1926-04-19

MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALFRED STORK (Skeena) moved that the annual report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the last fiscal year be referred to the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUGALD DONAGHY (North Vancouver) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22 to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923, (Additional Punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the act stands today the punishment of whipping may be imposed by the judge only in the case of sales of narcotics to minors. The object of this bill is to extend that power so that the judge may impose the penalty of whipping in all cases of selling or peddling narcotic drugs.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: 'Mr. Speaker, this is
really an amendment to the Criminal Code, I presume.


Mr. DONAGHY:: No.
Questions


Arthur Meighen: Well, it is a quasicriminal matter, and I suggest to the hon. member that if he has any thought of having the bill dealt with this session he should take it up with the government with a view to its incorporation in one of their bills. There is no chance of its being reached this session as a private member's bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
2.	How many bushels to Pout Colbome ?
3.	What was the average rate per bushel charged to-
(a)	Buffalo, (b) to Colborne?
4.	What would have been the saving if the Buffalo rate had been applied to the traffic to Colborne?
5. How much was carried from Fort William and Port Arthur to the bay ports in the calendar year-1925?
6.	What was the rate?
7.	What was the rate from Duluth to the bay ports?'
8.	What was the rate from Duluth to Buffalo (a)-per bushel, (b) per ton mile?
9.	What would have been the saving if that rate had been applied to all traffic in grain between Canadian ports?
['1.\tHow many post offices are there in the county of\nRussell?\t.\n2.\tWhat are the names of the persons m charge of these respective offices ?\n3.\tWhat is the date of appointment of each of the said persons?\n4.\tIn what localities is the revenue more than $200?\n5.\tOn what dates were the various contracts passed for the transport of postal matters, what is the name of each contractor, the nature of each contract and the dates of the expiration of said contracts?\n6.\tHow many vacancies exist for the position of postmaster ?\t_\n7.\tWhat are the names of persons who have put in application to fill said vacancies?\n8.\tWhat are the names of persons appointed since November 22, 1925, to fill said vacancies?']
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Stands as an order for return, which I now table.



Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total number of wage-earners in the employ of the Vancouver Harbour Board in each year since 1920; and what were the total wages paid in each year?
2.	What was the total number of salaried employees in the employ of the Vancouver Harbour Commission in each year since 1920 and what was the total amount of salaries paid in each year?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.
Average Amount Paid Number Each year


Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: Might I ask, Mr.. Speaker, why this should not be put on Hansard? It is one of those important questions which many of us are interested in, and if it is laid on the table in the form of an order for return no one can get any advantage of it except by seeing the return.


James Alexander Robb: I have no objection if the House desires. It will pad Hansard considerably.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is really a useful question.
1921	.. .. 16	$ 24,422 191922	.. .. 24	30,981 311923	.. .. 303	136,846 661924	.. .. 450	555.837 271925	,. .. 471	569,564 261921	.. .. 22	58,752 001922	... 22	59,709 001923	. .. 44	68,507 611924	... 61	131,256 531925	. .. 66	148,683 33


ICE BREAKERS ON ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	What was the cost of operation and maintenance of vessels employed as ice breakers in the St. Lawrence during the -past year?
2.	What was the expenditure for the construction of ice breakers operating in the St. Lawrence since confederation ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Answered. The statement is as follows:
Wheat.. Oats.. . Barley.. Flax.. .. Rye.. ..		Bushels
	Total		
Wheat.. Oats.. .. Baiiley.. Flax.. .. Rye.. ..		Bushels
	Total		
3.
3. What was the expenditure for the operation and maintenance of ice breakers operating in the St. Lawrence since confederation?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$158,979.16.
2.	$914,195.15.
3.	$2,208,133.00.
	To	To
	Buffalo	Pt. Colborne
	Cents	Cents
Wheat			2.92
Oats	
1.84	1.92Barley	.. .. 2.46	2.39Flax	2.75Rye	2.24
4.


GRAIN TRANSPORTATION-BUFFALO AND PORT COLBORNE
Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: 1.	How many bushels of Canadian grain were carried from Fort William and Port Arthur to Buffalo during the calendar year 1925?

Wheat. Oats.. Barley. Flax.. Rye..

Total	 95,236

Questions
Vessels absorb certain terminal charges at Buffalo
and Port Colborne apparent saving.	which vary, thus	affecting the
5 and 6.		
	To Bay Ports	Average Rate
	and Goderich	per Bushel
	Bushels	Cents
Wheat	. 45,977,707	3.21Oats	. 8,701,346	2.39Barley	. 3,891,041	2.60Flax	. 551.733	3.53Rye	. 129,149	2.80Total	. 59,250,976	3.052
7-8-9. Information not available.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Hudson Bay railway on the 31st of March, 1926?
2.	What was the total area of land disposed of as pre-emption and purchased homesteads under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, passed in the year 1908?
3.	What was the total price for which these lands were sold: (a) pre-emption, (b) purchased homesteads?
4.	What amounts have actually been received in payment of these lands to March 31, 1926; (a) preemption, (b) purchased homesteads?
5.	What amount of the balance of money owing by purchasers is estimated to be collectible?
6.	What disposition has been made of the pre-*emption and purchased homesteads which were not paid for and which reverted to the crown?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Cannot be answered by Department of the Interior.
2l. Pre-emptions. 121,763,040 acres, approximately, including entries since cancelled.
Purchased homesteads, 1,322,840 acres, approximately, including entries since cancelled.
3.	Pre-emptions $38,289,120 approximately.
Purchased homesteads $3,968,520, approximately.
4.	Up to 28t-h February, 1926 (Returns for March not yet received):
Pre-emptions. $16,635,639.39.
Purchased homesteads, $3,191,648.98.
5.	Balance owing by purchasers:
Pre-emiptions, $7,000,000 approximately.
Purchased homesteads, $300,000 approximately.
The department is not in a position to estimate the portion of this amount which is collectible.
6.	These lands were made available for entry under the provisions of The Dominion Hands Act.


*CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIE PURCHASES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many ties were purchased by the Canadian National Railways in British Columbia during the fiscal years of 1923-24 and 1924-25: (a) on the Grand Trunk Pacific line, (b) on the Canadian Northern British Columbia lines?
2.	How many contracts or agreements were entered into by the Canadian National Railways for the delivery of said ties: (a) with individuals, (b) with corporations?
3.	What is the name of the individual or corporation holding such contracts?
4.	Did any of the individuals or corporations fail to deliver the number of ties contracted for, and, if so, what is the name of such individual or corporation?
5.	What was the price per tie paid to each contractor?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) 1923-24, 2,108.629; 1924-25, 1.609,285.
(b) 1923-24, 244,629; 1924-25, 186,947.
2.	(a) 1923-24, 13 individuals, 2 corporations, 15 firms.
(b) 1924-25, 25 individuals, 2 corporations, 13 firms.
3.	M. Anderland, S. Anderson & Co., R. C. Banford, Broughton & McNeil, P. Brunell, A. J. Buchanan, Wm. Bunting, Button Brothers, Carroll & Sons, M. M. Connelly, Wm. Coop, Covington & Strimboldt, O. B. Day, Devauld & Wren, Dittmor & Robb, Wm. Featherly, J. W. Fleming, Foreman Lumber Co., Fort Garry Lumber Co. Fort Fraser Ranch Co., Olaf Hanson, C. R. Henderson.
O.	Iiultkranz, N. C. Jorgenson, Keith & Boston, S. F. Maguffin & Co., Ltd., MoCaffery Bros., McDonald Lumber Co., P. McGettigan, Northern Forest Produces Ltd., George Ogston, Prince Rupert Logging Co., J. Rdberts, G. B. Robb, J. W. Sackner, C. Schrieber, Schrieber Bros., E. Smedley. F. Steves, J. W. VanNorman, S. Waldorf, Webster & Black, A. Wemken, H. Zogas.
4.	Yes, Dittmore & Robb, Fort Fraser Ranch Co., Keith & Boston, J. W. Sackner.
5.	It is not considered to be in the public interest to furnish this information.


GEOLOGICAL SURVEY-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. FRASER:: What amount of money has been expended by the Dominion of Canada on account of the Geological Survey of the province of British Columbia in each year since 1871?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Year	Amount
1870- 71	$	4.525 411871-	72	
10,802	481872-	73	
4,336	101873-	74	
3,804	421874-	75	
6.257	841875-	76	
12,773	721876-	77	
6,679	361S77-78	
3.303 391878-	79	
4,742	181879-	80	
3,487	291880- 81	
None1881- 82	
None
Questions

Year	Amount	
1882-83 	
2,613	971883-84 	
2,812	531884-85 	
3,009	701885-86 	
9,863	631886-87 	
4,544	931887-88 	
5;577	821888-89 	
1,959	191889-90 	
4,465	371890-91 	
3,804	451891-92 	
3,577	731892-93 	
5,468	161893-94 	861894-95 	
3,233	861895-96 	
2,444	781896-97 	
2.440	311897-98 	
3,054	281898-99 	
11,295	681899-1900 .. ..	
10.728	601900-01 	
6.779	001901-02 	
5,613	151902-03 	
8.192	071903-04 	
4,513	601904-05 	
8,605	721905-06 	
18.663	881906-07 	
33,622	001907-08 	
22,961	241908-09 	
29.833	541909-10 	
47.380	461910-11 	
53.492	791911-12 	
45,037	751912-13 	
63.234	051913-14 	
51,159	011914-15 	
46,404	091915-16 	
40.599	611916-17 	
19,814	391917-18 	
28,387	741918-19 	
34.830	921919-20 	
75,292	411920-21 	
85,834	011921-22 	
63.822	981922-23 	
59,046	921923-24 	
55.597	871924-25 	
60,315	551925-26 	
54,621	21$1,171,410	00


BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Wi3J the government take up with the British government and the governments of the oversea dominions the holding of a British Empire exhibition annua'iy in rotation in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, following somewhat on the lines of the Wemibiey exhibition, as an agency for the development of inter-imperial trade and commerce, with an effort to draw Great Britain and her oversea dominions closer together so that trade may follow the flag and so promote the best interest of the empire and of Canada?
2.	Will the government make any statement of what is or wflfl be done in this connection, and if they

will take 'this subject matter up at the next colonial conference, and see what can be done in the matter and 'to give effect to the same?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The matter herein referred to will receive the careful consideration of the government.
2.	Answered by answer to No. 1.


MR. L. W. MINKLER
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	Is L. W. Minkler still in the employ of the government experimental farm at Lacombe, Alberta?
2.	If not, when did his employment cease, and for what reasons?
3.	When did his said employment commence? What are or were his duties under it, and what is, or was,, his salary or wages therefor?
4.	What payments have been received from the government from the date of his first employment?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	February 23, 1925. General labourer employed particularly in special detail and record work. Thirty cents per hour.
4.	$1,326.90.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-GEORGE TARRANT
Mr. BROWN:: 
INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS 1919 TO 1925
Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	What gross amount was collected by the Dominion Income Taxation Department in each of the following years: 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925?
2.	What refunds have been made from each year's collection ?
3.	What was the cost of collection for each year?
4.	How many employees were there in the department in each year?
5.	What amounts *were collected by the office at London, Ontario, in each of the years mentioned?
6.	How many employees were in the London office in each of the years mentioned?
7.	What are the names of those who now act as assessors in the London office?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: Stands as an order for return.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) as respects No. 4 would apply here. The answer is exceedingly brief in each case. It may take some time to get it ready, but the question is so important that manifestly the answer should appear in Hansard.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have no objection if the
right hon. leader of the opposition prefers the question may stand. It will be answered in due course.


William Duff: No. 20 stands
as a question.


RURAL CREDITS-INTEREST LIMITATION
Mr. WILSON (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Will the government provide in the rural credits legislation, that borrowers, on the ten-year credit period, shall not pay more than 5 per cent interest on their loans and those borrowing for more than ten years not more than 4$ per cent interest?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The government's intention with respect to rural credits legislation is set forth in the resolution which appears on the orders of the day in the name of the Minister of Finance. The details of the legislation will appear in the bill to be introduced as soon as the said resolution has been passed by the House of Commons.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Lawrence Alexander Wilson: In as much as. under the proposed legislation concerning old age pensions, all the provinces must in-direetty contribute their share of the amounts paid by the Dominion government to the provinces accepting the conditions of the act:
Will the government make provision therein to pay to those provinces, refusing to join in the old age pension scheme, a pro rata amount to be used by them for assistance to their hospitals and charitable institutions ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government's policy with respect to the
old age pension scheme, referred to in the question, is set forth in full in the legislation now before parliament. In the opinion of the government it would be inadvisable to introduce any additional features to the legislation now before parliament.


SADDLE LAKE INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. BURY:: 1.	Has the Saddle Lake Indian reserve in the province of Alberta, or any part orf it, been opened up for settlers? If so, when; how much; and by what authority was it opened up?
2.	By what methods and on what date or dates were the allotments made of lands so opened up?
3.	What qualifications or conditions were required of applicants in order to obtain any part of the said lands ?
4.	What were the conditions of sale or conditions of allotment drawn by the government to govern the said allotments?
5.	Was or were any other condition or conditions of sale or allotment announced by the government agent in substitution for or in addition to any of those drawn by the government? If so, had such further or other conditions been previously submitted to and approved by the government?
6.	How many applicants for the said lands were there?
7.	How many of such applicants were in attendance to support their applications on the day of allotment?
8.	What were the names and addresses of the successful allottees; and how many acres were allotted to each?
9.	How many, and who, among the said successful allottees were, at the date of the said allotment, farmers actively engaged in farming operations in the district?
10.	Have any of the said allotments been approved by the government? If so, which and when?
11.	How many sections were there in the said reserve and how many of these have been opened up and allotted to farmers?
12.	Is it the intention of the government to open for settlement any more of the said reserve? If so, when and how much?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes; 18,720 acres surrendered for sale by the Saddle Lake band on August 4, 1925. Surrender accepted by order of His Excellency the Governor General in Council of September 26, 1925
2.	A block comprising 8,960 acres was sold for cash, to the Soldier Settlement Board immediately following surrender. Balance, 9.760 acres, offered for sale by ballot and allotment on March 3, this year.
3.	Department stipulated that only bona fide settlers of the immediate district should have right to purchase.
4.	Conditions of sale one-tenth cash, balance in nine equal and consecutive annual instalments with interest at six per cent. Applicants given privilege of balloting for right to purchase. This procedure decided upon in order to eliminate speculation and to confine sales to residents of district.
Questions

5.	None, so far as department is aware.
6.	169.
7.	119.
8.	Final report not yet received from Indian agent.
9.	Answered by 8.
10.	Answered by 8.
11.	(a) 115.
(b) 291 sections surrendered for sale.
12.	No, not at present.
. PORTAPIQUE WHARF


Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	y liat was the total cost of the wharf built at Portapique, Nova Scotia, in 1925?
2.	Was it built by the Department of Public Works or by public tender?
3.	If by the department, who was in charge of construction?
4.	What amount per day was paid to the superintendent and sub-foreman, respectively?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$3,645.80.
2.	Built by Department of Public Works.
3.	J. A. Urquhart, foreman, under general supervision of District Engineer Tbos. J. Locke, at Halifax, N.S.
4.	Foreman paid at rate of 50 cents per hour. No sub-foreman employed.


DOMESTIC FUEL
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Is it the intention of the government to introduce at the present session the bill that was prepared last year, entitled: An Act to encourage the Production of Domestic Fuel from coal mined in Canada, or any other bill to the same effect?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not possible to indicate at the present time what further legislation will be introduced at present session.


BOARD OF AUDIT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Regarding chapter 30, 13 and 14, George V, who were appointed as accountants under section 7 of the act?
2.	On what date were these auditors appointed?
3.	What is the total amount of salaries paid to each since appointment?
4.	What results have been obtained as the consequence of employing such auditors?
5.	What activities have been displayed by the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Auditor General under this act in the following respects: (a) Enquiry into report on and recommendations as to the present system of audit as respects the public accounts of the various departments of the Dominion. (See section 8.)
(b)	Enquiry into and recommendation as to the systems of accounting employed by the Canadian National Railways and subsidiaries thereof. (See section 9.)
(c)	Enquiry into and recommendations as to the financial affairs of any commission or other public body, the operations of which are carried on by appropriations from the treasury of Canada, or which are aided

by grants or loans from said treasury. (See section 10.)?
6.	Have the powers of the board been extended to include enquiry into any other undertaking or service as provided for in section 11 of the said act?
7.	Did the board engage skilled assistants to facilitate the work? If so, how many and at what salaries?
8.	Has the board reported from time to time the result of the enquiry, and recommendation as provided for in section 15 of the act? If so, are these reports to be presented to the board?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Geo. Edwards, C. A., of Edwards, Morgan & Co., Toronto; W. Garth Thomson, C. A., of Marwick, Mitchel & Co., Montreal.
2.	February 23, 1924.
3 $6,000.
4.	During their term of office on the board they have investigated the following matters: Taxation branch (Dept, of Customs and Excise), salary schedules; postal service salary schedules; Quebec Harbour Commission; Van-cover Harbour Commission; Canadian National Railways; Montreal Harbour Commission.
5.	The Auditor General was Chairman of the board and the Deputy Minister of Finance, Vice-Chairman. The Auditor General presided ^,t meetings of the board when the investigations were authorized and took part in directing and forwarding the activities of the board at its meetings and at such other times as required.
6 Yes.
7.	Yes, 22: 12 at $30 per day, 5 at $20, and 5 at $15.
8.	Yes.


CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BANKS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	.Who was appointed to the office of the Chief Inspector of Banks, under what authority, at what salary and how much has been paid to him to date?
2.	How many assistants, if any, have been appointed and at what salaries?
3.	Out of which vote have such salaries been paid?
4.	Have any reports been received from the chief inspector as to the extent of his investigations, and are such reports available?
5.	Did the Department of Finance furnish the chief inspector with a general direction as to the procedure to be pursued? If so, what were these directions?
6.	Was the Bankers' Association consulted or advised as to the chief inspector in any of the following respects: (a) appointment; (b) salary; (c) duties;
(d)	method of procedure; (e) limitations?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	C. S. Tompkins, appointed under authority of section 56A (1) of the Bank Act, at $15,000 a year. Paid to date, $21,916.66.
2.	Office assistant at $1,400 a year.
3.	Vote No. 409-1924-5; No. 15-1925-6; No 8-1926-7.

Socialization oj Natural Resources
4.	The inspector has carried out the duties assigned to him by subsection 6, of section 50A of the Bank Act. His reports are not made public.
5.	The inspector is directed by the statute.
6.	No.


OUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	What are the names of the members and officers, including secretary, employed in connection with the Grain Commission and the amount given to each for his services?
2.	What was the expense account of each of the said members or officials paid by the government in connection with the said investigation?
3.	What was the total amount paid to each counsel or solicitor for his services in connection with the said investigation?	.
4.	What payments were made for (a) rents of premises, (b) wages of stenographers, (c) all expenses other than those referred to under the preceding three questions in connection with said investigation?


DUTIES COLLECTED ON WOOL, CATTLE, ETC.
Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: 1.	What was the total quantity, value, and amount of duty collected on the imports and exports of the following commodities during the four-year period ending March 31, 1925; wool, cattle and calf hides, meats, butter, eggs, apples?
2.	What was the quantity, and value, and amount of duty collected on each of the articles or commodities, mentioned in question 1, for the year ending March 31, 1926?


DUTIES COLLECTED 1921-25
Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: 1.	What amount of customs duty was collected in each province of the Dominion during each of the years ending March 31, 1921, to 1925, inclusive?
2.	What was the total duties collected in each province for the years mentioned in question one?


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How many employees are engaged by the Civil Service Commission ?
2.	How many appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	How many men were appointed?
4.	How many women were appointed?
5.	What is the total amount of the annual salaries payable to the new appointees?


