us to get out and canvass for subscribers.


Samuel Charters: Why not increase the subscription price?


James Murdock: That has been discussed on several occasions. I am not sure but that it might be advisable to add a reasonable increase, although it is held that if we did so many of the labour lodges would not subscribe to it. It is thought -desirable to get the information that is in the Labour Gazette into the hands of labour generally throughout Canada, and therefore the price is put at the nominal figure of twenty cents. Whether right or wrong that is the view entertained.


William Alves Boys: How are the correspondents
paid? Are they paid according to the copy they send in, or what is the basis of their remuneration?


James Murdock: They are paid an annual salary, somewhat proportionate to the importance of the place where the correspondent is located. I might give my hon. friend an indication of how the salary varies.


William Alves Boys: Give us the extremes.


James Murdock: I might mention Thet-ford Mines $150. The sum of $125 is the very minimum. We find $125 paid at Sherbrooke. Then at a place like Timmins, up in the mining region, the amount is $200, and at Halifax, N.S., $225. The salary paid at Trail, B.C. is $300, the understanding being that at Trail there is a pretty wide range of territory to cover, and there are a number of different little centres where it is necessary for the correspondent to get reasonably accurate information and send it in. That is the basis upon which the salary is determined.


William Alves Boys: That is through the monthly report?


James Murdock: The monthly report.


William Alves Boys: Is the report sent in for a particular month or is that left to the correspondent?


James Murdock: No the department expects the correspondent to send in a report each month.

Supply-Labour


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the minister tell us what saving has been effected by having this publication printed at the bureau instead of parties outside?


James Murdock: Well there was a difference between the printing of the Labour Gazette in the Printing Bureau in 1924 and the outside printing in 1923. In saying that I am taking into consideration the smaller type now used, because we changed the type used in printing the Labour Gazette from 10 point to 9 point type when we started to print it in the bureau. Then we condensed the report, there were a smaller number of pages than in 1923, so that there was a saving for the year of S13,704.31.


Samuel Charters: It was really a saving in the paper used, not in the composition?


James Murdock: Yes there is less paper. In the annual bound report I think there are about 346 pages less. Smaller type is used and there are fewer pages. There is not as much matter in the Labour Gazette now.


William Alves Boys: Has there been a saving in the cost of printing? I can understand there would be a saving in the matter of paper, but I cannot understand how there would be any saving in composition?


James Murdock: There would not be a saving in composition for a page merely, but there would be a considerable saving in paper.


William Alves Boys: I think the minister pointed out that there was a decrease of $11,000, so practically that would be accounted for by the very item we are now discussing?


James Murdock: Yes.


William Alves Boys: It seems to me, if my memory serves me correctly, that in 1922, it may have been 1923, there were some questions asked the minister regarding a contract he then made with, I think, a new corporation. If I remember rightly I think he gave a very good reason for the change; I think he was very frank and said it was on account of some very good Liberals. I am not finding any fault with that statement now, but what I should like to know is if it is a fact that this saving of $11,000 is the difference between the present cost of printing the Labour Gazette at the Printing Bureau and the amount he was paying the firm with whom he made that contract in 1922 or 1923-I forget the exact year?


James Murdock: No, I think my hon. friend is just a little off as to the facts. A 81i
contract was given to an outside firm to print the Labour Gazette in 1922 on the same basis on which it had been printed for many years, all during the term of the government my hon. friend supported, only in a different form-the basis of payment was identically the same but the bureau rates, I think, were 10 per cent less.


William Alves Boys: The minister misunderstood me. I did not charge him with paying any more to this company he dealt with in 1922 than had been paid previously; what I was trying to find out was whether the saving of $11,000 is due to the fact that the Gazette is printed at the Printing Bureau. Taking into consideration the smaller type that we have, now does that account for it?	,


James Murdock: I am told it does to
some extent but not altogether. I am informed by responsible officers of the Printing Bureau that they are able to print the Labour Gazette more cheaply than any outside concern could. The reason is this:	The
Labour Gazette is a monthly publication; the copy for the publication is coming in from time to time, and it can be used in the Printing Bureau as a very nice filler to fill in on certain of the machines when they might otherwise for a time be idle. The officials at the Printing Bureau tell me it is valuable to have it in that way and they can turn it out possibly more acceptably and cheaply than an outside concern could. Then there is the cost of the paper, and I am told, the smaller type and several other factors that enter into the decreased cost of some $11,000.