COUNTY OF RUSSELL-POST OFFICES
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	How many post offices are there in the county of
Russell?	.
2.	What are the names of the persons m charge of these respective offices ?
3.	What is the date of appointment of each of the said persons?
4.	In what localities is the revenue more than $200?
5.	On what dates were the various contracts passed for the transport of postal matters, what is the name of each contractor, the nature of each contract and the dates of the expiration of said contracts?
6.	How many vacancies exist for the position of postmaster ?	_
7.	What are the names of persons who have put in application to fill said vacancies?
8.	What are the names of persons appointed since November 22, 1925, to fill said vacancies?



SOCIALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to regain for the use of the people the coal mines and water-powers which are now being exploited in the interest of private corporations rather than for the needs of the people.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was
made on Friday that some of the hon. members opposite would like to proceed with certain resolutions to-day, but we have no definite assurance that we will have another Monday, and I would not like to allow this opportunity to pass without presenting this important resolution to the House. I have every desire to meet the convenience of my hon. friends opposite, however, and while I cannot control the debate I shall be very well satisfied if it is adjourned before six o'clock, to give hon. gentlemen opposite an opportunity to proceed.
It is sometimes charged that resolutions of this character are academic. I might point out that they are academic simply because we have not as yet a sufficient number of people thinking along these lines to bring these policies into operation. I have not the slightest doubt that before very many years have passed these questions will come decidedly within the realm of practical politics. In this particular case, however, my resolution has a very topical interest because of the developments which have taken place in recent weeks in the district immediately adjacent to the capital city.
For once I find myself in sympathy with the Toronto Telegram, and I hope the Toronto Telegram will note that fact. In the issue of April 15 the Telegram calls attention to the fact that since Sir Adam Beck's death private interests have been gradually resuming their encroachments, particularly in northern Ontario. By means of an agreement announced recently, for a supply of 260,000 horse power from Quebec, they have secured, according to the Telegram, a foothold in eastern Ontario, and have even reached as far as Toronto. Let me quote a paragraph:
A thirty year contract for a supply of power from private interests in Quebec means the end of Sir


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much impressed by the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (M'r. Woods-worth). I also regret the fact that the situation in Ontario is such that Ontario power interests have had to go outside of the province for a source of power for distribution within the province. I do not know where the blame ought to be laid, but I sympathize with the Toronto Telegram in its expression of dissent from what has taken place and that the province had been forced to go outside of the province for power when it might have been generated at home absolutely under the control and ownership of Ontario which has led the world in public-ownership development and distribution of power throughout the province. Still, there is some relief coming from a privately-owned company in Ottawa, and I cannot complain of that although there is a suspicion in Toronto and throughout the province that in some way privately-owned companies have been rather conspiring in that regard.
I want to say a word about the power situation in Great Britain. As a believer in public ownership I regret that Great Britain has not followed the example of Ontario and developed a great system of public ownership and distribution of power,
4 p.m. generating the power in publicly-owned plants controlling batteries of steam boilers at the pit heads, and also owning the distributing plants which now run into millions, to cover a kingdom like Britain. Instead of that all that Mr. Baldwin's government has done	is to say	that	they	willencourage the	generation	of	power	byprivately-owned	companies	and	its distribution. by privately-owned	companies	and
lines, but under some kind of public control. That is a step in advance and I cannot blame them, but I regret that the scheme does not go further. England is in a situation today that she wants to avail herself of every opportunity and every resource she has in order to get back to normal.
Having said that about England, I come now to our own province of Nova Scotia. I
2568	COMMONS
Socialization oj Natural Resources
read this morning a circular by the British Empire Steel Corporation of Nova Scotia, stating that they are imploring the government of Canada to subsidize the mines in that province in order to encourage the generation of coke and its byproducts and thus build up the mines and supply work for the people. Let me say to our friends from Nova Scotia that I will go so far as to endorse, as far as I can do it in this House by my vote, a subsidy from the Dominion to that province to take over not all the coal mines, but certain coal mines as publicly-owned propositions, to own and develop a steam plant for the generation of power from that coal for distribution throughout that province, and also a subsidy from the Dominion to the province for a large coking plant to produce all the byproducts of coal when being roasted for the production of coke. In that way a great industry can be built up. In order that it may be carried out as it ought to be carried out, I am not going to object to private enterprise going into it, but if we are to help I would favour that help coming from the Dominion to a publicly-owned enterprise in that province. Nova Scotia says that it is in a desperate state and wants to see its ports used. I am in favour of its ports being used, but if public help is to be given, it ought to be given to publicly-owned propositions.
The former speaker also referred to pooling interests. I am not going into the matter in detail to-day, but I hope to do so later on in this House. If you deal with the transportation problem, you must deal with it as a whole. It will not do to deal with railways and to neglect transportation now performed by waterways, nor the future transportation of goods by airways. In other words, if you want to deal with the transportation problem to-day, the world has moved so fast that you cannot solve it properly unless you deal with it from every angle. To build up our ports and railways you have to go further, you have to find out not only how you can improve transportation by dealing with your railways, but you must also deal with the three or four or more manifestations of transportation and1 pool them. To-day you must pool things if you want to succeed. It is only by employing them all that you can make any headway.
I had something to do with the dream of the Niagara power development. It was made fun of at the time and Adam Beck was almost called a lunatic and discouraged in every way; but our dream came true. Now, I have a dream similar to that described by the preceding speaker (Mr. Woodsworth). I agree with him that on the Hudson slope we have the greatest potential water powers in

the world. The people of Canada own them, but there are men in the United States and elsewhere, men with vast financial resources at their back, ready to grab these great national assets. Long distance high tension transmission is coming very rapidly. We have these and other great potential resources of electric energy, some owned by the provinces and some by the Dominion, but as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, we must get the necessary legislation to enable us to handle them. Our constitution, drafted sixty years ago, is rather an old-fashioned instrument, and we have not the means in our own hands of amending it. It will be said by some hon. members: You are suggesting separation from England. I am suggesting nothing of the kind. But I want to see the parliament of Canada made so efficient that it can deal with this and other problems as they arise. These great national problems we are not able to deal with under our present constitution. Last week, for instance, we found we were hampered in dealing with old age pensions. The same incapacity handicaps us in dealing with our power problem. All these questions broaden as the years pass, and this parliament should be in a position to deal adequately with our national problems, especially those which, solved in the proper way, will make life more livable for every Canadian citizen. Our opponents want to monopolize these vital public services for their own financial benefit rather than for the advantage of the people.
I agree largely with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in connection with this question, and I have thrown out a suggestion to my friends from Nova Scotia. As one member of this House, I am ready to back up Nova Scotia in a publicly-owned development of her coal mines and the distribution of power generated by steam plants at their pit heads, the generation and distribution to be undertaken by the province as a public ownership enterprise. I wish to see Nova Scotia given a chance to work out this great problem right at home. Many of those who want the Dominion to aid such enterprises desire the aid to go to private individuals. I am not in favour of that, but I am ready to back up Nova Scotia to-morrow if she will go ahead and solve this problem on a public ownership basis. I would also like to see her go into the coking business so as to produce coke in sufficient quantities to ship to Quebec and to Ontario, for as I see it the fuel market of the central provinces belongs to Nova Scotia, I would not like

Socialization of Natural Resources
to see this developed as a means of private profit but rather in the direction of service to all the people, and for that reason I have trespassed on the time of the House for a few minutes in making these suggestions.
Capital is becoming so strongly entrenched that the legislatures of the country, whether provincial or Dominion, must take great care to protect the public domain. Fortunately no monopoly, however securely it may seem to be founded, is impregnable, for undoubtedly scientific development will eventually render many present types of machinery obsolete. The surprise of the world to-day is not what science is doing now but what it will be doing to-morrow, and what it will be doing tomorrow may be in the direction of scrapping the very things behind which capital has entrenched itself.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution proposes :
'That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to regain for the use of the people the coal mines and water-powers which are now being exploited in the interest of private corporations rather than for the needs of the people.
I submit, Sir, that in so far as Canada is concerned the coal mines and water powers which are now being "exploited"-I prefer "operated"-are being operated for the use of the people. There is a clear distinction between the views of the people in the province of which I represent a constituency and those of the people of Ontario. In our province we believe in developing industry by individual initiative, individual enterprise, individual management, under public supervision and control. I do not wish to precipitate a contest of opinion as to the merits of the hydro-electric services of Ontario and the hydro-electric services of Quebec, but if there were time and opportunity I think I could vindicate before any independent tribunal the opinion which we in that province entertain, that our services are cheap, stable and well managed and serve the public interest to an extent that has not yet been achieved in the province of Ontario. So long as the people of the province of Quebec entertain that opinion, I think it is expedient that they should be allowed to proceed along their own lines, pursuing their own ideals and accomplishing the results which they have in view, and which are very necessary for the prosperity of the industries of that great province. Therefore perhaps it is that the Fathers of Confederation in framing the British North America Act left property and civil rights within the control of provincial
legislatures, so that the legislature immediately responsible to the people of each province could be guided by the opinion of that province both with respect to industrial development and to such developments as coal mines and water powers.
The situation of Canada at the present time is that the development of hydro-electric power and energy for lighting and power purposes in each of the provinces is controlled and directed and supervised by commissions appointed by the governments of those several provinces. There you have a very effective control. It is true that we have vested in the crown, as represented by the Dominion government, large water powers in the territories which undoubtedly are soon to be vested in the several provincial legislatures, but I will say that I do not believe any department of the Dominion government is more honestly and more efficiently managed, supervised and controlled than is the Water Powers branch.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite agree.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think in any developments which have taken place under the direction and control of that branch there has been one single bit of jobbery. If such has happened I do not know of it, and I know most of the developments which have taken place. Therefore it is far better to leave this matter to the control of the local legislatures and the local governments who, under the constitution, have that right. It is far better, because it gives to each legislature the right to represent the mentality of the people of that province. It so far has satisfied the people of Ontario in developing the Hydro Electric Power Commission, which is a local government commission. But you could no more procure the people of the province of Quebec to accept governmental ownership as well as governmental control and supervision, than you could induce them to accept the prohibition principles which are accepted in other provinces of Canada.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Or women's franchise!


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Nor women's franchise. That is a fair suggestion by my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: Will my hon.
friend pardon me?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Has not the province of Quebec public ownership in the distribution and sale of liquor?

Socialization of Natural Resources


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly; it suits our circumstances, our conditions and our mentality, and we accept it. But simply because we have public ownership and direct control of the sale of liquors in the province of Quebec it does not mean that we should accept the Ontario idea as to hydro-electric ownership. Furthermore I will say to my hon. friend that I have lived in the province of Quebec for many years; I go back and forth from my home to my office, and I do not believe there is a city on this continent of similar size where there is less drunkenness and less evil results from the sale of liquor as it is sold than in the city of Montreal, where I reside.
I have an idea;-and I may say that I suggested it to my hon. friend who moved this resolution-one of those erratic ideas which may be perhaps peculiar to myself and a few others, but I have had some experience in hydro-electric development and the development of electrical energy by steam. Personally I am inclined to believe that in fifty years electric energy will be developed from some other sources than hydro-electric power, so cheaply as to make the investments of this country both private and public, in hydroelectric power almost completely worthless. We are on the eve of great developments in regard to the production of electrical energy. Look back, if you will; I was jotting a few notes with my pencil when my hon. friend was speaking. Up to 1855 on this American continent we used sperm oil for lighting purposes, and for certain heating purposes as well. At that time one might well have advocated government monopoly in the production and use of sperm oil. But in 1875 the use of gas for lighting purposes was introduced in the United States, and you might then have had exactly the same demand for a public monopoly of the production and use of gas for lighting purposes. In 1900 electric lighting was introduced, and since that time there has been in many districts municipal ownership of electric lighting plants. In other districts such plants are operated by private companies, but I venture to say that in the United States to-day, where private companies are operating under reasonably sound municipal or state supervision, you would not find the people adopting public ownership of lighting plants. Private ownership is more efficient and I believe it results in a cheaper sendee to the people all round. That is a matter which I do not wish to go into at length; it is an opinion which I have and which I could back up with ample statistics if there were time.
The development of these systems depends upon private initiative. The invention of the

tungsten-film bulb saved the United States at least one hundred million dollars a year, and we would never have heard of that if there had been a public monopoly of lighting. The initiative of the individual has developed these lighting, heating and power services to an extent which never could have been attained under public ownership, I am sure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I recall to the hon. gentleman that we had a very fine type of wheat developed by a servant of the Dominion government.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, and as well might
my hon. friend urge that the parliament of Canada make an appropriation to take over the entire wheat fields of the northwest, as to invite parliament to make an appropriation of $800,000,000 or $900,000,000 to take over the hydro-electric and steam power producing plants of this country.


Edward Joseph Garland: We in the west might not object to that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: While wheat is selling at
present prices my hon. friend would undoubtedly claim a high price for his land.


Edward Joseph Garland: No more
than a private individual would.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But if the public is to purchase those lands, I would suggest a delay of six or eight years until Russia begins to produce wheat again. If my hon. friend is then producing wheat he will be glad to go into another kind of crop, and only produce wheat for consumption at home rather than for exportation to countries where the price is regulated by the local demand.
Taken as a whole, the lighting and power services of Ontario are no cheaper than those of Quebec.


Mr. HEARS:: Would the hon. gentleman
give us the amount the ordinary consumer has to pay in the city of Montreal?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the figures at
hand, but I have seen them a dozen times, and if it were important I would go into it, because I am thoroughly convinced that I am right. Furthermore, some references were made to the president of Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated. It must be remembered that Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated-in which I have no personal interest whatsoever except in the consumption of a small amount of light and gas each month in my apartment-paid $650,000 a year in federal income tax to the treasury of this country, while in Ontario there is not one dollar paid by the Hydro Electric system

Socialization of Natural Resources
to the federal treasury. Therefore, Montreal Light, Heat & Power, which I refer to simply because it is one of several power companies, pays in its municipal and other taxes an amount far greater than is paid by the Hydro Electric for similar public purposes to the municipalities or to the province of Ontario.
Again, talking about the taking over of coal mines! I understand the situation in England where, ever since electrical energy was developed by steam, they have maintained municipal lighting plants, and these municipal lighting plants are operated in every case by steam. I can understand why there should be advocated for England a national system, because no individual and no corporate company could now secure from the British parliament the rights which are necessary in order to consolidate those various plants, although individual initiative would do it far more efficiently and render a far cheaper service than could be obtained by governmental assistance or governmental promotion; there is no doubt about that. Therefore, it is now suggested in England that, near the mines, the refuse coal should be burnt up, producing thereby electrical energy for distribution throughout the length and breadth of that country in the zones in which these plants are operated, and that great work there can only be carried out by the government because it is impossible for a private company or a private individual to obtain the necessary legislation or to break down the municipal opposition which has been engendered to that scheme. But in this country we are in an entirely different position. I grant that the water-powers should be utilized for the uses of the people; I grant that coal should be utilized for the uses of the people; but they are being utilized for the people now, and as soon as the government of this country undertakes to take them over and develop them on the socialistic principle, and supply light and power throughout the length and breadth of this land by government agency, just so soon will you have that service characterized by a dishonesty and inefficiency which no longer prevails with respect to the local and private enterprise.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if the coal mining industry has been efficient in either the eastern or the western part of this country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that coal mining in Nova Scotia and in Alberta, about which I know something, is being done fairly efficiently. The great difficulty with coal mining in Canada to-day is that it is a seasonal occupation. I went through the strike in 1909
in Cape Breton; I was through it from beginning to end, and I came in contact with all the various opinions prevalent there. Last summer I had the opportunity of discussing that same problem with a number of very intelligent men from that province, and I believe-it is my individual opinion-that the difficulty in Cape Breton arises from the fact that the employment in the mines is not continuous and stable. I do not believe there is a miner in Cape Breton to-day but would accept a lower wage, and give a greater output per man, if he could be assured that, instead of being employed for only five or six months of the year in mining, he could be employed during the whole twelve months, save for an occasional holiday that might be necessary. That is the difficulty in Cape Breton, so far as coal mining is concerned. Change that from a seasonal occupation to a continuous occupation throughout the year, for which and during which the miners would be paid, a reasonable wage, and lower than they are being paid to-day, would be acceptable if the employment were continuous, and the difficulty would be largely solved.
But further-I am talking as an amateur who is interested in this subject, having jotted down some notes while my hon. friend was speaking-the chief difficulty does not arise out of the mining of coal; the difficulty arises out of the utilization of the coal after it is mined. What I mean in this: There is no more wasteful habit that could be possibly cultivated by the people of Canada than the burning of raw coals in their hearths, in their stoves, or for the production of steam power. If my memory is right, every ton of good bituminous coal sacrifices, when burnt in the oven, at the hearth or in the furnace, 11,000 cubic feet of gas, 9 gallons of tar, 25 pounds of ammonium sulphate, 2.08 gallons of pure benzol and .56 gallons of pure toluol, and if we could establish plants in this country for the production of coke, and use that coke for the production of heat and of steam, and utilize these by-products which are now wasted and sacrificed, the value of these by-products would cut down the price of coal for industrial purposes in this country to a point lower than it has been during the past twenty years.
There is the difficulty. It may be that, in order to utilize the coal, government assistance may be helpful along certain lines, but government acquisition and government management of the coal mines in the present political conditions of this country-I hardly

Socialization oj Natural Resources
know what word to use, but it is practically impossible to do it honestly and efficiently under governments and under political parties as they are now constituted in this country.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon.
member say that in the administration of the Ontario Hydro Electric system there has been mismanagement or any kind of corruption? I say it is the best example in the world of the success of public ownership, and it has set the pace for all the private-owned companies in the world.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not talking of hydroelectric development, but of coal mines in Nova Scotia and Alberta. I am not casting any reflection upon the administration of the Hydro Electric in this province under the late management or under the present management, except to say that it is not so efficient and not so satisfactory in its results as we get from the operation and control by private companies in the province of Quebec. That is my opinion; my hon. friend is entitled to reserve his own. I was talking about the utilization of coal. Now there the government of the country might intervene and assist. Furthermore we are on the eve of still greater developments in the matter of fuel. There is enough fuel between Ottawa and Montreal, and I believe it will be developed within the next twenty-five or thirty years, in peat beds to permit of supplying at a much cheaper rate than is now being done the entire industrial needs of the western part of the province of Quebec and eastern Ontario. The fuel is there. It can be utilized and it will be utilized some day. It is not, I suggest, the duty of the government-especially the federal government which has no control of these matters of property and civil rights-to undertake the ownership and management of either water-powers or of coal. I suggest again, with regard to water-powers, that within fifty years we will develop electrical energy in such shape and form, and transmit it so cheaply and efficiently, as to render water-powers almost valueless. As to coal we should now attempt to utilize its by-products and save the millions that are going up in smoke every day in this country, save them as they are doing in the public interest in other countries, especially in Germany and in some parts of the United States. The time will come when private enterprise and individual initiative and invention will find some way of utilizing our peat so as to give us cheaper heat, cheaper power and cheaper 
light than we have at present through either of the other sources. Therefore, iMr. Speaker, I certainly am opposed to this resolution because I see no need for it. It would be suicidal if parliament adopted it and carried it into effect.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would the hon.
member give us some idea of where we are going to get that cheap power in the future of which he speaks?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I gave my suggestion.


Malcolm McLean: Yes, but where
are we going to get this power which is going to put water-power into the discard?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I do not pretend to
speak from a scientific standpoint but I will say this:	If you had asked me five years
ago whether we were going to have communication through the air by radio I could not have told you. I believe we are on the eve of developing electric energy from the air at a cheaper rate than electric energy has ever yet been developed. I believe that within twenty-five or thirty years at the most we will be able to utilize our peat beds to supply cheaper electric energy, if you will, but certainly cheaper heat which produces electric energy, than is now developed from the coal which we use.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I
quite agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that we are on the eve of very great and important changes in hydro-electric development. I quite expect to see, even within my own lifetime, some tremendous changes in that regard. I hope to see within the very near future-I fully expect to see it-the transmission of hydro-electric energy without the use of transmission wires. Experts are now getting very close to the point in their experiments where it will 'be possible to transmit electric energy for very long distances without the use of wires. When that comes about it will mean a tremendous revolution in hydro-electric development in all parts of the continent.
The previous speaker made one or two references which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. He stated that under private ownership there is a certain amount of initiative which you are hardly likely to have under public ownership. I think I am quoting the hon. gentleman correctly. With that particular statement of his I am bound to take issue. I come from a city where we have quite a large hydro-electric undertaking which is entirely publicly owned and publicly controlled. There is no commission in charge

Socialization of Natural Resources
of it, it is controlled by the city council of Winnipeg. Before Winnipeg went into its own hydro-electric development the people of that city were paying 20 cents per kilowatt hour. The moment it became mooted that the city was about to develop its own electric energy and supply it to the people the price came down to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. When the civic hydro-electric development became an actual fact the city council supplied the people with electricity at 3J cents per kilowatt hour. In addition to that there was a 10 per cent discount. Now the average rate of hydro-electric energy to the domestic consumer in that city is just slightly over two *cents per kilowatt hour. There is no privately-owned concern on the continent which can -compare in the matter of initiative with the publicly-owned utility of the city of Winnipeg. I say that because for a number of years I had some connection with it, being a member of the Winnipeg city council. In fact so enterprising is the management of -this utility that the opponents of public ownership are always on the alert and always on- the move to try and check the initiative which it displays at varioiis times.
Now what have we done with this publicly-owned utility?	I wish	to	say that we areeven ahead of	the city	of	Toronto in	thatregard. What is the use of a publicly-owned utility unless it can give better service than one which is privately-owned? I say that these publicly-owned utilities can and do give better service than privately-owned concerns no matter in what part	of	the country	theyhappen to be.	If they	were not doing	that
there would be no publicly-owned utilities. Now, our own public utility in Winnipeg, in addition to giving one of the lowest rates of any prevailing on the American- continent, has introduced the very latest developments in hydro-electric enterprise into the homes of the people. Housewives, who at one time found their work a drudgery, have experienced great vel-ief as a result of the enterprise which has been shown by our hydro-electric system. I think I am correct in stating that there are more electric appliances used in Winnipeg than are to be found in any other city of the same size in any part of the world. In the city of Winnipeg there are several places where these electric appliances may be bought on easy terms by the people. Each year private corporations in that city have complained because the civic hydro-electric management can sell at a lower rate and give better service than private corporations.
What else have we done in Winnipeg? In addition to bringing about a most important *electrical development there we have done
something which no other city in Canada has done as yet. As the result of our electrical development Winnipeg has the first publicly-owned central heating system in the Dominion. There are approximately one hundred of the large buildings in the centre of the city which are heated from the central heating system, and perhaps it would be of interest to hon. members to find out how that came about. A few years ago Winnipeg was troubled very much by the storms which blew down the transmission lines between Pointe du Bois, where we get our hydroelectric energy, and the city. Accordingly it was decided to establish a steam standby plant so that at any time when the wires were down the city should not be without a continuous hydro-electric service. Following the establishment of that standby plant we installed a central heating system so that the boilers necessary for the steam standby plant could also be used for the purposes of a central heating system. The consequence is, as I have already mentioned, that a very large portion of the centre of Winnipeg is now heated by the central heating plant. What is more important than that is the fact that as a result of our having that plant in Winnipeg there are certain times of the year when we do not use even one ounce of coal to heat a very large portion of the city. The heating of these buildings in the centre of Winnipeg is done by hydro-electric energy which comes a distance of 78 miles over transmission lines, and by the white fuel, as we term it. We heat a very large portion of the city at times by the utilization of off peak power, when it would otherwise be necessary to use coal. Now no private enterprise in this country has gone as far with this form of public utility as the city of Winnipeg. No other city in Canada has a central heating plant attached to its electrical development and can utilize the off peak power to heat buildings. Hon. members tell us that under public ownership there is less initiative than under private ownership. One fact mentioned by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was that $650,000 was paid by the Montreal Light Heat and Power Company in income tax. I wonder where they got the $650,000? And when they paid that amount in income tax, I wonder how much their profits must have been for the year? If they had no profit, they would never have paid that money. But there is one thing, that where we have a publicly-owned utility, as we have in Winnipeg, or as they have in Ontario, if any profits are earned, those profits go to the consumer. In Montreal, if I remember my figures correctly-and I can be

Socialization oj Natural Resources
corrected if I am wrong-the cost to the consumer is about twice as much as it is in the city of Winnipeg. In Winnipeg, which is about one-fifth the size of Montreal, our total revenue from the sale of hydro-electric energy amounts to approximately $2,000,000 per annum, and, assuming that three times the quantity of electricity is sold in Montreal as in Winnipeg, it would amount to $6,000,000. Hon. members can easily figure out how much more the people of Montreal are paying for their light, heat and power, and can understand why the private corporation in Montreal is able to pay $660,000 income tax. I might give one other instance in regard to what we call initiative. I sometimes wonder what hon. members mean when they use that word. It is rather a difficult word to try to understand, and one would think from what we hear, that it was only in private ownership that there was an initiative. In other words, I would understand it to mean that a man shows initiative when he is working for a private corporation in order that he might make additional gain or profits. I think I am correct in /that assertion. But, Mr. Speaker, there are to-day professions where people study, give their energy, give the best that is in them and give their very life, where there is not one cent of profit to them. There are men practising in the medical profession who come under that category. It is one of the traditions of the men and women who work in that profession, who give of their talents, their skill and their lives, that they shall not receive one cent of reward for anything they may discover as the result of their own private initiative.


Mr. OHABOT:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The men of the medical profession have for years laboured hard, and when they discover something of benefit to humanity, they give it to the world without any reward, except perhaps the honour or glory that is bestowed on the man or woman who makes the particular discovery. Xn recent years people have recognized, even in this parliament, the work of men like Dr. Banting, who discovered the insulin treatment for diabetes, and yet Dr. Banting and those who were associated with him did not have any reward in view when they were labouring to make this discovery. But men of the medical profession have laboured because they thought they might render a service to mankind.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not business men.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about scientists such as Marconi?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, many men have worked for the benefit of humanity. It has been a time honoured custom with men of that class that when they have discovered something they have never attempted to commercialize it. We all know and recognize that fact. Then if it is possible in the medical profession it is possible in other lines of activity as well. When hon. members say that under public ownership there can be no initiative, I think they have not given sufficient study to the meaning of that word in relation to public and private enterprise.
No hon. member in this House who understands the development of public utilities in this country or any other country can rise in his place and defend private enterprise. Why it was private enterprise that gave us the Canadian National railway. It was the muddle and mess that private ownership made of that undertaking that compelled the government to take hold of it. If private enterprise is so beneficial to a country, why did they not make a success of it before it came into the hands of the government? And now that the road is in the hands of the Dominion of Canada, if the people of Canada will allow the management to operate the road free from interference by individual members of this House and free from politics, it will be a success, the same as other public utilities have been.


Charles A. Stewart: The resolution placed before
the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to regain for the use of the people the coal mines and water-powers which are now being exploited in the interest of private corporations rather than for the needs of the people.
I do not intend to detain the House more than a few moments, nor do I intend to espouse the cause of private or public ownership, but simply to point out some of the difficulties which we must meet in connection with a resolution of this kind. One of the first difficulties is that under the Act of Confederation those public utilities which are mentioned in the resolution remain under the control of the provincial government. But I agree with my hon. friends who have spoken that a great deal can be done to bring about uniformity in the mining of coal, for example, and uniformity in connection with the development of water-powers. The province of Ontario perhaps is the great, outstanding example of the utilization of electrical energy by public

Socialization oj Natural Resources
enterprise, and has given the lead in that direction. There are other provinces which have not followed in their footsteps up to the moment, but Ontario is the outstanding example of the development of this public utility under provincial government auspices. The federal government controls the natural resources of the three prairie provinces. In Alberta we have coal mines carried on to a very considerable extent and in the other provinces we have the development of water-powers. I intend to speak only of what the federal government has done in this connection. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, the federal government no longer sells our natural resources; it issues leases which carry very strict provisions for a certain number of years for the development of (waten-powers and the same thing prevails in connection with coal mines. The privately-owned coal mines in Alberta were disposed of years ago; none has been disposed of in that manner since 1907. The stage is all set, if needs Ibe and if unanimity of opinion should prevail with the provinces for the development of coal mines, if you will, under public auspices. The same condition prevails in Nova Scotia where coal mines are owned by the provincial government and operated under private enterprise.
I want to speak for a moment of what we have been able to do in connection with the preservation of the forest wealth of the country. The same condition prevails. The provincial governments, with the exception of the three prairie provinces, own and control their forest wealth. In my attempt to get uniformity of action I found a great deal of suspicion abroad in the minds of the provincial authorities, and I admit that the feeling is sometimes too prevalent that there is a desire on the part of the federal authorities to interfere with provincial rights. The provincial authorities are always jealous and suspicious of their provincial rights and perhaps they have a right to be. But in the case of forestry we simply had to mention the fact that more forest wealth was being destroyed in Canada by fire and insect pests than we were manufacturing and selling in the finished state and we were bound to take some action hoping in some way to stem that devastation of our forest wealth. We began to approach the problem three or four years ago from the angle of inviting annually to conferences representatives of the provincial governments. We have accomplished a great deal in this way and we have 'learned a great deal from the provincial officials. But what we are aiming to do and will have done
within a very short period is to have a uniform system of cutting from one end of Canada to the other. We have not accomplished as much as we would like to do, but we have made splendid progress in that direction and I think we are at the stage now where we can change our own system of forestry. In other words, we can take the control of cutting which formerly was under the Timber branch of the Department of the Interior and put it under the control of the Forestry branch. Let me mention one recent lease issued in Manitoba for cutting pulp-wood. In that lease provision was made for reforestation of the area as it was cut. In other words, the cut will be over a period of twenty-five years under reforestation regulations which will renew the growth in twenty-five years so that you will have a perpetual forest for the maintenance of the mill. These are some of the things we have been able to accomplish by the simple expedient of getting representatives of the provinces to meet with the federal authorities and to agree on a uniform system of handling this great natural resource of Canada.
I believe a great deal could be accomplished in the same way for the coal mines. Very few of the provinces are selling their water-powers in toto to-day.; they are nearly all leasing them, and probably the day will come when the provinces themselves will think it is good business to operate their water-powers and electrical systems as Ontario is doing and as the federal government is doing in a much larger way in the operation of the Canadian National Railways. The primary object behind anything I have been advocating or been able to accomplish in this connection is to conserve to the people who come after us this great natural wealth which we own in such abundance in this country. We know beyond question of doubt that coal is being mined to-day in a most extravagant manner and we are making examination into a better method of coal mining in order that that natural resource may not be dissipated at such a rate as it is going to-day.
Something has been said-and I think a great deal more may be said-upon the subject of investigation and study of better methods for the conservation of our natural resources and the manufacture of them. We have in the departments of the federal government-and the same thing is true of the provincial governments-a body of men who are zealously carrying on this work. More and more our attention is being directed towards it; more and more research work is being carried on, and while we spend a great
2576	COMMONS
Socialization of Natural Resources
deal of money for example in an endeavour to utilize low grade coals in the Saskatchewan area and have been criticized for that expenditure, much progress has been made in the solution of that problem. _
The same thing may be said of peat which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) mentioned this afternoon. The government of Ontario and the government of Canada by joint action have developed machinery whereby peat can be manufactured economically and sold as a fuel in this part of the country. True, you cannot ship it any considerable distance, but we know how the work can be done. The company who undertook to finance this plan have encountered some difficulties, largely because of the unsympathetic attitude of the people with respect to the manufacture of this fuel, and naturally it has the antagonism of the coal men. All these factors tend to make the matter somewhat difficult, but if we have in mind all the difficulties that are in the way, I think the main function of the government in working towards this end that is so eminently desirable, is to carry on these investigations. We are carrying them on in a number of ways. One discovery that has been mentioned, the value of which nobody can estimate even in millions, is that of Marquis wheat. At the moment an investigation is being carried on for the purpose of discovering if possible how to eliminate the recurring seasons of rust that strikes the wheat crop of western Canada and indeed the wheat crop of eastern Canada. At least fifty or sixty important investigations are going on at the present moment, all with a view to the better utilization of our natural resources, to the prevention of disease, to the discovery of new methods of utilizing the natural products of the country, and at the same time you will have an enlightened and educated public opinion so that, after the demonstration of public administration of our National railways and public administration by the Hydro Electric of Ontario, you will not have any difficulty in persuading the various provinces to join hand in hand in bringing about public ownership of our water-powers and coal mines. That is my candid opinion and I rather welcome a discussion of this kind because it focuses public opinion upon what has been done and the possibilities for the future. The discussion will not have been in vain, but I do say that the success at Winnipeg, the success of the hydro development in Ontario, the success of the Canadian National Railways will all tend-


William Findlay Maclean: And the Toronto street railway system.


Charles A. Stewart: If you will.
Generally speaking, I am bound to say that public ownership has proven to be successful and in the best interests of the consumer; and after all, he is the patient, burdenbearing individual of this or any other country, and his interest is but too frequently lost sight of.


William Duff: Is the House
ready for the question?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the House can very well divide upon this question without doing some damage to the very pleasant relations now existing between the provinces and the federal government with respect to these matters. As I have tried to point out, there is always the fear that we are encroaching upon the prerogatives of the provinces. I would be very glad indeed if my hon. friend would withdraw his motion, the discussion having served the purpose for which he introduced it. But if he presses it to a division, personally, while I am thoroughly in accord with public ownership, I do not want to get in the position of serving notice on the provinces that they must do certain things or this government will interfere with what are clearly provincial rights and provincial duties.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I would not have risen but for the rather uncertain note in the last sentence of the Minister of the Interior's speech. He seems to think there is some special reason why the House should not divide on this motion, that it would be perhaps in the nature of an affront to provincial governments if we were to pass it. Well, I do not know whether that result would come or not; I do not see why it would. But whatever the consequences, the resolution has no terrors for me. I cannot see how anybody with any appreciation at all of the situation in Canada would dream of voting for the motion that this government, this parliament should take steps to become, I presume the owners,-we are going to regain them in some way or other-of the coal mines and water-powers of this Dominion so as to operate them for the use of the people. I do not know that we would require to discuss the general merits of public ownership as opposed to private ownership. I am in favour of both. Each has its sphere. But if the discussion would be appropriate on another occasion, it has no application here.

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
Whatever we are going to publicly own and into which we should step before we dictate operate, we are not going into the provinces to the provinces as to how they manage their to take provincial property and tell the pro- own resources. Therefore without fear of vincial authorities that we intend to ex- offending anybody, without the slightest propriate it from them and operate it difficulty at all, I would vote against the ourselves. If we intend to extend the resolution. The hon. member who moved it sphere of public ownership, surely we are may have another interpretation, but I cannot not going to start first into property owned conceive of any other interpretation consistent by the provinces, which they are quite at with what is the well understood division liberty to operate if they desire. It would be of rights and responsibilities in this country much better to start at something over which between the provincial and the federal authorwe have jurisdiction. There is a time and place for all things under the sun. There is a place for private ownership-a big place- and there is a place for public ownership; just where the line should be drawn is a question. It would be presumption, it would be folly, it would be madness for the parliament of Canada to indicate its intention to take over the coal mines of Nova Scotia, owned by the government of that province; to take over the coal mines of Alberta which are now, or are soon to be, I believe, the property of the government of that province. Whatever else we do we will surely not do that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman will permit me to say that I do not think he was present when I stated my idea of this resolution? Had he been, I do not think he would express himself as he has.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what is the hon. gentleman's idea of the resolution;
I was speaking of my own idea of it, and I was gathering that idea from the wording of the resolution. How are we going to take measures "to regain for the use of the people" the coal mines of Nova Scotia? How could we regain them unless we took possession of them any more than they are regained today? The same would apply to the coal mines of Alberta; and likewise to all the water-powers. Our water-powers are pretty well understood to-day to be wholly within provincial jurisdiction. There has been some question as to certain of them-


Charles A. Stewart: That is only-


Arthur Meighen: In regard to canal development.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I say that water-powers are well understood to be within provincial jurisdiction. If we are anxious, if we are pining, if we are really suffering from overambition to extend our public ownership activities at this time, there are many spheres 14011-164
ities.


William Duff: If no other hon. gentleman wishes to discuss the resolution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the right to reply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I do
not think I have anything to say in reply, and in deference to the suggestion of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), with the permission of the House I shall be very glad to withdraw the motion now that the discussion has taken place.


William Duff: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw his motion?
Motion withdrawn.



TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: That, whereas, the Transcontinental railway was built for the purpose of providing the shortest possible route to the sea for prairie products as well as to develop the ports of Quebec and the Maritime provinces by facilitating the handling of those commodities by an all Canadian route; and Whereas the fulfilment of this purpose has been prevented by the imposition of exorbitant and unjustifiable freight rates; and
Whereas the port of Quebec has exceptional advantages as a shipping point for export cattle, which advantages are lost to the grower owing to the impossibility of making up mixed cargoes in the absence of a steady supply of grain for export; and
Whereas it is desirable that the largest possible amount of this traffic should be diverted to Canadian ports, in order to maintain the purity of our grades in the interest of the producer as well as to develop our own seaports; and
Whereas appeals to the proper authorities, in this regard, have been in vain.
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, freight rate discriminations against the port of Quebec should be removed and grain should be transported over this particular route on the same mileage basis as that applying from prairie points to the head of the Lakes.
He said; Mr. Speaker, in presenting the resolution which is now before the House I do so only because I feel that the time has now arrived when a question of such tre-

Transcontinental-Freight Rate


Mr. MULLINS:: I think the hon. member
is wrong as to the distance of the stockyards from the docks in Montreal, jl think it is no more than four or five miles, not ten.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understood that it
was about ten miles, but it is immaterial whether it is four or forty miles. The point is the cattle have to be loaded up again in the cars, and I am sure my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins), who is a cattle man,


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was not the basis of the
rates to Fort William the subject of an agreement originally made between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes, what is known as
the Crowsnest rates, but that does not alter the fact. We are in a position to prove that the railways are making money handling grain at those rates, and there is no justifiable reason why similar rates should not be granted over our own road to the port of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does that not mean that
the Crowsnest pass rates should apply over the Transcontinental as far as Quebec?


Milton Neil Campbell: That is the request the resolution makes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then could the hon. gentleman give us a reliable statement to offset the assertion contained in a return brought down by the government to this House last year to the effect that the Canadian National carried grain from the west to Port Arthur and Fort William at a loss of $6,000,000 per year; that they carried it at $6,000,000 less than cost in 1923 and in 1924. I have not that statement with me, but I made a clipping from a report of the proceedings before the railway commission a few days ago in which it was stated that evidence had been given before that tribunal to the same effect. I am not combating the hon. gentleman's contentions at all, but if he has any figures which would show that this statement made in a government return and the statement made by witnesses about ten days ago before the railway commission are not accurate, it would help us very much, I think, in coming to a decision with respect to this resolution.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the best answer I could give would be to quote the words of Sir Henry Thornton before a special committee of this House, I think two years ago. When he was asked about a certain rate and whether it was profitable or not, he said that any traffic officer could come and show quite correctly either a loss or a surplus in moving a certain commodity from one point to another point. That is, the showing all depended on how the figuring was done. I do not know how the figures to which my hon. friend refers were arrived at, but it is possible that they were reached by taking the interest on the whole of the capitalization of the Canadian *National railway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, no, they were simply
actual operating costs.


Milton Neil Campbell: In figuring such costs
*consideration would have to be paid to the overhead. Let me say this:	If the hon.
member for St. Lawrence-St. George, or any other hon. gentleman, takes the weekly earnings as they are published in the press by each of the railway companies and follows them in the fall when the grain begins to move and upward until they have reached the peak, and then downward until the movement of grain disappears, he cannot but be convinced that the railways make money on handling grain. The net earnings are very small in the winter and spring, but they mount tremendously during the grain-moving months. A study of those figures must convince anyone that the railways are making money out of the hand- . ling of grain. In. 1922, the first year the Crowsnest rates were in effect, both the railways showed very much larger profits than they had shown the previous year, notwithstanding the fact that they had to take these low rates. Then if you compare the predictions made before the special committee on railways that investigated the questiion of these rates in 1922 by the traffic officials of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National with the actual facts, you will be convinced that the statements of these officials are not to be taken very seriously.