William Alves Boys: Did the former contract expire last year?


James Murdock: No, it ran only from
month to month at the pleasure of the department, or the minister, I forget which.


William Alves Boys: Was it the department or the
contractor that terminated the contract?


James Murdock: The department.


Samuel Charters: What was the reduction in size?


James Murdock: In January, 1923, there
were 120 English pages, while in January, 1924, there were 89 English pages. In January,
1923,	there were 132 French pages, and in January, 1924, 92 French pages. In October, 1923, there were 127 English pages and in October,
1924,	93 English pages. In October, 1923, there were 136 French pages and in October, 1924, 103 French pages, and so on throughout the year.
S upply-Labour


Samuel Charters: That would account for a good deal of the saving?


James Murdock: Yes.


William Irvine: Is a reduction in wages
involved in this $10,000 reduction?


James Murdock: No.


William Irvine: On what is this vote expended? Does it include anything at all except the mechanical work, setting of type and so on? Does it include the gathering of statistics?


James Murdock: It is thought that on
account of the smaller number of copies of the Labour Gazette and the lower cost of printing, we can estimate a saving in this vote of about $11,000 a year, and so the vote has been reduced accordingly.


William Irvine: I am not quite clear what
is involved in this expenditure. Is it purely for the publication, setting of type, printing of paper and so on, or does it involve the gathering of statistical information?


James Murdock: My hon. friend possibly did not hear me when I read this before. I will read it again. The amount requested, $35,000, is $11,000 less than the amount voted for the fiscal year 1924-25. The appropriation is intended mainly to meet the cost of the printing, binding and distribution of the Labour Gazette. From this appropriation are paid the salaries of some sixty to seventy persons employed as correspondents, with salaries ranging from $125 to $300 per annum. Small payments are occasionally made from this vote also for special work done by way of rental surveys, statistics or of conciliation in labour disputes; travelling expenses for the same purpose are met from this vote. Owing to new methods and closer supervision of the printing and distribution of the Labour Gazette, it is thought that the appropriation could be safely reduced by the above figure.
A detailed statement of expenditure for the fiscal year 1923-24 to March 31, 1924, is as
follows:
Correspondents1 salaries	$ 9,999 84
Travelling expenses	
256	40Services, fees, etc	
890	90Printing and stationery	
36,709	49Sundries	
2,109	95
*49,966 53
A detailed statement of expenditure for ten months 1924-25, to January 31, 1925, is as follows:

Correspondents' salaries	$ 8,355 64
Services, fees,	etc	
390	00Printing and	stationery	
14,169	52Sundries	
2,050	52


James Dew Chaplin: The minister told us a few moments ago that some 11,000 copies of this publication were printed. Is there not some way of cutting down expense in this connection?


Samuel William Jacobs: To abolish it altogether would be the best way.


James Dew Chaplin: I agree with the hon.
member that cutting it down a great deal or almost abolishing it would suit me, but it seems ridiculous that 10,000 or 11,000 copies of this paper have to be sent out. I know many members who get them never read them. There is in them plenty of information that could be put in some other publication. The minister claims that he is saving a great deal of money. I have been looking over some old estimates, and I notice that in 1920 this department got along with $35,000 for this item. I will read it for the edification of the minister:
Conciliation and Labour Act, including publishing, printing, binding and distribution of the Labour Gazette and allowance to correspondents, and to provide for the payment of the salary of the private secretary of the minister.
The private secretary salary is not in there this year, and I presume there is another vote for it.


James Murdock: That seems to be the vote at that time. When I came into office, my recollection is that the vote was $50,000. It was reduced last year by $4,000, and this year we are reducing it by $11,000, or bringing it back to what my hon. friend shows it to have been in 1919-20 and in 1918-19.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) asked what was paid to the representative at Sydney and I do not think that was answered. It would strike me that he would be a very busy agent and it would be interesting if we had his correspondence. Is he still working on it now?