Mr. J. K. FLEMMING (Victoria-Carleton):: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) has presented a question of very great importance with marked clearness from the standpoint of the western provinces. This question affects very materially the prosperity and wellbeing of the eastern provinces and of our Maritime ports. It vitally affects also the railways because it relates to their traffic, and the conditions under which that business
Transcontinental-Freight Rate

is carried on will determine whether a profit or a loss will be made. The grain-growing interest in the west-and it is a great satisfaction to us from the east to observe that this interest has expanded in recent years and assumed such great proportions,-is handicapped by reason of the tremendously long haul by railway necessary to get to tidewater, and then the long ocean carriage involved in reaching the markets of the world. Hence the question of transportation is one of very great importance to this country. In my judgment it is one of national importance, and one that should be carefully studied by parliament with a view of arriving at a sound, sane Canadian national policy. Having concluded what that policy should be, we should press forward earnestly and determinedly in carrying it out.
It may not be inopportune to consider, even at some little length, the efforts that have been made during the years that have passed -in connection with our transportation policy. We did not arrive at our transportation system as a result of one year or even ten years of effort. Fifty years ago and more we began the construction of a great transportation system in Canada when, by means of the Intercolonial railway the effort was made to bridge a gap of 500 miles of forest between the Maritime provinces and Quebec. That was the first step in the construction of a transportation system in Canada. We took a further Step when, ambitious and courageous, if you like, we undertook years ago to finance the construction of a railway across the continent, to span the prairies, to cover the mountains, to reach the placid waters of the Pacific and to give us a Transcontinental railway when we had a population of less than
8,000,000. We went ahead with that project; in conjunction and co-operation with energetic, far-seeing men the work was carried out and the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed. We saw the vision of a great national system of transportation when we began the expenditure of millions of money for a canal system; up to the 31st of March, 1925, we had .expended $224,000,000 on that work, and it is now part of our transportation system.
We went dtill further; in 1904 the government of the day in its wisdom thought it necessary that we should, in furtherance of that ambitious and courageous policy, construct another Transcontinental line to connect by the shortest possible route the plains, the place of great production on the prairies, with the eastern seaboard and the ports of Quebec and the Maritimes. We spent a great 
deal of money on the project. Some people questioned the wisdom of that policy, but we have now got past the point of its being a debatable question; we have made the expenditure, we have the railway, and we have to face conditions as they are.
We have gone on building up a great transportation system in the country, with one purpose in mind, seeing it from only one point of view, namely, transportation of the products of the west to the eastern seacoast, to give employment to our people, to make traffic for the railways, and to build up business, not only in the west, where they needed transportation, but in the east, as well as to improve conditions at the eastern ports. We continued that policy, and we are forced today, after fifty years, notwithstanding the fact that we have been so courageous as a young country in spending this money, to say that the condition is not satisfactory. Facts have been given to the House in regard to the amount of our shipments of grain through Canadian Atlantic ports, through American ports and through western ports, and the whole consensus of opinion, the whole force of the figures, compel the admission that at the present time the transportation of our products is not proceeding in a satisfactory way and that we are not realizing the vision of the men who started the building of this great transportation system. Instead of our traffic going, as it ought to go, through Canadian channels to Canadian ports for shipment to the markets of the world, it is being diverted or switched off at a tangent to other railways in another country, thereby increasing the traffic on foreign roads and helping to build up the business of a foreign country. There is no occasion to cavil about figures; a million or two bushels do not count one wuy or the other; but it is an established fact that a very large proportion of the products of the farms of Canada, particularly those of the western prairies, is not finding its way through Canadian channels to Canadian ports but is being diverted through American channels to American ports.
Some figures which I gave in the House some time ago on this subject were questioned, and perhaps I should apologize to the House; my figures were absolutely correct except that I used the word "grain" when I should have said wheat. I am sure you will admit, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of a new member on his feet for the first time in the House of Commons the mistake was a pardonable one. I made the mistake, however, and I do not quarrel with the reporter, because I probably used the word "grain" when I should

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
have said "wheat." But my Statement was entirely correct so far as it applied to Canadian wheat being shipped through Canadian ports and Canadian wheat being shipped through American ports; I was discussing nothing else and intended to discuss nothing else. I was making no reference to our shipments through Pacific Canadian ports. I always try and I always intend to try to be careful in any figures I give, and I was really concerned about it when my figures were questioned in this House. I knew I was on solid ground, because I had taken the figures from the report of the Royal Grain inquiry Commission; the exact figures will be found on pages 217, 203, and 204 of that report. The force of the argument, I say, remains unimpaired, because we were sending more than two bushels of our grain through American channels where one was sent through Canadian channels. That fact Stands out in all its glaring intensity; we have to confront it, and we in this House should deal with it in some substantial way.
At six o'clock the Houses took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Kidd Flemming: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was referring to the great advance that had been- made in in this country during the past fifty years in establishing and building up a vast system of transportation. I was trying to point out in-my humble way the vision which the men who preceded us in parliament, the men who had to do with national movements in this country at the time of confederation, had of establishing in this land a great system of transportation which would run east and west and which would carry the ever increasing traffic of the western prairies along Canadian channels to Canadian ports in the east for shipment abroad. I said just before six o'clock that we had been disappointed in this transportation system that had been established at so great a cost, a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; that it had failed largely to carry out the object for which the money was spent and the transportation provided.
In further evidence of that I want to give the percentages of shipments through United States and Canadian ports respectively for the years 1921, 1922 and 1923; and I am reading from the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission the memorandum submitted by Mr. Scott at the request of the
commission. He points out, giving the figures in bushels for the year 1921-22 and making a comparison between United States and Canadian seaports, that the exports of Canadian wheat in that year amounted to 74 per cent through United States ports and 26 per cent through Canadian ports. For the next year, the crop year of 1922-23, he gives the figures in bushels and I shall not trouble the House with them; but he again states the percentages: in that year we shipped 65 per cent of our grain products through United States ports and 35 per cent through Canadian ports. Coming down to the year ended 31st August, 1924, he gives the figures in bushels again, and shows that 66 per cent of our grain went through United States Atlantic ports and only 34 per cent through Canadian Atlantic ports. Those figures tell concisely the story of the failure of our great transportation systems to do the thing we had hoped they would do, its failure to accomplish for us the thing that would justify so tremendous an expenditure of public money in their construction.
The resolution presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) deals with one particular part of the great transportation system, the Transcontinental railway. Nowhere else is the failure more absolute and complete than it is in connection with grain traffic on the Transcontinental railway system. The result is far from reaching the vision of that man of high ideals and noble purposes who conceived the idea of having the shortest possible railway route from the prairie provinces to Atlantic seaports, and it has failed entirely to justify the feeling that was held at that time, not only by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government but by this parliament and this country, that we would have at least one system of railway built to a high standard, with the best of grades, the best of curvatures, to carry successfully traffic from the west to the east. But it has failed, and I want to point out that there was no question in regard to the intention or the reason advaned for our making such a tremendous expenditure. Let us in this parliament consider that upon this one line of transportation, the Transcontinental railway, we expended over $165,000,000, and in addition to that we spent over $15,000,000 to build the Quebec bridge; in other words, more than $180,000,000 was spent out of the public treasury in establishing this line of communication. It was to do a great work, and that great work was set out clearly in the agreement made between the government

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
of the day and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I am going to read a paragraph dealing directly with the particular matter to which I refer, being part of chapter 71 of the act of the parliament of Canada, assented to on the 24th October, 1903, containing the contract as it was executed between the government of the day and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. This is the section:
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada-
That is, the 8165,000:000 was granted; for what?
-for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels.
Note the words "the express purpose." That ought to be clear enough; it is the express reason why the government granted the aid. This is what the company agreed to:
The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
The company further agrees that it shall not in any matter within its power directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects in good faith use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which the public aid is granted,-
Notice again that the company agrees in good faith to carry out the conditions upon which the public aid was granted,-
-namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
The next paragraph also obliges the company to provide a steamship service in order that there shall not be advanced as a reason why they were unable to carry this grain through Canadian channels and Canadian ports to the markets of the world that there was no shipping available. They engaged to provide the necessary steamship service to supplement the land transportation.
Now, Sir, that agreement never went into effect. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company failed to take the railway over and operate it. But what happened? As a necessity the government of this country, this parliament if you like, had to take its own property and operate it, and to-day it is part of the Canadian National system. I want to make this point as clear and forcible as I
	:;! mil
possibly can, that there surely rests upon the government of this country, upon the Canadian National Railway management operating this railway, as binding and stringent an obligation as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company undertook when it signed that contract. There is surely no justification for saying that the Canadian National Railway management, operating that railway on behalf of the government and the people of this country, shall not carry out to the fullest extent the covenant which was entered into between the government of that day and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. If that is the case we must admit that there has been a most lamentable failure to do so, because the railway is not carrying a great grain traffic to the city of Montreal, to the city of Quebec and to the ports of the Maritime provinces. The reason is stated in the resolution of my hon. friend from Mackenzie, that the rates in force are "exorbitant and unjustifiable." Well, I always dislike being harsh and I am going to suggest to him that he strike out those words and insert the word "prohibitive." That word "prohibitive" exactly meets the case because the rates that have been applied are undoubtedly prohibitive. No traffic goes over the railway under those rates; no traffic ever will so long as they continue in force.
Rates have been established for the carrying of grain from the points of production in the west to Fort William for transportation by lake and rail or all water to Montreal or Buffalo, and at the latter port unfortunately a very considerable portion of the traffic finds its way out of this country. But the order in council which was passed in June, 1925, directs that the rates known as the Crowsnest pass rates shall be effective on wheat and wheat products. This is the paragraph of the order:
The committee are further of the opinion that as the production and export of grain and flour forms one of the chief assets of the Dominion, and in order to encourage the further development of the grain growing provinces of the west, on which development the future of Canada in large measure depends, it is desirable that the maximum cost of the transportation of these products shall be determined and known; and therefore the committee are of the opinion that the maximum established by the rates on gram and flour as at present in force under the Crowsnest pass agreement shall not be exceeded.
I am not going to quarrel with the government of the day because they put that paragraph in the order in council, but I am here to ask this parliament in the most solemn and serious manner: Is there any justification for drawing the line north and south through Fort William and saying that from the point

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
of production to that point there shall be a certain rate upon grain, but east of that point the rate must be higher? I cannot bring myself to think there is any reasonable justification for any such arbitrary dividing line.
I shall consider in a moment whether or not the statutory rate from the point of production to Fort William is too high, but before I give the House figures which I think are fairly conclusive on that point, I want to say that if that rate is too low, and if traffic cannot be carried with fair profit to the railways on that basis, then in all conscience the rate ought to be increased. But if it is high enough to give the railways a fair profit to Fort William, then the same rate ought to apply from that point east.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have some figures which I think will help to answer the questions asked by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) this afternoon in regard to the statement that grain was being carried to Fort William at a great loss to the railways. We have not access to the railways' books, and therefore in a sense we are not able absolutely to say whether or not that contention is incorrect, but we can get fairly good evidence that the rate does pay the railways, and the figures I now propose to present to the House will, I think, prove to be conclusive. I have taken the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway for 1924 and 1925 and of the Canadian National Railways for the same years, and I have separated the net earnings into three periods, namely, January, February, March and April; May, June, July and August; and September, October, November and December. The figures of the net earnings for these two years are really illuminating. We will take first the Canadian National figures. They cover only the lines in Canada, so the totals will not correspond with the net earnings for the entire system, which of course include the United States lines.	_
The net earnings of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1924 were as follows: January, $16,989.91; February, a debit balance of $768,681.03; March, $1,400,289.18; April, $748,879.44, or a net earning in the first four months of $1,397,477.50. Then for the next four months: in May a debit balance of $433,895.23; in June a debit balance of $974,131.38; in July a credit balance of $324,318.38; in August a credit balance of $252,882.25, or for the four months' period a debit balance of $830,825.98. Now we come to the last four months of the year: there was a credit balance in September of $1,515,058.46; in October, of $4,161,149.48; in November, of $3,367,164.60, and in December, of $2,154,065.17, or for the
last four months a credit balance of $11,197,437.71. Those four months were the grain carrying months of the year. Out of a total net earning for the year of $11,764,089.23, $11,197,437.71 was earned in the last four months of the year. I think that is good evidence that the grain carrying business was not a failure.
Then we come to the year 1925. The first four months were as follows: January a debit balance of $126,982.08; February, $146,380.07; March, $960,186.09; April, $556,117.31, or for the four months a net earning of $1,535,701.39. Then in May there was a debit balance of $191,731.98; in June a debit balance of $991,763.63; in July a credit balance of $1,317,362.95, and in August a credit balance of $1,901,816.37, or for the four months a net earning of $2,035,683.71. Then the last four months of the year; September, $3,206,367.87; October $7,305,836.34; November, $5,620,743, and December, $4,141,387.07, or a net profit for the last four months of $20,274,334.28, against a net profit for the whole year of $23,845,719.38. The last four months of the year, when the railways earned over twenty million dollars as compared with earnings of only about three million dollars for the rest of the year, were the great grain carrying months. The crop was heavy last year; the trains were numerous, and according to the figures it was a profitable business.
Now I will refer to the Canadian Pacific Railway, because it helps bring out the point I am trying to make. In 1924 the Canadian Pacific Railway net earnings for the first four months were $5,477,308.65; for the second four months, $9,712,074.46, and for the last four months $22,348,017.96. The same thing applies to the Canadian Pacific as applies to the Canadian National. The grain carrying months of the year were the big revenue producing months. For the first four months of 1925 the Canadian Pacific had a net profit of $4980,859.20; for the second four months $10,412,262.31, and for the last four months a total net earning of $26,554,611.58. I do not say that that entire increase during the last four months of 1925 was because more grain was carried, but I do say that although it is not absolute evidence it is the best presumptive evidence that the grain carrying business was a profitable part of their work.
Look at the figures for the Canadian National Railways; in the month of October 1924-the biggest grain carrying month of the year-they had a net earning of $4,161,149.48, or more than one third of their earnings for the entire year. In October 1925, when thousands of bushels of grain were moving every day, the Canadian National

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
Railways had a net earning of $7,305,836, or almost one-third of the net earning for the whole year. I think that is fairly conclusive evidence that the carrying of grain is a pretty good business for both railways.
The complaint we have to make to-day is that the Transcontinental railway is not carrying any part of that profitable traffic; is not carrying grain at all. I should perhaps make an exception to that statement, to the extent that it may carry some grain from Winnipeg via Superior Junction to Fort William, but east of Fort William practically no grain is carried by the Transcontinental. I would like to point out one or two facts in connection with the earnings of the Transcontinental railway, because possibly it will surprise some members of this House, and certainly the people of this country, to learn the figures of its earnings and operating expenses. Mr. Scott in his memorandum dated Quebec, June 28, 1924, gives the figures, and to my knowledge they have never been questioned.	He uses the term "last year."
I am at a loss to know whether or not, he means the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, but speaking of the Transcontinental, and of the fact that it was said to be going through a wilderness where there would be no local traffic, that all the traffic it could depend upon to make money for this country and justify its existence would be through traffic, he points out:
Its earnings were	 $14,139,136
Its expenses	 14,120,975
Surplus	 t 18,161
And it did that without carrying grain traffic! I ask this House in view of the figures I have given, and which were largely the result of grain traffic, what would have been the result on the Transcontinental if it had been put to work and made to do the thing it was built to do, if it had carried millions of bushels of grain,-the express purpose for which it was constructed-in addition to the traffic which it did carry. The net result would have been that we would have had a railway showing a handsome surplus, able to help take care of some of the deficits on the railway west of Fort William. If my figures are correct, all that is required is to put the Transcontinental to work carrying grain at the statutory rates that are in force west of Fort William, and give it plenty of grain to carry, and then its earnings from that traffic, on top of its other earnings, will make it a splendid revenue-producing piece of property. Why should that road not be put to work doing the very thing for which it was built? Surely it is not be-

cause it starts from a point in Canada and carries traffic from the fertile prairies of the west over a splendid all-Canadian line of railway to Canadian ports, that this railway is not being used for the purpose for which it was constructed. Then what earthly reason is there why it is not being put to work for the express purpose for which it was built? I cannot conceive of the reason, Mr. Speaker.
We are told that if the statutory rates west of Fort William are made to apply east of Fort William, we shall have a rate war with the railways of the United States. I ask this parliament, in all seriousness: Are we to consider what action the United States railways may take when we are considering such a vital question as the transportation policy of this country? Are we to sacrifice the vision of the men who built this nation, of those who were here at its birth and laid the foundations better than they knew? Shall we sacrifice the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his party when they constructed the Transcontinental? I say no. Put the railway to work, to do the thing it was built to do.
I said that we should have in this country a sound Canadian transportation policy, a policy that will take our traffic from the west along Canadian channels to the east. That has been the vision of the great men of this country from confederation down to the present. We have heard a great deal during this session about the difficulties of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. Let me point out to the House that if you carry the grain and the cattle of the west by an all-Canadian route to Canadian ports on the Atlantic you will help greatly to remedy the coal situation in the Maritime provinces, and particularly the province of Nova Scotia. They have a market for their coal as long as they can ship it by water, but in the winter season, when shipment is no longer possible by the St. Lawrence, they cannot find a market for it, and that is the time of year when employment in the mines is lessened, when the mines run only two or three days a week, bringing hardship to the coal mining areas of that province. But if we would ship the products of the west to St. John and Halifax, vessels would be leaving our ports practically every day of the week carrying grain, and each vessel would require in her bunkers from one thousand to twelve hundred tons of coal. That would provide a local market for our coal-a market where there would be no question about transportation rates-with resulting great benefit to the coal industry of Nova Scotia.

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
I said that the carrying out of this sound Canadian policy would bring business to the east. The revival of business and the stimulus that would be given by this traffic would be very great, and it would be felt in many ways. Let me give you an illustration. The arteries *in our body carry the life-sustaining, strength-producing blood to every part of the human system, and so, in a similar way, our railways and our canals are the great arteries through which should flow in undiminished, yea, in *ever increasing quantities, the life-giving commerce of this great country. Going a step further with the simile, if one part of the human body fails to receive the life-sustaining, strength-producing blood, what will happen? That part of the body will become weak and unable to perform its proper function. It is exactly the same with our transportation, and that is just what has happened, Mr. Speaker. We take the increasing commerce of the west and carry it along Canadian channels up to a certain point, but at that point we allow it to be switched off to American railways, to be taken to American ports, to build up the business of American railways and American ports. The result is that the invigorating, life-giving commerce of this country, with its stimulating power on our whole business life, is lost to this country; it is switched off at a tangent and goes on foreign steel to foreign ports. Let us carry it to our own ports, and then the benefit of that life-giving stream will be felt in every part and parcel of eastern Canada, in every city and town of the Maritime provinces.
I do not want to detain the House at too great length. I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to show two or three things. I have tried* to show that the railways are doing very well handling grain at the statutory rate that is in force west of Fort William. I have tried to point out, so far as the Transcontinental is concerned, which is the one line we are considering in this resolution to-day, that if that railway was given plenty of grain to carry at the statutory rate, its income would be substantial and it would be a profit-earning proposition for this country. I have tried to show that this traffic flowing steadily to the east, to the ports of the province of Quebec and the Maritime ports of Canada, would increase the business of the whole of eastern Canada, and would bring prosperity to parts of eastern Canada that now have great reason to complain. The vision of the men who founded confederation was that the ports of the Maritime provinces should be the great entrepot for the commerce of-what
do you think?-for the commerce of half a continent. That has not materialized. We want to try to realize that vision to some extent by extending the carriage of traffic to the east as it ought to be extended. It is feasible; it is possible. The railway is there and the ports are there. It may be necessary to provide more elevator capacity and to have a little more wharfage accommodation at some of the ports, although Halifax and St. John are already equipped with some facilities and the port of Quebec is better off in these respects than either Halifax or St. John. But if proper accommodation were provided at all three ports, and if the traffic were allowed to go over the Transcontinental at the same rate that prevails west of Fort William, I believe a wonderful amount of business would be done on that railway; great advantage would follow to the line itself and much good would result to the people of Canada who own the railway. There would be undoubted advantage also to the Maritime provinces in that it would bring to their ports the traffic which will come over the railway.
Hon. CHARLES MAR.OIL (Bonaventure): The resolution submitted by the bon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) brings to the attention of parliament a familiar question which has been discussed here for the last twenty years or thereabouts. When the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada came to parliament in 1903 or 1904 and asked for power to extend its line of railway to the west, I had the honour of being a member of the Railway committee, and I heard all the discussions that took place at that time. The idea of having the Transcontinental railway arose out of the proposal made by the Grand Trunk. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had conceived the idea of having such a line which would bring the trade of the west down to the oity of Quebec. The members representing the Maritime provinces insisted that if the Transcontinental was to reach the city of Quebec it ought naturally to be extended to the Maritime provinces. Then the old question arose that if the extension should take place what port should be chosen-would it be St. John or Halifax? Finally, after a lengthy discussion a compromise was arrived at by the selection of Moncton. The hope entertained at that time was to develop the northern territory of Quebec and the northern territory of its sister province of Ontario by means of the Transcontinental. That hope has been realized, although the extension of the line east from Armstrong to the city of Quebec met with a very strong opposition. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Transcontinental-Freight Rate

however, had a strong belief in the future of Quebec and was strongly supported by his followers. He insisted on 'the contraction of that part of the line; the idea wa adopted by parliament, and when 'Sir Wilfrid's government went to the people on that occasion the undertaking was ratified by them.
The hon. member for Vietoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) has read the pledge given by the Grand Trunk Railway a.t that time in regard to the routing of traffic. I do not know whether he noticed the old, familiar expression "when not otherwise routed by the shipper," but I remember it well. The routing of traffic was a bone of contention at the time of which I speak. It was held that if a shipper of grain in the northwest wished to route his grain via New York, provided he could get better terms there, there was nothing to compel him to ship his grain through Canadian ports. That was the first trouble we had to contend with. However, we hoped that when the road was built it would provide shorter and more direct communication with Quebec, that its undoubtedly great advantage as a natural port would be fully taken advantage of in the summer time, that St. John and Halifax would be the ports in winter time, and that ultimately the products of our west would be shipped through Canadian ports.
I think the resolution comes up at an opportune time. In his great budget speech a few days ago the Minister of Finance announced that after January 1 next all vessels with products from the Old Country would have to come to Canadian ports in order to enjoy the benefits of the British preference. At the time I speak of, over twenty years ago the former member for Cumberland, Mr. Logan, was an ardent advocate of the idea that imports of goods to enjoy the benefits of the British preference must come through the Canadian ports. The question now before us has long been agitated by the city of Quebec which has complained over and over again that it had not been fairly treated in this matter. The hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton has made some reference to the stand taken in that regard by the city of Quebec, and I have under my hand some reports made by the Quebec Harbour Commission and letters written by Mr. Scott, a prominent resident of the city. The great contention was that the Transcontinental railway had been built at a cost of $170,000,000 for the definite purpose of bringing the trade of the northwest to Canadian ports. In 1922 it was stated that of grain from the northwest 64,000,000 bushels had gone to Buffalo, 7,000,000 to other United States lake ports, 80,000,000 to Georgian Bay 
ports and 4,000,000 to Montreal, a total of
152,000,000 bushels. This shows a great diversion of traffic which ought to come to Canadian ports. Have we been able to overcome that diversion? I think we have to some extent. I notice in the Commercial and Financial Review of the Montreal Gazette for the year 1925 an article by Mr. Robert W. Reford, a great authority on the Montreal harbour. He says there:
The year 1924 had constituted a record for the number of ocean-going steamers sailing from the port of Montreal, but 1925 again topped the mark with 1.010, as against 988. This deads one to suppose an increase in the chief exports, and the returns show that 165,510,830 bushels of grain were shipped which is more than has ever been previously handled here. Excellent as are the present arrangements of the harbour commissioners, their foresight is even more commendable, and it is now only a question of two or three years when elevator No. 3 will have to be extended to its full storage capacity of 14,000,000 bushels to meet the steady growth of this trade.
If I remember rightly the port of Montreal was two years ago the first port in America for the exportation of grain. I hope we shall see a renewal of that satisfactory state of affairs and that it will be permanent. I am inclined to think that owing to its position Montreal will always remain the great summer port for eastern Canada. It is true that it is not without a rival. The port of Vancouver is becoming more and more im-"pfSrt'ant as regards our trade with the Orient , arid shipments through the Panama canal, but all authorities agree that Montreal will remain the first port of the province of Quebec and of Canada.
The hon. member for Mackenzie has complained that the farmers of the west do not enjoy the benefit of the Transcontinental for the carriage of either their . grain or their cattle. Mr. Reford makes these remarks as regards the export of cattle last year:
The number of head of cattle shipped this year from Montreal was 55,366, an increase of about 10,000 over last year, and the best showing since the embargo was lifted. Altogether there will have been about 110,000 head shipped from Canadian ports in 1925, which is a satisfactory though not particularly rapid gre-th in the trade.
He points out this fact:
Shipowners have not been slow to recognize the growing requirements of this trade and this year the Donaldson line has put two more ships of the latest type on the service-the Carmia, which can carry over 1,000 head and the Diesel-engined Moveria, taking about 500 head. The White Star and Furness Withy and other St. Lawrence lines have also added to their cattle carrying capacity.
And he goes on to say that the cattle trade with England should be developed to a greater extent than it is at the present time.
I think I have said all that I need say regarding Montreal.

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
I should like to read to the	House the
position taken on this question by the Senate committee which reported on the 9th of June, 1922. This is a non-partisan report, signed by Senator L'Esperance, and I should like to read it to the House, as giving a clear view of the situation. The report reads:
After careful consideration of all the evidence submitted, your committee is of opinion that there exists a most serious condition of affairs, with regard to the diversion of the western grain trade to New York and other United States seaports, for export. There seems to be no doubt that two-thirds, and probably four-fifths of that trade takes that route, and that we are paying many millions annually to United States railways, lake carriers and elevators, that would be earned by our own railways and train men, if it were possible to export this grain at Canadian seaports. Since this evidence was taken, and at the present writing, government statistics show that the diversion still continues, and that of the bountiful crop of 1921 no less than 99 million bushels of wheat went from Fort William to Buffalo.
After all the sacrifices that Canada has made in building three transcontinental railways, it is impossible that we should go on allowing our seaports to be deprived of their legitimate traffic, to obtain which our people have been and are being so heavily taxed. A persistence in this policy must inevitably lead to serious dissatisfaction not only in Quebec and in the Maritime provinces, but also amongst the farmers of the northwest, who will soon realize that these hostile railway tariffs are imposing a burden upon them which they are not called upon to bear.
It may be, as some of our railway witnesses have suggested, that a reduction in the rate upon grain to our seaports might lead to reprisals and corresponding reductions on the part of United States railways which have been handling so -large a share of this traffic. But this cannot be injurious to our own railways, because it is an export traffic which, practically, they are not getting.
In any case, such reprisal would certainly benefit the western farmer, and your committee feel that it is their duty to report that they recommend that the petition of the Quebec Board of Trade as stated in the memorial of that board to the railway commission, dated 3rd February, 1921. hereto attached, be granted, and that the government be advised:
(1)	To cause rates to be granted upon export grain over the Canadian National Railways to Quebec, Montreal. Halifax, St. John and Vancouver, such as would develop trade through the above ports.
(2)	As a corollary to the recommendation in paragraph one, that necessary elevator accommodation should be provided by the Dominion at Canadian ports.
(3)	To arrange with the marine underwriters or others in such a way that the marine insurance rates from Canadian seaports be as cheap as from United States seaports.
At a meeting of the Quebec city council held on the 17th of November, 1922, the following resolution was passed:
On motion of Aid. J. H. Bedard, seconded by all the other members the following resolution was passed:
Whereas it has been publicly stated to be the intention of the new board of directors of the Canadian National Railways to make the city of Montreal the operating headquarters of the government railway system' and furthermore to divide that system into zones or divisions, making Winnipeg the headquarters of the
western division, Moncton the headquarters of the maritime division and Toronto the headquarters of the central division, the latter with control over all the government railways in the province of Quebec, as well as those in the province of Ontario;
Whereas the Toronto management of the railway mileage of the province of Quebec during the last few years has been very prejudicial to the interests of the city of Quebec, inasmuch as it has imposed very heavy freight rates upon the new industries which have come into operation on the railways to the north and northwest of this city, and has thus checked the progress of colonization, and also, by prohibitive freight rates, in spite of the repeated protests of our people, has prevented the grain traffic of the prairie provinces from coming over the Transcontinental Railway to Quebec, Montreal, Halifax and St. John, for export, and has thereby diverted that shipping trade to New York:
And then they go on to speak of the Quebec and Lake St. John, the Canadian Northern and the Transcontinental now forming part of the government railway system and furnishing a very large traffic to the government railways. They say that the city council of Quebec is of opinion that the city is entitled to some measure of control in the management of the railways.
The resolution was forwarded to Sir Henry Thornton, who acknowledged it, saying that he had not time to study the situation, but that he would look into it thoroughly.
I find that prior to the report made to Sir Henry Thornton and the present government a letter was written by the president of the Quebec Board of Trade, Mr. J. T. Ross, to Mr. D. B. Hanna, President of the Canadian National Railways, in reference to this question, and it summarizes the whole matter in a nutshell. It is dated November 10, 1919, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
I beg, on behalf of the council of the Quebec Board of Trade, to draw your attention to the following facte in connection with your railway and the ocean shipping business of the port of Quebec.
The construction by the government of the National Transcontinental Railway was undertaken with the distinct understanding in parliament that it would bring the export trade of the northwest to Canadian seaports for shipment, and the act of parliament provided that sufficient ocean tonnage for that purpose would always be available at those ports.
When the road was finished and the government took over its operation and its obligations, the government management made a special rate of freight upon export wheat from Armstrong to Quebec of six cents per bushel, in order to carry out this undertaking. This special rate was equivalent to about 11 cents from Winnipeg, and meant a saving of three cents per bushel as compared with the then lake and rail rate via Fort William to New York, or to Montreal.
The hon. the Minister of Railways declared in the House of Commons that the special rate, though low, was profitable to the railways.
It seemed to be justified, because this new railway saves 214 miles in distance between Quebec and Winnipeg, as compared with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and 256 miles, as compared with the Canadian North-

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
ern, and because the government engineer, Major Leonard, stated that on account of its easy grades its trains could haul nearly twice the tonnage of its competitors. And the people of Quebec became so impressed with the advantages offered, that the city gave the government nearly two million dollars' worth of valuable property for terminals of the railway, upon conditions which have not yet been fulfilled by the government. The effect of the granting of this special rate of freight was wonderful. The grain commenced to come in from the northwest, and within a short time no less than six large ocean steamers loaded full cargoes of wheat at Quebec.
Then, before the new route had a fair trial, the special rate was cancelled, and since that time not a bushel of western grain has come over the government railway for export. What grain has been exported from Quebec, this year and last, has, I understand, come over the Canadian Pacific, all rail.
When you took over the management of the government railway system, a few months ago, we felt sure that justice would be done to the port of Quebec, the advantages of which are so familiar to you, and that the Transcontinental railway would be fully worked for the grain trade of the northwest, as was promised the people; that the new government steamships would be run from here, in connection with this railway, as was promised us, and that a stop would at last be put to the diversion of our western grain trade to New York, which has become so alarming that, as stated in the Senate a few weeks ago, 80 per cent of it now goes that way. Unfortunately, we have been disappointed in that expectation. None of the grain of the . prairie provinces has come here for export this year, and the government steamships, which we expected to see running in connection with the Transcontinental, are being operated to and from, Montreal.
That should be sufficient to convince the House of the outstanding importance of this question not only for the grain growers of the west, but for central Canadian interests in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, for eastern Quebec and for the Maritime provinces. It is an outstanding question which I am sure the new Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will be glad to take up, and if he manages to solve it he will have made a reputation for himself. He will have carried out the dreams of those who built the Transcontinental railway for the purpose of connecting the waters of the Pacific with those of the Atlantic ocean and giving all parts of Canada railway communication over its own territory.
We were all anxious at that time, as we are anxious now and as we were axious in 1911, to be on friendly relations with the great country to the south; we wished to have freer trade with them and we are prepared at all times to enter into any reasonable arrangement for the interchange of commodities with them, but the first duty of this country is to ourselves and to our own people. I know the Minister of Railways, who comes from western Canada, will take up this matter seriously and in all earnestness and will find a solution. His hands are tied at the present time, I understand, by the fact that the ques-

tion is now pending before the Board of Railway Commissioners. But it is one of those questions which I think parliament is authorized to take up and should take up, and if a solution is brought about, not only will the people of Quebec be satisfied, but we shall have gone a long way toward removing some of the grievances of the Maritime provinces dating back to the days of confederation.
I remember once reading an earnest, patriotic and eloquent speech by the late Sir Charles Tupper who prophesied in those days that the port of Halifax would become the new Liverpool of Canada.. That dream has never been realized owing to want of communication with central Canada. One of the grievances which the people of the Maritime provinces have alleged in all their complaints is that St. John and Halifax in the winter time and Quebec and Montreal in the summer time have not had their fair share of the great products of the west. I was a boy reporting the speeches of Sir Charles Tupper at Queen's Hall in Montreal when he came there to explain the Canadian Pacific railway contract and it was with great' difficulty that he secured a hearing. But after he had managed, with his charming voice, to make himself heard, he declared that the northwest was to be the granary of the world. That vision has been realized and to-day Canada is producing more grain than any other country in the world, although it has made but a beginning, only a small area of the west being under cultivation. This immense west is no doubt the better part of Canada as regards grain crops, but we must not forget eastern Canada which provided the money to build these railways, to open up this country, and most of the manhood to establish the west; because it must not be overlooked that not only is western Canada settled by people from Great Britain and other parts of the world, but some of its best settlers came from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces. They have been the fore-runners and the connecting link between the west and the east, and, although in this present parliament we are pleased to be able to give western Canada some of the great things it has been advocating for a long time, the people of western Canada will realize-and this has been done in the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie-that in advocating their own interests thej' are at the same time advocating the interests of eastern Canada. This all goes to prove that the whole of Canada is interested in a policy of this kind, a true national policy, and I know of no greater phase of that national policy than the success of bur Canadian transportation system and our Canadian ports.

Transcontinental-Freight Rate


Mr. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon.
member will be glad if anything can be done to bring about a greater use of our railroads from coast to coast. I understand the question of railway rates has been submitted again to the Board of Railway Commissioners and I hope that commission will be able to bring in some recommendations or make some arrangements whereby the traffic of this country will flow more freely on our railways from the Pacific to the Atlantic and vice versa. I shall not at this time go into the question of railway rates in any detail because I am satisfied that the commission .will have greater opportunity and better facilities for getting information than I can have.
One thing that strikes me in this debate is that no speaker yet that I have heard-I was not in the chamber all the afternoon- has discussed this question along the lines that it has been discussed outside of the House. Every speaker seems to want to offer some concrete suggestion so that our railroads may be able to carry freight at a reduced rate. That is a little different from that which we have heard during the past two years. We have had some gentlemen, more especially a few lawyers from Winnipeg, going around the country, and "instead of offering concrete or useful suggestions the only thing they seemed to be able to do was to argue that railway rates cannot be reduced because the wages of the railway men were too high and were responsible for the high freight rates. I am glad we have reached the point of realizing that that is not the case and are now trying to find the real solution.
In the discussion of this railroad problem we must not forget that Canadian railroads are handicapped to a large extent as compared with United States railroads. It is, of course, always necessary to compare one organization with another in order to see how we are faring ourselves, and the only system that we can compare ours with is the United States railway system. The British system, the European systems, are equipped to carry light loads short distances, while United States railroads like our own are equipped to carry heavy loads long distances, so that if our railroads compare favourably with those of the United States in operation, efficiency and freight rates, we are at least not doing too badly. But. even at that, Canadian railroads are handicapped, and one of the greatest handicaps is the fact that in Canada we have only about 221 people to each mile of railroad while in the United States they have about 450 people to each mile of railroad.
This is a great factor because we have not density of traffic, and over the whole railroad system it lessens the average earning power. We have again of course severe climatic conditions to contend with. Throughout a great portion of the western country railroad operation has to be carried on with the temperature at from ten to sixty degrees below zero. This not only makes it much more difficult to carry on transportation during the winter season but involves greater cost than in the warmer climates of the United States. In 1924 it cost the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways about four and a half million dollars to clear snow off their tracks. A further handicap is that our railways have about $100,125,000 invested in rolling stock which is in use for only about three months in every year for the movement of the grain crop; during the remainder of the year it is stored on side tracks and is deteriorating more or less. All these are serious handicaps that our Canadian railways have to contend against as compared with the railways of the United States.
But notwithstanding these severe handicaps our freight rates, generally speaking are lower than those prevailing in the United States. This surely denotes efficient management and loyal co-operation of all branches of our railway employees. This is evidenced by the fact that according to statistics each Canadian railway employee moves approximately 12,000 tons of freight per mile more than his fellow worker on the United States roads. It will no doubt be interesting to hon. members to have these comparative figures: to move a ton of freight in Canada five employees are required; a similar number in the United States; twenty-three in Germany; twenty-four in Italy; thirty-one in Switzerland. This is further evidence of the efficient and loyal co-operation of our railway employees with their officers.
I am glad that during the discussion not one hon. member has suggested that the earning power of our railways should be decreased below the amount necessary to maintain a proper rate of wage. I do not think any hon. member would take such a stand, but it has been advocated outside the House. In this connection it must not be forgotten that for the past two years the wages of our railway-men have been about five per cent below those paid in the United States. Therefore it is not to be expected that hon. members either in the House or outside Should advocate a reduction of wages of railwaymen. Our men proved their loyalty in 1921 when they were promised that if they would accept a decrease in their wages the cost of living would come

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
[DOT]down proportionately, and they would thus be recouped. They (took this course, which meant a saving to our railway companies of $45,000,000 annually, but there has as yet been no corresponding decrease in the cost of living.
Few hon. members realize the conditions under which many of our railwaymen have to cany on their very arduous and responsible duties. Usually when someone wishes to disseminate propaganda about Ithe high wages of railwaymen he takes one or two cheques paid to men on some preferred run and probably earned during a rush of coal or wheat, involving working very long hours with very little rest. Suppose these cheques run about $300, they are exhibited to the country as typical of the average rate of wages paid our railwaymen. I suppose very few hon. members realize that over sixty per cent of our railwaymen do not work more than four months in every year; they are employed during the wheat rush and are then laid off, at a time, unfortunately, when other industries are cutting down their staff. Consequently there is no opportunity for the railwayman to get other employment, and he has to rely on his earnings during the rush season of three or four months to maintain himsellf and his family for the whole year. During the last two years about 25,000 fewer employees have been working on our railways, a reduction brought about by greater efficiency of operation and improved motive power, all tending to eliminate the human element. At the present time we have men with twenty-three years' standing as firemen and engineers and trainmen on western lines who cannot get a job even at wiping engines, and there is no prospect of their securing employment until the wheat starts again. Under these conditions it is only natural that our men should begin to think it is about time the railway companies took care of their reserve force. These men are necessary to handle our commerce during the peak periods, and therefore some means should be provided to give them steady employment the whole year round.
I just rose to give these few facts before the debate closed. I am sorry I was not in the House when the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution was speaking. I have a great deal of work to attend to in my office; unfortunately the Premier of Ontario has not seen fit to bring on a by-election to fill the vacancy created by my resignation in the Legislature, and consequently the people of New Ontario are writing to me about provincial affairs.


Mr. GOTT:: There will be an election soon enough.