James Murdock: We have no representative at Sydney.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would that not be a most important place to have one?


James Murdock: I do not think so. We have, of course, had an officer at Sydney on two or three occasions. Possibly twice during the last year we had an officer at Sydney.

Supply-Labour


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the idea is to help in labour matters would it not be a good thing to have the work done where there is real necessity for it? If there is one place where such work is needed it is at Glace Bay.


James Murdock: I agree that there is no place in Canada where there is greater necessity for work to be done tihan in the vicinity of Glace Bay, and that has been the condition for several years. But no one knows better than my hon. friend what the extent of authority of the Labour department' is in a matter of this kind. I can assure him, however, that we took every possible step that could have been taken. My hon. friend will agree with that, I think. And even when the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was declared ultra vires we endeavoured to form a board which we hoped would be able to assist in bringing about harmony and cooperation and if possible a settlement.


William Alves Boys: You have as much authority there as anywhere else in Canada.


James Murdock: Under certain conditions possibly, yes; under other conditions, as my hon. friend knows, we have not.


William Alves Boys: I know that, and I should like to have an explanation.


James Murdock: In the steel plant at
Sydney or at New Glasgow or at the Sault, if a dispute occurred years ago before the act was placed in its present position we should never have claimed any authority to deal with the trouble. If by offering our friendly offices we could do anything to promote harmony we would do it. But as to authority, we had none and never claimed to have it. As to the dispute in the coal mines, it was held to come under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act; but as my hon. friend knows, that is altogether a matter of uncertainty. It has been merely a question of trying to do whatever appeared possible to bring about a settlement.


William Irvine: I have been considering the Labour Gazette from the standpoint of education. I do not know whether this is any part of its function, but if it is not I cannot see that the Gazette has any function. I should think that its chief function would be to gather information of a sociological character.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sociological?


William Irvine: An hon. gentleman opposite evidently has not heard that word; it is really one of the most important words to-day, for sociology is a coming science. I should -like to think that the Labour Gazette was trying
to perform a service along that line, and I do not think that there is any place in Canada where the labour problem is more acute than it is in that part of the Maritime provinces. Certainly the labour problem has not been more acute in the past few years anywhere than in the point which has been mentioned, and I should think that it would be eminently advisable to have a representative of the Labour Gazette there, who, even though he might not be permanent, could obtain all the data and information bearing upon the particular social phenomenon that we see there now. That information would be indispensable to the Labour department. I hope the minister will consider putting one of his officers there to collect such facts as are relevant to the whole matter, if that is part of the function of the publication.


James Murdock: The hon. gentleman
may be under a misapprehension. There is a Labour Gazette correspondent at Sydney but his duty is not to write on sociological questions; it is confined to the securing of prices and to the giving of advice from time to time as to labour unrest or labour conditions generally. He deals only with such facts as are apparent and in evidence. There has been a Labour Gazette correspondent although he is not regarded as an employee of the department. He might be called a part time employee from the fact that every month he sends in a report to the department. Presumably he is collecting or verifying material for the report during the rest of the month.


William Irvine: What is his qualification?
Is he appointed from the standpoint of a journalist?


James Murdock: In a number of cases. I think I am safe in saying, our best correspondents have been or are journalists; in other cases they have been representatives of labour for a number of years in some local capacity, having shown a sympathetic ability to grasp the questions with which they have to deal. I am not sure how many, but possibly there are six or eight or more newspaper men.


William Irvine: Is there any connection
between the Department of Labour and the Bureau of Statistics? Is there any duplication of work?


James Murdock: In some respects there is a degree of co-operation between the two departments. The Conciliation and Labour Act, as my hon. friend knows, defines the duties of the Labour department in- regard to certain statistics on labour matters. These figures and facts have always been collected
Questions

by the Department of Labour. There is an able staff in the department who can more sympathetically and with greater accuracy compile them. The figures in regard to prices are brought into the Labour department and then they are passed over to the Bureau of Statistics where they are analyzed and compiled and issued each month. They are later copied into the Labour Gazette and become part of the official record. There is co-operation in that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the item should now pass and that my hon. friend should report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Pictou) the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 18, 1925