Peter Heenan: 2594	COMMONS
Transcontinental-Freight Rate
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, from these quotations that it is clearly recognized all the way from Vancouver to Halifax that the Transcontinental railway is not being used for the purpose for which it was constructed. When we think of Canadian grain, Canada's largest basic product, flowing through American territory and building up American seaports to the detriment of our own Canadian seaports, it seems to me it is about time the Canadian people came to the full realization of the real intention in the construction of this great undertaking. The commercialized idea of turning the railroads into a profit-making undertaking, irrespective of the parliamentary commitments, seems to be the main idea of those who have charge of the National railways in this country to-day. While we are not advocating that the railways should carry our products free, we are advocating that, by carrying our products east and west, they should create an east and west policy by reduction in rates which will in the end build up a volume of trade that will more than offset any slight loss that may be incurred at the outset. The natural trend of trade in the Dominion of Canada is north and south. The north and south trade will develop itself, because that is the natural channel in which trade will flow in this country unless we direct it otherwise, but we must develop the east and west traffic, and the only way in which we can develop it is by allowing our products to seek outlets on the seaboards of this country, both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific and not in a foreign country. But if we continue the policy that has been followed for the past number of years, of allowing the great quantity of our largest basic product, the grain of this country, to flow through American ports, to the detriment of our own, then it seems to me that all the parliamentary commitments and all the statements of the legislators in 1903 and 1904 bearing on the building of the Transcontinental will have been violated, and we shall be violating the commercial interests of this country in a general sense unless this policy being advocated by the mover of the resolution is taken hold of and very ardently pushed forward to a successful application by the parliament of this Dominion.
I said the other day, when speaking to the resolution introduced by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), that it would appear from the attitude of the railway authorities that there is only one body in the Dominion of Canada that is capable of dealing with the railway problem, so far as the general policy

of keeping Canadian trade on Canadian railways is concerned, and that body is the parliament of Canada. It is true that the railways of this country have just had a splendid year, and we are all very happy in the knowledge of that fact; it is certainly a great incentive to the railways as a publicly-owned institution, and the showing that has been made is to be heartily commended. But, Mr. Speaker, there is still a deficit. As I understand the figures, the fixed charges of our National Railways amount to about $70,000,000, but I understand that we only have to pay out on account of fixed charges about $40,000,000, and that the real deficit in dollars and cents, outside of the bookkeeping aspect of the matter, is between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000. Now if the deficits have been reduced to that figure, which is not very alarming in view of some of the former deficits on this road, it seems to me that the parliament of Canada will be very well advised to instruct those in authority in connection with the railways that further reductions should be made in the rates to promote this east and west traffic, so important to every portion of Canada and every interest in Canada. While some sacrifice may be necessary on the part of the whole Dominion to ensure this trade flowing the way it should flow, and at the rate at which it was intended to flow, in accordance with the commitments of parliament, and with the statements of those who brought the matter forward in 1903 and 1904, I am convinced that that sacrifice will be cheerfully made by all Canadians.
In closing I beg to repeat that I am in hearty accord with the resolution as proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie in its general application.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise for a moment or two to speak to this resolution. I am not going to discuss the resolution as a whole or at length. I do desire, however, to bring to the attention of the House one or two features, and to move an amendment by way of addition which will not in any sense, I think, interfere with the resolution as it now stands but will add a clause to it.
I may remind the House that a year ago, or almost so, when a similar question was before it in the form of a bill fixing rates by statute, and on other occasions prior to that I declared that so far as I was concerned I was opposed to parliament taking upon itself the responsibility of fixing rates. I think it is a bad principle. I have always thought so and I am still of that opinion. Furthermore, on

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
that occasion I pointed out to the government that if, in the bill which was brought before the House last year, they insisted on fixing the rates it would undoubtedly be followed at future times with demands for fixing rates in other sections or upon other lines, and the resolution now before us is simply a fulfilment of that prophecy, if I may so term it. I still adhere to the principle that parliament should not fix rates but should determine the main principles upon which rates should be fixed, and then leave the actual determination of those rates to a competent body, a body such as the railway board. I still believe that is the right course to pursue. But the government having caused a bill to be passed last year, and parliament having accepted the duty of fixing rates in the bill so passed, and a claim having been put forward now by certain interests in the House

upon which I offer no reflection at all-for the fixation of rates through Quebec and the Maritime provinces, I feel it to be a duty to my own province to claim for it the right to have lower rates fixed by parliament. That is, if there is going to be a scramble in this House for lower rates, then let us all get into the band wagon and join in the scramble We may as well; it is the logical result of the legislation of last year.
For many years we in British Columbia have been suffering from very unfair and discriminatory rates. However, while I have realized that, I have consistently urged that our appeal ought to be to the railway board, the body properly constituted for the study and determination of this important question. But I confess that many of my fellow-citizens have been disappointed in the apparent slowness with which these matters have been dealt with, and they feel that something should be done to hasten the lowering of rates on various commodities moved to and from the Pacific coast. So I wish to propose that the resolution be amended by adding thereto the following words:
And that the same principle be applied in fixing rates on freights moving between prairie points and Pacific coast ports.
In other words, that we simply extend this principle to the movement of freight to the coast. And I wish to draw to the attention of the House the last clause of the resolution, the operative part of it, which reads as follows:
Therefore be it, resolved that, in the opinion of this House, freight rate discriminations against the port of Quebec should be removed-
Well, if there are discriminations undoubtedly they should be removed. I am wholly in accord with the removal of the dis-14011-165J
crimination, still reserving, however, as I said a moment ago, the principle that it should be done by the Board of Railway Commissioners. But if it is going to be done here, then I say let us also remove the discrimination in the rates on the movement of commodities to the coast. The resolution proceeds:
-and grain should be transported over this particular route on the same mileage basis as that applying from prairie points to the head of the lakes.
In other words this resolution asks that the same rates shall apply from prairie points over the Transcontinental to the port of Quebec and the Maritime ports as now apply to Fort William and Port Arthur. We ask for precisely the same thing. Give us similar rates, or rates on a similar basis, to the Pacific coast, and we shall have no complaint. I therefore beg to move that the following words be added to the said resolution:
-and that the same principle be applied in fixings rates on freights moving between prairie points and Pacific coast ports.


Mr. S. G. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: I will only take sufficient of the time of the House to put myself on record as supporting the resolution introduced by the hon. membdr for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) and so ably supported by other hon. members. For many years the railway rate on grain shipped westward from the prairie provinces was prohibitive. Grain shipped westward had only to travel 700 miles to the Pacific ocean, while eastward it had to go two-thirds of the way accross the continent. This discrimination in rates complained of has been largely removed. The last speaker has said that he wanted the discrimination removed also as far as westward shipments were concerned, but as stated I think that has largely been done. The rates westward from the prairie provinces are now almost on the same mileage basis as the rates eastward to Fort William. From Alberta it costs 20 cents per hundred pounds to ship grain to Vancouver and 26 cents per hundred pounds to ship to Fort William, a distance of 1,350 miles. But upon reaching Fort William there is a change, and discrimination once more obtains. Although the rate from the prairies to Fort William is 26 cents per hundred, a distance of 1,350 miles, a rate of 34J-cents is charged from Fort William to Quebec, a distance of 1,000 miles. At any time the railway board or the government or someone in authority explains to us why that is so, I suppose these arguments will cease, but until it is shown why a railway that was built for the express purpose of carrying grain by the shortest route with the best grades to the Atlantic shore is

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
not used for that purpose, I presume the arguments will continue in this House. If the grain will not go over that route when rates are fixed on the same mileage basis as in other parts of the country; if it goes southward through other ports, then we will have nothing to say; but so adjust the rates as to give the road a chance. There is no use in building, a road for this trade and then making the rates prohibitive. Under present conditions the people of the Maritime provinces cannot expect the grain to go through their ports. I am sure all hon. members who have spoken desire that the rate should be fixed on the same mileage basis as in other parts of the Dominion. My argument is that wherever the grain is placed upon the train, at any station in the Dominion, the mileage rates should be the same. If that is done we shall have no complaint, because the grain will flow to the natural port.
We in western Canada know that all our grain will not go to the Pacific ocean. We do not expect it all to go there. At times it will go westward; at other times it will go eastward, and when it goes eastward we would like equal rates on the mileage basis, so that we would all get (the benefit of it. I am sure this proposition will appeal to all parts of the Dominion; Nova Scotia, Quebec and all the other provinces will want it. I do not know what part of the country would oppose it. The railway board have the matter before them, but if the House will give attention to these questions it might be of some assistance. I do not think we are exceeding our privileges in debating this matter in the House.
I am fully convinced, as was stated by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) that the undertaking and purpose [DOT]for which the road' was built should be carried out, that the shortest route with the best grade should be adopted and the road given a fair chance to compete with other lines, thus giving us the benefit of real competition. If all these conditions were fulfilled and the road could not compete, then we would have nothing to say, because the people will have got what they asked for namely, the compensation of real competition. I wish to endorse the resolution so ably presented by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) and so well supported by all hon. members who have spoken.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Speaker, the cattle trade is interested in this resolution. The resolution reads:
Whereas the fulfilment of this purpose has been prevented by the imposition of exorbitant and unjustifiable freight rates; and

Whereas the port of Quebec has exceptional advantages as a shipping point for export cattle, which advantages are lost to the grower owing to the impossibility of making up mixed cargoes in the absence of a steady supply of grain for export.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) was kind enough to include the cattle with the grain, because they should be associated. Having been in that trade for a number of years and having travelled over the Transcontinental, I may tell the House that it is an excellent road, that there are splendid facilities at Quebec for loading cattle, that there should be more cattle coming out of the western country over that road for export, and that cattle should be carried over the line as well as grain. I am glad the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in his seat, because he has heard me before on this subject and I may tell him that it is impossible to bring cattle over that road to the seaboard and then pay a $20 rate on live stock to Great Britain. We have twenty-four ships of the merchant marine of 8,000 tons capacity, and, with a very little fitting these would be admirably suited for carrying live stock. But when the cattle get to the seaboard and have to face a $20 rate it is an absolute impossibility for the western men to raise cattle on that basis. The government must do something in regard to transportation by ocean before they deal with the Transcontinental rates.
In regard to the Transcontinental, I do not believe any of us are giving credit to that company and to the other railway companies for the service they are giving. We are getting magnificent service, far better than we ever got in the old days. In western Canada on one occasion I had five hundred cattle ready to ship, at Yorkton. The boat was held at Montreal or Quebec and I had to pay $100 a day demurrage. To-day there is no trouble to get cars; they are making wonderful running time over both these roads, they are giving wonderful service. But you cannot pay the freight rates by rail and ocean . The trade is dwindling in western Canada as the hon. Minister of Agriculture knows. Hon. members of this House will bear me out in that statement, because they know very well that the live stock industry has no chance to do business with the exorbitant charges that are made. The rate is now 85 cents a hundred, as compared with 60i cents per hundred thirty-five years ago. After the road was completed in 1885 I had the honour of taking the first shipment over that road, it cost 60i cents a hundred based on a Winnipeg rate. They asked at that time for fourteen cars for train lot. Now you have 72 cars leaving Winnipeg

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
and the rate is So cents per hundred, and there are many different things in the way of charges added before the cattle reach shipboard, to say nothing about the $20 rate on the ocean. Before they reach shipboard dozens of things are charged against them now which were not charged in the old days. They charged 6(B cents a hundred with five of a crew drawing fourteen cars. To-day five men take 72 cars out of Winnipeg and as stated the rate is 85 cents-they say it is labour. Mr. Speaker, it is not labour, the increased tonnage helps to pay that. Labour was kind enough to concede 10 per cent of its wages towards giving us a reduction in the freight on live stock, and on other products going over the road. We never got that 10 per cent. It is no use trying to foster the cattle industry, which is mentioned in this resolution-and with that I am absolutely in accord-so long as present conditions exist. I appeal to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke)-I cannot see whether he is in his seat or not, but he could tell them in one minute whether or not there will be a $15 rate. He knows he is master of the situation, and if he is imbued with too much grain and cannot look after the cattle industry I hold him responsible. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite or to hon. gentle-ment on this side, whichever may have control. that we must have such a rate that this business will not' be driven out of existence. The hon. gentleman, as I have stated is master of the situation and can and should demand such a rate in fairness and justice to the people of western Canada.
The port of Quebec is an admirable port to ship out of and I have used it many times as a shipping port; the Transcontinental is a good railway and gives good service; it is all we ask for; but the oppressive rates we cannot stand with regard to moving live stock to the markets of the world. I have been charged with being a monomaniac and also talking too much in Marquette on this transportation question, but it is the real question that is holding back the live stock business in Canada. Write down the capitalization, $2,000,000,000, of the Canadian National to equal that of the Canadian Pacific railway; spread the debt over the whole country; let us take our loss and let the man in charge operate it so that it can earn money. Then say to him: Effect economies and manage the railway in the same way as the Canadian Pacific is managed. In that manner we can have some redress.
I do not want to take up the time of the House. I have had my orders to speak briefly. My constituents have told me: Never
read your speech; get up and say what you have to say in the House. On behalf of the live stock industry I say that something must be done in connection with rail and ocean transportation, also grain and other commodities.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Many times in this House have the claims of British Columbia been urged in connection wth equalization of freight rates. From time immemorial we have been discriminated against by reason of our mountains; the mountain scale has operated against British Columbia. I think it was in 1920 that the mountain scale was reduced so that it stood one and one-quarter to one, and that is where it stands to-day, with the exception of rates on grain and flour moving from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert.
In 1922 members from British Columbia in this party pleaded with the government to leave the whole question to the Board of Railway Commissioners and not to introduce statutory freight rates. The government refused and they introduced statutory freight rates on grain and flour moving from prairie points eastward to Fort William. It was at that point that the government got itself into a. hopeless mess in regard to freight rates. In 1923 this question of statutory freight rates was again debated in the House and a plea was then made on behalf of British Columbia that the same treatment should be given to that province as had been given the year before to the prairie provinces. British Columbia was discriminated against in that year not only by the mountain scale but by rates on grain and flour, which meant that freight rates from prairie points to Vancouver were almost twice as great as freight rates for equal distances going eastward.
Later on, I think it was in 1924, the Crows-nest pass agreement came into complete effect, and in that year British Columbia was further discriminated against by reason of the fact that Ontario fruit farmers could ship their fruit from the Niagara district as far west as Calgary at as low a freight rate as the Okanagan fruit grower could ship his fruit from Vernon, British Columbia, to Calgary, about one-third or one-fourth the distance. In 1925, by a stroke of fortune, the Board of Railway Commissioners held the Crowsnest pass agreement to be practically a nullity and ultra vires of parliament, and parliament had its opportunity then to get
2598	COMMONS
Transcontinental-Freight Rate
rid of statutory freight rates once and for all. But no; this government once more introduced statutory freight rates on grain and flour eastward. "When they introduced the bill the same rates were given on grain and flour from the prairie provinces westward to Vancouver, but when pressure was brought to bear on this government by the big interests, by the railway corporations, the government quickly removed its measure of justice to British Columbia and inserted in the measure a provision which denied those rights to that province.
Since that time the Board of Railway Commissioners has handed down a judicial decision which has given some measure of relief to British Columbia on grain and flour, but the discrimination is not completely ironed out, although I have no doubt the government would attempt to claim credit for the decision of a judicial body. It has been claimed that this government has attempted to dictate to that judicial body, and an explanation might well be forthcoming in parliament of the dictation of the government to that judicial body, something that is unpardonable on the part of any government in connection with judicial matters.
It may be thought by some members from the Maritime provinces and other parts of Canada who are not familiar with the situation in British Columbia, that because of these mountains there should be higher rates. Many years ago Britidi Columbia guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern railway from Edmonton to Vancouver on the express condition and agreement that, in consideration of that guarantee, British Columbia would have control of freight rates over that railway. Unfortunately the war came on and by an act- of this parliament the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners was given control of rates on the Canadian Northern railway and although we had guaranteed the bonds and our guarantee stands on those bonds, the right of control over freight rates on the Canadian Northern railway was taken away from us. Despite the fact that the Canadian Northern railway from Edmonton to Vancouver has a grade equal to grades in any part of the prairies and superior to grades in any part of eastern Canada, the term "mountain scale" is still applied to that railway in British Columbia and that province has been consistently discriminated against, notwithstanding the fact that that railway was built on the initiative and the guarantee of British Columbia and would not have been built had it not been for that guarantee.

It might also be pointed out that British Columbia was the only province in Canada to contribute a very large acreage of land towards the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. It was one of the terms of union between British Columbia and the Dominion that the province should convey the railway belt, comprising twenty miles of land on each side of the Canadian Pacific railway, and a large area known as the Peace river belt, to the Dominion government in trust to be used in aid of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. When that railway was completed all of these lands had not been used. By their loud conversation I take it that members of the government are not interested and prefer to ignore the claims of British Columbia. Of course I suppose they think, "Well, it is only British Columbia." Such an attitude is natural on the part' of a government of which Saskatchewan has three members and Ontario only one. The claims of British Columbia do not matter to the government. They have our lands and they will give statutory freight rates, no doubt whenever it suits their purpose, but will pay as little attention as they possibly can to those provinces that are not represented in the cabinet. But for the benefit of those private members who are interested in the case of British Columbia, I would point out that a previous government, the government of which my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) was the head, recognized the justice of our claims and in Cctober, 1920, passed an order in council containing the following:
The committee of the privy council therefore further recommend that as conditions have probably changed materially in recent years, tending more and more to make equalization practicable, an inquiry by the board be directed to be held at the earliest date with a view to the establishment of rates meeting to the utmost extent possible the above requirement a3 to equalization.
That recommendation, it is true, was directed to the Board of Railway Commissioners, but so far as members from British Columbia are concerned I am quite sure we have always been content to have the claims of our province considered by the judicial body which was constituted for that purpose. However, we do submit that we are entitled to receive the same treatment as the other provinces, and if they are given special statutory rates I claim that British Columbia is likewise entitled to such rates.
I submit that British Columbia more than any other province can offer the strongest possible case to parliament for consideration, for it has contributed to a very large extent

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
to the construction of these two railways, and is largely responsible to-day for the fact that the mountain obstacle no longer exists, at least on the Canadian National railways. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I second the motion offered by my colleague from Vancouver Centre.


Hon. LTTCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the district of Quebec and as a citizen of the city of Quebec, I am in full sympathy with the principle of this resolution and I wish to extend to its mover my very hearty thanks for having brought the matter before the House. I need not stress the very vital importance of this question in so far as the city of Quebec and our section of the country are concerned. I do not wish to discuss the technical aspects, I simply wish to say that the whole matter is now before a tribunal constituted to hear cases of this nature, and I have no doubt that full justice will be given by the railway commission to the parties interested. A short time ago the representatives of our various commercial and industrial bodies in the city and district of Quebec placed their case, as they understood it, fully before the commissioners.
This resolution mentions the construction of the Transcontinental railway and the main purpose of that undertaking. I remember listening to our late lamented leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier when, during the election of 1904, addressing his constituents in the city of Quebec, he expressed the hopes which he thought would be realized by the building of this line from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean. Circumstances which are well known to members of this House have so far prevented the full realization of those very high hopes, and I have no doubt that every hon. member, no matter to what party he may belong, will help to his utmost to realize the hopes which were entertained at the time the construction of the National Transcontinental was endorsed by the people of Canada. Nothing would please the people of Quebec so much as to see this great scheme of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the scheme that he thought would be the main achievement of his political career, carried to completion.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we will always be ready to co-operate with our western friends, and with our friends from any other section of Canada, to develop the shipping trade in the harbour of Quebec, for we think that by doing so we are not only performing a task which will help
us locally, but which in the main will be of national importance, because the harbour of Quebec on account of its facilities and its situation is really a great national port in the fullest acceptance of the word.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to call attention to the fact to which I alluded in the question which I put to the mover of this resolution to-day, namely, that in the evidence given on or about March 25 last before the railway commission Mr. F. G. Watson of the Canadian National Railways stated that the Canadian National Railways lost $12,000,000 in 1923 and 1924-approximately $6,000,000 in each year-on the transportation of grain from western points to Fort William. Mr. E. P. Mallory of the Canadian National Railways also stated that the present cost of grain movement over the line was 6-28 mills per ton mile, allowing for the return of empty cars to Fort William. So far as the evidence is available, then, it would seem that the Canadian National Railways are losing about $6,000,000 each year in the carrying of grain to Fort William at less than the actual cost of that traffic.
This is a very important matter upon which parliament should have full information, and I would suggest to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) that this resolution might be referred to the standing committee on Railways and Canals in order that the officials of the National railway system might be examined, and that parliament, through the committee, might be fully informed as to these facts. If parliament in its wisdom has fixed by statute a rate to Fort William which entails a loss to the government of this country, urfler present conditions, of $6,000,000 a year, we should be informed of that fact before we are in a position to discuss whether or not a similar reduction should be made on freight rates to Quebec or to the Pacific coast. I would suggest that this is a matter to which the railway committee might devote a certain portion of its time, because from the statements made in this House it is clear that there is a division of opinion regarding certain allegations, which may be sustained or refuted by the evidence.
I would also like to refer to the fact that the freight carried on the railways of Canada is not wheat alone. Our western friends seem to think that the wheat traffic is the greater traffic of the railways of Canada, but I notice from the return for 1925 made by the railways that in a total freight of 96,239,379 tons
.2600	COMMONS
Transcontinental-Freight Rate
carried last year, only 12,962,415 tons were of wheat loaded in Canada. Other freight offered by agriculture totalled more than the tonnage of wheat; for instance, animal products gave 3,378,516 tons; the mines gave us twice as much freight as wheat, namely, 29,894,003 tons; the forests gave us more than the wheat tonnage, namely 13,907,857 tons, and manufacturing gave us nearly twice the wheat tonnage, namely, 24,136,520 tons. So I can quite conceive that the statement made to the railway commission and the statement made in the report submitted by the government last year, that upon grain alone the Canadian National Railways lost $6,000,000 each year, may be perfectly true, although the freights showed an increase during the latter part of the year. We all know that in the latter months of the year, when the railways are carrying a heavy tonnage of grain, they are also carrying heavy tonnages of merchandise, of forest products and of mineral products, all rushing to market before the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence are closed for the winter. It would be very interesting indeed to examine the officials of the Canadian National Railways before that committee, in order to elucidate the real facts, which are sometimes covered up by the returns made by the company and the returns made to this government.
I would like to call attention to one further fact, that in his address before the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association in Winnipeg on January 28, Sir Henry Thornton-who in recent months has assumed to act as Minister of Railways, leader of the government and chief exponent of government policy on each and every platform throughout this country and the United States-stated, as Reported, that he emphasized the fact that the Canadian National Railways were ready to support anything that would move the grain through Canadian ports, explaining that it was to its advantage, having no interest in Buffalo or any other United States port. Just before that another official of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. D. O. Wood, the foreign freight traffic manager of that line, gave evidence before the select committee of the United States Shipping Board at Washington, in which he said:
The traffic which comes through the port of Portland is. I should say, without going into exact figures, possibly 80 or 90 per cent of Canadian origin. The port of Portland has been practically built up by the Grand Trunk Railway, and largely from Canadian traffic. There are other lines coming to Portland, of course, besides the White Star Dominion, but we [DOT] fMr. Cahan.]
have no contract with them; they come there because we were instrumental in the early days in having them come here-to Portland-by trying to help them fill their ships as far as we could.
That disclosed for the first time, I think, to the Canadian public that the Canadian National Railways have a contract with the White Star-Dominion line for receiving . transhipments of grain shipped over the Canadian National Railways through Portland. The suggestion was made-and I think it is clear-that the Canadian National Railways are under obligation to find tonnage for the White Star-Dominion line at Portland, because in his evidence as reported Mr. Wood says:
If that service were not there, I do not know where it would be: most likely it would come to St. John, Ne,v Brunswick.
Then he added that the contract may be terminated on six months' notice, such notice to be given before March 1 of the calendar year. So that we find ourselves in this situation, that the Canadian National railway is carrying millions of bushels of grain to Portland to supply these White Star-Dominion liners with freight across the Atlantic according to contract in force between the steamship line and the railway company.
Now I would like to call attention to another fact. We have at Fort William and Port Arthur an elevator capacity of something like 63,500,000 bushels. WTe have at the bay ports, so-called, at Tiffin, Port McNicoll, Midland, Depot Harbour and Goderich, all in Ontario, an elevator capacity of some 16,550,000 bushels. Then we have the elevators at Port Colborne and Buffalo on Lake Erie, and elevators at Montreal and Quebec city on the St. Lawrence. I can well understand that the 'all-water route from the west from Port Arthur to Montreal or Quebec would be a cheaper route to operate during the summer months than the rail route to either of those ports, but when navigation is closed on the lakes and on the St. Lawrence, then the fact is, I am informed, that the same rate is given by rail from Fort William and the same rate is given by rail from the so-called bay ports in Ontario, to each of the Atlantic ports, including Halifax, St. John West or St. John City, Portland, New York, Norfolk, Virginia, or Baltimore, and that when the shipment of grain ceases by the water route, then, under the rates which now exist over the Canadian National lines, you have exactly the same rate to Halifax or St. John as you have to any of these other Atlantic ports; but as a matter of fact the grain finds its way to

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
these Atlantic ports in the United States for shipment all during the winter months. While two or three years ago there was as much as five or six million bushels shipped via St. John, and I think as much as from one to two million bushels shipped via Halifax, the grain went by tens of millions of bushels to the American ports. Now the reason it went to American ports, it is suggested, is because shippers over the National railways preferred American ports to Canadian ports, although the freight rate over the railways was exactly the same. I would think it very interesting indeed for a committee of this House to have Sir Henry Thornton and these gentlemen before it, and to ascertain just what are the influences which direct grain from Fort William or from the bay ports over American lines and through American ports, when the same rate is open to them during the whole winter months to the Canadian ports of Halifax and St. John. That is a matter in which the Maritime provinces are very much interested indeed.
I am persuaded that if the Canadian National Railway management really desired to encourage trade east and west; if they really desired, as Sir Henry Thornton said, to build up trade through Canadian ports, that that company, without using any undue influences at all, could direct the greater part of that trade to the Canadian ports of Halifax and St. John during the winter months. I have made all sorts of inquiries, and I am not yet able to convince myself that the shipment of the bulk of that tonnage by American ports is not due to the fact that the Canadian National Railway and its officials are using all the influences which they can control to direct that trade to Portland and other American ports.
The insurance from Halifax over the Atlantic during the winter months is not more excessive than the insurance from New York, and if the tonnage were made available at Halifax by the railway during the winter months, you would find ample steamship facilities there for transhipment.


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the large Atlantic liners that come to New York very often carry a large quantity of wheat simply for ballast?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no doubt that is true, but my hon. friend will also know that at the port of Halifax there is ample steamship connection. The liners and passenger ships of several lines which leave New York call at Halifax for freight and passengers on their regular route. There are several steamship
lines which during the winter make Halifax their sole port of call in Canada, and I am sure that ample steamship tonnage could be made available at that port if it were known that the Canadian National Railway would make the freight available.
Now as to the tonnage sent through the American ports-at the same rate, remember, at which it could be sent through the Canadian ports of Halifax and St. John,-I find that during the crop year of 1919-20 the quantity of Canadian grain shipped through American ports was only some 13,000,000 bushels; that rose to 54,000,000 bushels in 1920-21; to 100,000.000 bushels in 1921-22; to 130.000,000 bushels in 1922-23; to 141,000,000 bushels in 1923-24; and to 162,000,000 bushels in 192425. I am convinced personally that a large proportion of those increasing shipments through American ports could, if the officials of the National Railways were so inclined, be influenced to be shipped through the Canadian ports of Halifax and St. John. It is noticeable that this change'-increasing shipment through American ports, decreasing shipments through Canadian ports-has been accentuated very considerably since Sir Henry Thorton took charge of the Canadian National Railway. Whether that is a coincidence, or whether his management has tended more and more to shipment through American ports, I do not know, but I do know that if you ask some railway men, perhaps not too favourable to Sir Henry Thornton, they will suggest to you that what the Canadian National Railways are losing in freight to the Maritimes is being gained by the West Maryland and Pennsylvania railroads for Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia. I suggest to you that Sir Henry Thornton is better acquainted with the ways of securing traffic for the Pennsylvania and Baltimore lines than he is with the ways of securing traffic for the Canadian National railway in the Maritime provinces.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Does that suggestion come from officials of the Canadian Pacific?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not had any contact or conversation with Canadian Pacific officials for I do not know how long, certainly not in recent years. But I do say it is mentioned in the press-I have seen it suggested there- that Sir Henry Thornton's management does, under exactly the same conditions, influence the grain trade over the Pennsylvania and Baltimore lines of railways. The fact is that it is increasing by millions of tons each year,

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
and during the same time it is being cut off from the ports of Halifax and St. John, although the same rate from the head of the lakes and the same rate from the elevators at the 'bay ports is available to Halifax and St. John as to the American ports.


James Alexander Robb: Are we to understand from
the hon. gentleman's statement that since Sir Henry Thornton became president of the Canadian National Railways their business has increased enormously in the carrying of grain? Ig that the suggestion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That since Sir Henry
Thornton became manager of the Canadian National Railways the trade via American ports has increased? Is that what I am asked?


James Alexander Robb: No. I was trying to follow my hon. friend s conclusion. He seemed to be drawing the inference that in recent years the grain has moved to the Atlantic seaboard through the United States.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In increasing quantities.


James Alexander Robb: In increasing quantities, and
my hon. friend was blaming the Canadian National Railways for that increased movement. What I want to arrive at is this: Are the Canadian National Railways now carrying more grain than they did prior to Sir Henry Thornton becoming president?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, they are carrying more grain to American ports than to Canadian.


Mr. DUNNING:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman has quoted figures of the movement of Canadian grain to American ports, but he does not distinguish between the Canadian Pacific movement and the Canadian National movement of that grain. He proceeds to argue that the president of the Canadian National Railways is responsible for the apparent increase in the whole quantity. Now, in order to be fair the hon. gentleman should give the figures separately.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is quite possible that a
very considerable part of that grain may have originated on the Canadian Pacific line in the west going out from the bay ports. I have no figures showing the difference in the tonnage of wheat carried by these two roads over the two routes, but to put it in another way-


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
permit me another question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to answer his other question first?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let me put the matter in another way: The port of Halifax is a Canadian National railway port. No other railway except that owned by the Canadian National reaches Halifax from the interior of the country. The port of St. John is essentially a Canadian Pacific port because that company has its own elevators there. But the Canadian government also has :an elevator of very large capacity at St. John, if I remember correctly, so that there is every facility for the Canadian National Railway shipping grain over its lines to St. John and putting it through the Canadian government elevator there. The statistics available-I am not making any insinuation at all as to the matter-clearly indicate to my mind that no effort is being made by the management of the Canadian National Railways to divert the present trade from American ports to the ports of St. John and Halifax, which, are really Canadian National railway ports. Now I shall be very glad to hear your second question.


Charles Avery Dunning: I followed my hon.
friend's remarks very closely, and I think every' hon. member gathered from those remarks that he intended to convey the impression that Sir Henry Thornton was untrue to his trust as president of the Canadian National Railways in that he influenced the carriage by certain American lines of grain which the Canadian National railways might have carried.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are you making a speech or are you asking a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am asking if that is what my hon. friend really meant, because I am reasonably certain that is the meaning drawn by the House from his remarks.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You can be assured that what I was stating is this: The statistics show clearly to my mind that the Canadian National Railways management is making no distinct effort to divert grain to Halifax and St. John, which are essentially Canadian National railway ports. Secondly, the very fact that the Canadian National Railways have made a contract with a steamship line by which, as stated) before the American Senate committee, they undertake to supply grain freight at Portland to that line con-

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
tinuously, the contract only to be rescinded on six months' notice, is evidence that the Canadian National Railways management is using its influence to send grain over Canadian National railway lines to the port of Portland.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend named American roads. He named the Pennsylvania line, and the Baltimore and Maryland, neither of which are Canadian National railway lines.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. I am dealing now with Portland, and I say further that the shipment of large quantities of grain, of millions of bushels, to ports farther south-
I have a list of them here-Richmond, Norfolk, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York- the large quantity of grain going to these ports which originated on the Canadian National railway line, and which was transferred from bay ports and from Fort William by the Canadian National, is an indication that no consistent effort is being made by the management of the Canadian National Railways to divert that traffic from American ports to Canadian ports where it properly belongs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, well, the hon. Minister of Railways may laugh or attempt to ridicule such statements-


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not laughing at my hon. friend but at his claque.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest to my hon. friend that these matters which I am bringing to his notice in a friendly and fair manner, without any desire to be unduly critical, are matters which demand, and will demand in the near future, his very earnest consideration.


Finlay MacDonald: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know. I have
lived in Halifax as long as my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough-I was going
to say Pictou, but that would be a mistake. There have been elevators in Halifax from time to time capable of storing a considerable quantity of grain. I do not remember just when, but I believe one elevator was blown up by that explosion which occurred in Halifax harbour during the war, and it has recently been replaced. And although under Sir Henry Thornton's management it was replaced a year ago, I think on the eve of an election, no effort has been made by the Canadian National since the election to store grain.


Finlay MacDonald: I do
not think my hon. friend wishes to make a statement which is incorrect. I read a report in the Halifax Herald that a steamer took a cargo of 350,000 bushels of grain from Halifax.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend had read the rest of the paragraph, or if he had been quite as candid as he should have been with this House, he would have explained that that grain did not reach the port of Halifax over the Canadian National railways. A ship carrying grain on the Atlantic sprang a leak and put into Halifax. In order to be able to go into Halifax dry dock it had to put the grain in the elevator, and subsequently, after the ship had been repaired in the dry dock, it went to the elevator and took its shipment of grain again in order to proceed on its voyage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, these matters to which I have called attention demand earnest consideration. Parliament wishes to be informed. Members of this House representing Quebec and those representing the Maritime provinces wish to be informed why it is that with the same rate prevailing, the grain does not, under present conditions, go over the Canadian National to Halifax and St. John, but invariably goes to American ports. That is a serious question, worthy of the investigation of parliament, and I humbly suggest to the Minister of Railways that it will be a perfectly proper proceeding to refer this resolution to the Railway committee where we might obtain facts sufficient to enable us to give a vote on the merits of the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker: to me, and I am sure
to all members of the House who have listened to the debate this afternoon and evening, one thing is clear, and that is that all the members who have spoken from every part of the House are in favour of the principle of the resolution, the principle that every endeavour should be made by
26P4	COMMONS
Transcontinental-Freight Rate
governing bodies in Canada, by this parliament and by the government, to see to it that Canadian ports are used to the greatest possible extent for the shipment of Canadian products and for the importation of goods into this country. That is the principle back of the resolution, and I am sure every hon. member of the House is in accord with it.
With regard to the manner in which this object should be brought about, a great deal of investigational work has been done during the past year. The resolution before the House suggests a course in relation to it. The amendment moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) seeks still further to widen the scope of the resolution. Then we have the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that the resolution might well be referred to the Railway committee of the House. I shall deal with that suggestion first, and I may say frankly that I have no intention, nor has the government any intention, of opposing the suggestion. I would point out, however, that we would then be in this position: the matter would be under investigation at one and the same time by the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada and by the Railway committee of the House of Commons of Canada. I do not know whether that would be a desirable thing. I do not know whether, when the railway commission is calling before it witnesses in regard to this matter, it would be very wise for a committee of this House to endeavour to secure the presence of the same witnesses, dealing with the same matters, in order to reach a conclusion upon the same general question as was under review by the Board of Railway Commissioners. If it is the will of the House that the Railway committee should deal with this matter, as suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, there would be no objection on the part of the government. At the same time, as Minister of Railways I do not intend to suggest that it should be so referred, for the reasons I have just endeavoured to state. It may perhaps interest the House to know the circumstances under which the railway commission is investigating at the present time.
Under an order in council dated June 5, 1925, the Board of Railway Commissioners was instructed to make a thorough investigation of the rate structures generally, and so forth, with particular reference to the encouragement of movement of traffic through Canadian ports and the increased traffic westward and eastward through Pacific coast ports, owing to the expansion of trade with the
 .
Orient and transportation of products through the Panama canal. That was followed on January 7 last by a more specific order relating to the particular matter mentioned in the resolution. The order reads:
The Board of Railway Commissioners was directed on the 7th January, 1926, as part of the general rate investigation above referred to, to inquire especially into the causes\ of Canadian grain being routed or diverted to other than Canadian ports and to take such effective action under the Railway Act, 1919, as the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may deem necessary to ensure, as far as possible, the routing of Canadian grain and other products through Canadian ports.
On that specific instruction to take such effective action under the Railway Act as the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may deem necessary to secure as far as possible the routing of Canadian products and Canadian grain through Canadian ports, the present proceeding is being taken.


Arthur Meighen: Is the same matter not
also referred to the Duncan commission?


Charles Avery Dunning: In general terms as
affecting the Maritime provinces, yes. As affecting especially the Maritime provinces, the Duncan commission is not debarred from bringing under its purview this matter of routing Canadian products through Canadian ports. The order in council appointing the commission refers to all the complaints which have been made in regard to the Maritime provinces, and the operative part of it gives to the Duncan commission general powers to investigate all or any of the matters therein contained.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In view of the fact that the railway rates are the same from the bay ports and from Fort William to Halifax and St. John as to the American ports which I have mentioned, in what way would the reference to the railway commission, as just stated, or any finding of the commission, influence the action of the management of the Canadian National Railways so as to compel them to direct that traffic to Canadian ports instead of to American ports, the rates being the only thing coming before the railway commission?


Charles Avery Dunning: I was intending to leave alone my hon. friend's insinuation in his address in regard to the motives of the Can-* adian National management, because I feel reasonably sure he would not desire the inference to be drawn from them that I am sure every hon. member of this House did draw.

Transcontinental-Freight Rate


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no inference necessary. I stated openly and frankly what I meant, and no improper inferences can be drawn from what I said, I am simply dealing with facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend certainly quoted the opinions of railway men, and he left the impression that he believed that Sir Henry Thornton, President of the Canadian National Railway System, deliberately diverted to United States lines traffic which that system could and should handle.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. member allow me, as a matter of privilege, to state that I did not quote and did not purport to quote railway men? I said that the suggestion had been made in the press, and it has been made and repeated in the press, that the Canadian National Railway has never used its influence as it properly could as a railway, to have that traffic go to Canadian ports instead of to United States ports.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought I heard clearly what my hon. friend said-*


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact I have not talked to a railway man in the last two or three years with regard to railway rates or anything of the sort.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think we understand
each other now. My hon. friend wishes this House to understand that he believes and desires this House to believe that the president of our National railway system deliberately diverted traffic, which might be carried by the system of which he is president, to competing railroads in other countries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not said that at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but some honesty and consistency are necessary in a discussion of this character in this House. I said that he was not using his influence to divert traffic to Canadian ports. That is my accusation; that is what I said, and that is what I repeat. When the hon. gentleman seeks to convey the impression that I said he was active in doing the contrary, he is giving to my statement a sinister meaning which is not within the range of a fair inference from that statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am willing to have all sorts of interruptions; but does my hon. friend not remember stating that Sir Henry Thornton was much more familiar with traffic routing procedure on the Pennsylvania railroad and
the Boston railways than he was with the Canadian National Railways? I do not want to be unfair to my hon. friend, and personally I accept his statement that he is not inferring any wrongdoing on the part of Sir Henry Thornton. But certainly on listening to him earlier this evening I gathered the idea he was at least conveying the impression that Sir Henry Thornton was not true to the trust imposed in him as president of the Canadian National Railways. I am willing to accept my hon. friend's statement that he has no such intention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not say that. May I interrupt again? I would like the hon gentleman to understand what I do say, and I repeat it so that it may percolate into his intelligence.
I say the facts disclose that the Canadian National Railway management is not'using the utmost of its influence and authority in order to divert that grain traffic to Canadian ports instead of to United States ports, and I suggested that the matter should be referred to a committee so that railway officials might be called before that committee to give such explanations as they can under the circumstances.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand that clearly. It has percolated my dull intelligence that that is part of what my hon. friend said, but he said a great deal more than that. We shall have an opportunity of reading his remarks in Hansard to-morrow morning and then probably this question of what was said or not said can be settled definitely.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to the last question that the Canadian National is not doing all it might do to divert traffic,-I think "divert" was the word used-through Canadian ports, I have some little familiarity with the business of shipping grain, and it is to the business of shipping grain that this resolution and my hon. friend's remarks particularly refer. I know that when an exporter is shipping grain from the head of the lakes he arranges his transportation over the railroad or down the lakes, or both as the case may be, in order to fit in with ocean transportation which he has probably also arranged for. The exporter arranges for his ocean tonnage, his ocean space; he buys it as a commodity the same as anything else is bought. He knows when it will be available and at what port. He buys it and the business of the railroad is to take the grain where it is ordered by the

Transcontinental-Freight Rate
shipper to take it. This criticism, however, centres on the Canadian National; and let me say that I am both a Canadian Pacific and a Canadian National man.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly more Canadian Pacific than Canadian National just now.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is another unfair inference which my hon. friend will probably deny in a few moments. It has been my privilege as Minister of Railways of my province to co-operate with the managements of both these railways, and as Minister of Railways of Canada may I say that I intend to try to do the same thing here.


Mr. FOSTER:: Did I understand the minister to intimate to the House that all traffic is routed by the shipper? Because if so, why does the. Canadian National Railway itself maintain a staff in Chicago to bring vast quantities of shipments all the way up to Montreal and down to Portland as against using the New York Central or the Pennsylvania going directly by a route three hundred miles shorter?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course in Chicago the Canadian National as well as the Canadian Pacific are endeavouring to-secure United States grain business for Canadian railroads, and both of them get a great deal of it. I will give the figures to my hon. friend when I get along a little further. It is rather hard on a new and green member of the House to be interrupted, but I welcome interruptions if I can get back to the thread of my subject a little later on. Naturally, in Chicago our railways are endeavouring to secure United States business over Canadian lines, but the shipper of that grain can choose his ocean port and he arranges his own ocean space. The Canadian National probably has in Chi-, cago connections with several brokers who are selling space in ocean vessels calling at a number of Canadian and United States Atlantic ports; but in regard to the general practice in the grain business I can assure my hon. friend that the shipper buys his ocean space and lake space. That is a commodity that is dealt in at Winnipeg, Montreal and, I presume, other ports as well. But as a matter of fact in closing up an export transaction in grain in Winnipeg the shipper tries to tie together three things: the price of the grain in the bin at Fort William, what it will cost him to get it to the ocean ports, and the space on the ship. Those factors are settled so far as price and date are concerned before he can really close the export transaction for his grain.

Now, I should not like the House to get the impression that the railways cannot exert any influence whatever in connection with shipments. I think the moral influence of all our Canadian railways with their shippers should be exerted at all times in the direction of securing shipment for Canadian products-or American products, for that matter-over Canadian railways and through Canadian ports. That is good business for Canada. And with regard to the general question, may I say to my hem. friend from St. Lawrence-St George that if as Minister of Railways I find any tendency on the part of that railway which is most closely connected with the government and with the parliament of Canada to influence shipments through American ports which from the point of view of the shipper might come just as readily through Canadian ports, all the influence which I have will be exerted against that practice. If my hon. friend can offer to me anything beyond the bald statements of bulk figures of Canadian grain which went via American ports-and which by the way include Canadian Pacific as well as Canadian National shipments-as evidence that Sir Henry Thornton-well, I will not go into what my hon. friend said, for there is some difference of opinion as to what he really did say.
With the general principle of the resolution, as I said at the outset, I have no doubt the House is pretty generally agreed. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), in moving his amendment put his finger on the difficulty-I am afraid his amendment increased the difficulty rather than reduced it- when he pointed out that there is a body specially provided by parliament to do this work now investigating this very matter, having at its disposal the services of experts to determine the value of the evidence submitted. This body is charged under the order in council which I read to take such effective action under the Railway Act as it may deem necessary to ensure as far as possible the routing of Canadian grain and other products through Canadian ports.
Much has been said regarding the use of the National Transcontinental for grain shipment. All-rail haulage of grain, judging from past experience, will not likely be a very important portion of the total movement of Canadian grain eastward. There again arises an interesting question on how the business itself is conducted. The desire of the grain shipper is always to get his grain east of the lakes as soon as possible before they freeze up. During the heavy shipping season grain naturally flows down the lakes to Montreal

Tramcontinental-Freight Rate
and other ports. That is the cheapest way. Some of it goes via Georgian bay ports on what is known as the lake-and-rail route at a special rate from bay ports to Montreal during that season of the year. If I remember rightly, the rate when I was in the business was five cents from bay ports to Montreal during the season of navigation on the lakes. Just before the lakes freeze over, the grain exporter makes every effort to get all the grain he possibly can east of the lakes. Why is that? To take care of his winter commitments in Europe and thereby save the extra cost of the allrail haulage around the lakes or otherwise, whichever route is taken. The desire of the trade every year, a very natural desire, is to get sufficient stock stored in the terminal elevators and transfer houses, a list of which was read by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George, in order that being east of the lakes, nearer the sea, they are able to take their grain easily to the Canadian and American Atlantic ports rather than pay the extra cost of the all-rail haul, which everyone sees must be higher than the lake rates.
We have had an investigation recently by the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission touching this matter very closely. The report has been referred to on several occasions during the debate. In this connection I want to place on Hansard some figures which relate to another phase of the subject. Much has been made, and properly so, of the volume of Canadian grain which passes through American ports, but it is not generally known that there is a very large amount of American grain going through Canadian ports. I have here some figures from my department regarding the matter. I find that in the crop year of 1921-22, 89,573.000 bushels of American grain passed through Canadian ports.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which ports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Montreal, Quebec and
St. John.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What amounts?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give my hon. friend detail figures. These refer to all grains, not to wheat alone. In that year 81,507,000 bushels of American grain passed through the port of Montreal, 3,243.000 bushels passed through the port of Quebec, and 4,822,000 bushels through the port of St. John. That was a heayy corn year in the United States. The following year the total figures of American grain passing through Canadian ports *were 55.313,000 bushels, the following year 'again 28,717,000 bushels, and last, season 31-
767.000	bushels. The volume fluctuates of
course in relation to the exportable surplus of United States grain. It must 'be so. In a heavy producing year in the United States, a year when the exportable surplus of that *country is greater, the volume passing out through Canadian ports is also greater.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. minister permit another question?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: What other reason is there, if any, for that grain coming through Canadian ports?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am coming to that.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not the fact that their own avenues of export are clogged up in the bottle neck of New England and they mu3t export this way?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give my hon.
friend the reasons on authority possibly better than my own. The Royal Grain Inquiry Commission looked into this matter, and I think its report is now regarded in the grain trade and in railway circles as a text book upon the subject of grain handling in Canada. The information contained in that report is generally regarded by growers and shippers as pretty authentic; there may be differences of opinion with regard to minor matters, but in general the report is the most complete compendium on the subject now extant. This is what the report says touching this matter, at page 145:
Canadian and American ports:
While shipments of grain from Montreal make it tiie leading grain port of the north Atlantic, it is well known that a large proportion of the grain shipped from there comes from the United States. On the other hand a large part of the Canadian export grain goes through the port of New York or other north Atlantic United States ports. There is a simple explanation to this apparently paradoxical situation. At all times grain will flow along the cheapest route to the Old World entrepots. It is very sensitive to variations in freight rates. The rates that must be considered are not merely the Atlantic freight and insurance rates but the total of rates from the western terminals on the Great Lakes to the ports of entry on the other side of the Atlantic.
That is exactly the point I was making a few moments ago.
When this is considered a net difference of a sixpence a ton in favour of one route over the other will attract the traffic.
Latter on in the same report at page 146, dealing with the same matter, I find the following:
We are now in a position to point to certain conditions which govern the flow of grain during the course of the year to these ports. The American harvest matures several weeks earlier than the Canadian. As a result, the advantages of the St. Lawrence route at-

Transcontinerital-Freight Rate
tract heavy shipments from American lake terminals to Montreal. By the time the flow of Canadian grain begins to assume volume a large part of the American export of grain has been accomplished. On the other hand, on account of the lateness of the Canadian crop, the end of the grain shipping season is approaching on the St. Lawrence, before it does at the head of the lakes. This fact is of great significance as explaining partly why so much Canadian grain goes via New York and other American North Atlantic ports. When the flow of Canadian grain is still vigorous, navigation on the St. Lawrence ceases. Commonly it closes about two weeks earlier than navigation on the Great Lakes.
That is a very important factor in connection with this whole matter. The movement eastward over the Great Lakes is facilitated, but the grain is prevented from going out by the port of Montreal.


Mr. MacLAREN:: May I ask a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


Murray MacLaren: Does that apply also to Quebec? Is not the port of Quebec open for about two weeks longer than the port of Montreal?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid any answer to that question might possibly produce an argument among my hon. friends from the province of Quebec. There may be some difference between the relative availability of the two ports, but in general, as applying to St. Lawrence navigation, this statement is time. Taking the general average of movement down the Great Lakes and the movement out of St. Lawrence ports, what is stated here is true. I continue quoting:
Hence the flow of grain for this latter period is deflected towards Buffalo or the Georgian bay or lower lake ports from whence it will move to tide water by rail. The end of the season finds these bay, lower lake and Buffalo elevators filled with grain which will move out gradually during the winter. The grain carrying fleet on the Great Lakes takes a final cargo for winter storage and a large part of this fleet ties up at Buffalo for the winter. When spring comes, their grain is discharged and moves out chiefly via New York.
In the spring movement one additional factor is of importance. During the winter the bay port and Buffalo elevators have become emptied of their stock in store. The first movement of grain down the lakes in the spring is to these ports as the most expeditious route to tide water. It will thus be seen that the explanation for a large movement of American grain through the port of Montreal and a large movement of Canadian grain through New York and other Un.ted States Atlantic ports rests chiefly on seasonal changes affecting the St. Lawrence route.
It might reasonably be inquired why there is not a considerable movement of grain from the bay ports to St. John and Halifax.
This touches the very point especially emphasized by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
At present there is some movement in that direction, and at St. John this movement appears to be growing. The obstacles to a larger movement appear to be partly

high freight rates and partly the absence of available cargo space offering at low rates at these seaports. As we have pointed out above, grain is an excellent basic cargo. As traffic grows at Halifax and St. John a laige quantity of cargo space will offer regularly for the transport of grain. When this occurs more grain should move during the winter months through these ports. Lately Halifax has been put on the same insurance basis as New York.
That is an important advance.
This removes one factor which has militated against her in the past.
The situation at Quebec is virtually that of Montreal, with the additional advantage of a longer season.
That confirms what my hon. friend just asked.	-
There does not seem to be any reason why the port of Quebec should not share with Montreal a part of the advantages of the St. Lawrence route. Montreal has developed wide business connections in the grain trade so that the traffic is accustomed to move through this port. It is open to Quebec to do the same thing; no physical obstacles lie in the way of the inauguration of an extensive grain export trade. Indeed, as the capacity of the port of Montreal begins to be taxed at the peak of the movement, a part of the traffic might with advantage move to Quebec. Quebec also enjoys a more favourable insurance rate and is 180 miles nearer to Liverpool than is Montreal.
Then the commission goes into this very matter of freight rates, which of course touches every matter under investigation in connection with that part of Canada, or indeed in connection with the economics of any part of Canada. The freight rate situation has an important bearing upon our national life, and I presume there never has been a commission appointed to look into anything connected with the economics of Canadian business or national life which has not reported in some sense or dwelt, shortly or at some length, with the matter of freight rates. It as of very great importance, touching every subject as it does. Regarding freight rates, the commission has this to say:
Upon several occasions we were asked to recommend that rates be granted on export grain over the Canadian National Railways to Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John, sufficiently low to deflect to them the traffic which now goes by rail to the Atlantic ports of the United States.
These suggestions were made to the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission.
The object sought to be attained is undoubtedly a most worthy one; the preservation of Canadian trade for Canadian ports and the expenditure in Canada of a large amount of money which is now earned annually by United States railways. The subject forms an important part of a still larger question which has engaged the attention of parliament in the past, and is still in the forefront of our national problems which await solution. In 1922, the Senate of Canada investigated the question of the export of Canadian grain and appointed a committee to examine expert witnesses on the subject. Evidence was given by railway officials, shippers, members of the grain trade and other business men.

Transcontinental-Freight Rates
In its report the committee emphasized the desirability of steps being taken in the national interest to divert this export grain traffic to Canadian ports, and recommended specifically (1) the lowering of rates on the Canadian National Railways, (2) the providing of greater elevator accommodation at Canadian ports, and (3) the making of an arrangement by the government whereby marine insurance rates from Canadian ports might be lowered to meet the rates prevailing from United States ports.
I would here c-all the attention of the House to the fact that real advances have been made in connection with the recommendations of that Senate committee. Marine insurance rates are now on the same basis from Canadian Atlantic ports as from American Atlantic ports; that has been accomplished. With regard to greater elevator accommodation an elevator has been provided at the port of Halifax. That is surely an advance. Then the commission goes on to deal with the evidence placed before it regarding this matter, and admits that it is not competent-I do not know that that is exactly the word used -to determine this question, but suggests that it is a proper matter 'to be investigated by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
I have one or two more points, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend to keep the House at great length in this matter. The mover of the resolution appeared, quite fairly, to discuss the relationship of this matter to the regular rates prevailing down the lakes, and from Georgian bay ports, to Montreal. He pointed out that in at least two years the 11 cent rate which he was advocating would have proved a regulator of Canadian lake rates on grain. I am sure he would be the first to admit that the condition in question is not a normal one; that it is rather exceptional; that Under normal circumstances we could not ex-Ipect any of this grain to move by rail on an 11 cent rate while the Great Lakes were open. Lower rates would normally prevail by boat down the lakes, or by a lake and rail rate via Georgian bay ports.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the minister will
permit an interruption, that is precisely the argument I used.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, exactly. I am confirming the fairness of my hon. friend's argument in that regard; in fact, I think they are the only two years in recent history when the conditions which he used for an illustration would be exactly applicable. Considerable evidence has been placed before the Board of Railway Commissioners in regard to this whole matter, and I want to be very careful that I do not, as Minister of Railways, say anything that might 14011-166
be used to prejudice a case that is now before the Board of Railway Commissioners, in fact, I have been in some doubt all afternoon whether parliament should or should not be discussing a matter which is now sub judice, being under investigation by a judicial or semi-judicial tribunal. It is my duty at least, I take it, not to say anything in the way of expressing an official opinion as to what the commission should or should not do in their determination of a case upon which they are now taking evidence in various parts of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. minister will permit me, he will recognize that the case was also sub judice when it was referred by the government to the Duncan commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, it was not, in the sense my hon. friend puts it, referred to the commission.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, directly.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not in that sense.


Arthur Meighen: In what sense was it referred to them?


Charles Avery Dunning: We will not quarrel about that. At least we may say this, that whatever the government did by way of mentioning the matter as one of the Maritime province grievances in the preamble to the order in council, members from the Maritime provinces have given ample evidence here to-day that it is one of the Maritime province grievances, and when we were appointing a commission to look into the whole question raised by the Maritime problem it would have been regarded as impossible to eliminate the question of Canadian grain going through Canadian ports from the purview of the commission.
In relation to the resolution now before the House, may I suggest to my hon. friends on both sides who have spoken that largely the purpose of the mover of the resolution has been served by the discussion which has so far taken place or which may take place, and I think no good purpose can be served by passing a resolution which by its terms may readily be taken as a definite instruction to the railway commission from parliament in connection with a matter they are now investigating and taking evidence upon. Because this resolution not only affirms a principle with which I am sure the House would be in entire agreement, namely, that freight rate discriminations against the port of Que-



Transcontinental-Freight Rates
bee should be removed, but it goes further and says that:
-grain should be transported over this particular route on the same mileage basis as that applying from prairie points to the head of the lakes.
Then the hon. member for Vancouvei Centre further complicates the situation by adding as an amendment that we should adopt the same principle and apply it, not only to grain, but to the moving of all freights from the prairies to the Pacific coast ports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Between. Do not forget
that between.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not catch my hon. friend's remark.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Between the prairies and Pacific coast ports.


Charles Avery Dunning: My point was this. The original resolution deals only with grain, and it says that grain should move forward on the same mileage basis as that applying from prairie point to the head of the lakes. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre wants the same mileage basis as that applying to grain -to apply to all freights.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the same principle.


Charles Avery Dunning: The same principle to be applied to the moving of all freights.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To the fixation of rates of freights.


Charles Avery Dunning: But applying the principle to the movement of all classes of freight, whereas the intention of the mover of the , resolution was to deal only with grain. The amendment widens the whole scope of our discussion very, very materially, and I wonder if the House is prepared to pass such a sweeping resolution as that in the confused terms to which it has been reduced by the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister distinguish between wheat and other natural products?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not distinguishing
between wheat and other natural products at all. I am-merely stating-


John Arthur Clark: If the minister does not wish to answer my question-


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give my hon. friend a reply if he will sit down and give me an opportunity to do so.


John Arthur Clark: Perhaps the minister would permit me to put my question again; I do not think he understood it. If he does not want to answer the question, of course, I am
I Mr. Dunning.]
quite prepared to sit down. I wanted to know whether the minister sees any difference in principle in applying certain favourite rates to wheat and to other natural products, say lumber, or coal, or anything peculiar to the particular province.


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter I was discussing was the application of the mileage rate on grain to all freights, and I think every member of the House knows what a wide question that would open up with respect, for instance, to the utilization of cars for different commodities of different weights and different bulk. I would like to see a common principle with respect to the shipment of all kinds of freight, but it would be a very wise man indeed who could lay down a principle for applying a common mileage basis to all classes of commodities regardless of their bulk and weight, and regardless of their relative bulk and weight combined. That is one of the most intricate problems of rate making, and I feel sure my hon. friend quite clearly understands how difficult it is to establish the common principle which he is endeavouring to get me to assent to.


John Arthur Clark: I quite clearly understand
that my question has not been answered.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps by and by I
shall attain that wonderful ability which would be required to give a categorical answer to a question of that kind. Some questions cannot be answered by a plain yes or no.
I do not think I have anything more to say on this question, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to speak at such length, but the constant inquiries for information have kept me longer than I had intended. The position of the government is this: If the House desires to refer the matter to the Railway committee of the House, very well, but I do wish again to point out that we would then be in the position of having a committee of this House investigating a matter which is now under investigation by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important question which has been brought before the House, and there is no doubt that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) has performed a national service in bringing this matter forward. Speaking as a representative from the province of Ontario, I think there is no section of the Dominion to which this whole question of railway transportation and freight rates is more vital. While in many parts of Ontario we do not ship grain to the same degree as other sections of the Dominion.

Rearrangement oj Departments
we ship the finished product in very large quantities. After the very interesting discussion which we have heard to-day, which has been participated in by members from almost every province, I am quite certain that it is the feeling of the House that so far as possible justice should be done to every province, and in view of the fact that this question is now before the Board of Railway Commissioners, a judicial body, I think it would be well for the present to leave it there, where in my opinion it will be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of .the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE REA HR AN G EMENT OF DEPARTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
He said: With the permission of the House I would like to make a brief statement I had intended to make had we reached the orders of the day to-day.
On March 15, replying to a question of the leader of the opposition, I stated that it was the intention to have the Department of the Secretary of State assigned to the Minister of Justice, and to have the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Department of Health assigned to a minister in charge of one of the other departments of the government, and of this I would make further announcement later.
I now desire to inform the House that the order in council assigning the Department of the Secretary of State to the hon. the Minister of Justice was approved by His Excellency on March 24, 1926, and that by order in council approved on the 16th instant the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Department of Health were assigned to the hon. the Minister of Labour.
Arthur Meighen: Would the Prime Minister say whether there will be any budget modifications or emendations to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend may rely upon there not being any.


Arthur Meighen: To-morrow?
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 1143 p.m.
Tuesday, April 20, 1926